A report by the Politics and Society Institute: Jordanian public opinion rejects the war on Iran without aligning with any side, approaching it primarily through the lens of its economic and security repercussions

• More than 363.3 thousand Jordanian public posts discussed the U.S.–Israeli war on Iran.
• Over 31.3 thousand Jordanian public accounts engaged with the topic across social media platforms.
• More than 13 million Jordanian interactions, comments, and shares were recorded online regarding the war.
• A majority of Jordanians reject the U.S.–Israeli war on Iran, while simultaneously refraining from aligning with Iran.
• Approximately 39% of Jordanians follow the war attentively yet silently, without adopting a declared political stance.
• Only 6.9% engage positively with the war from the perspective of hostility toward Israel.
• Overall, most Jordanians do not adopt clearly supportive positions toward any party in the conflict.
• Jordanian public opinion on social media reflects a consistent rejection of escalation by all sides.
• A peak in online engagement occurred following the announcement of the killing of Ali Khamenei.
• More than 21.7 thousand Jordanian posts were recorded in the first days following the announcement.
• About 62.5% of Jordanians rejected the assassination of Ali Khamenei.
• This rejection is primarily driven by fears of a broader regional war rather than support for Iran.
• Only 3.1% expressed approval of the assassination, often in a sarcastic tone.
• Jordanian digital engagement over recent weeks has shown three major waves, centered on rejecting the war, its continuation, and its consequences.
• Public opinion tends to respond strongly to critical events, then quickly reorients toward the broader strategic picture of the war.
• More than 43.6 thousand Jordanian posts were recorded during the initial days of Hezbollah strikes.
• Around 60.3% of Jordanians rejected Hezbollah’s involvement, alongside rejecting the Israeli response.
• Only 3.4% supported Hezbollah’s missile strikes.
• Public sentiment reflects solidarity with the Lebanese population while rejecting escalation by all parties.
• Approximately 66% of Jordanians expressed anger in more than 99.5 thousand posts related to the war.
• Jordanians broadly reject political or religious alignment with any side.
• They express humanitarian sympathy with Iranian and Arab civilian victims without adopting political or military alignment.
• Around 10.3% expressed sadness, while 8.6% conveyed fear regarding the war’s developments.
• Regional crises tend to reinforce national sentiment in Jordan, as reflected in 8.4% expressions of “love,” which indicate cohesion around national identity rather than support for the war.
• Six out of ten Jordanians reacted negatively to Hezbollah’s entry into the conflict.
• About 64.4% of Jordanians tend to reject the U.S. role in the war and question its intentions.
• Only 2.3% expressed positive engagement with the American role.
• Many Jordanians attribute miscalculation and the prolongation of the war to Donald Trump.
• More than 3,200 Jordanian posts addressed the Russian role in the war.
• Most Jordanians expressed frustration with Russia’s position.
• Less than 1% reacted positively toward Russia.
• Engagement regarding Russia increased alongside decisions to ease restrictions on Russian oil.
• Jordanians increasingly question the effectiveness of the U.S. military presence in the region, particularly after Iranian strikes on Gulf targets highlighted its perceived limitations.
• Men accounted for 79.3% of Jordanian social media engagement on the war, compared to 20.7% for women.
• This gender gap reflects differences in participation levels rather than differences in opinion.
• Men and women in Jordan largely share the same stance toward the war regardless of gender.
• Lower female representation does not indicate absence of opinion, as women’s accounts tend to be more private.
• Rejection of the war represents a broad societal stance that transcends gender divisions.
• Approximately 89.9% of Jordanian digital discussion on the war was concentrated in Amman.

Amman — The Politics and Society Institute convened a press briefing on Saturday to unveil a new analytical report mapping Jordanian public opinion trends on social media in response to the U.S.–Israeli war on Iran. The findings point to a coherent and sustained rejection of military escalation, coupled with a deliberate avoidance of alignment with any party to the conflict. This stance unfolds within a broader atmosphere defined by caution and strategic anticipation, largely driven by concerns over the war’s potential repercussions on regional stability.

The report draws on a large-scale dataset comprising more than 363.3 thousand Jordanian posts generated by over 31.3 thousand accounts across social media platforms, with total engagement surpassing 13 million interactions during the period from February 21 to April 5, 2026.

Empirical results show that 54.1% of Jordanians reject the war without expressing support for Iran, while 39% monitor developments without adopting an explicit political position. Positive engagement with any party remains limited at 6.9%, underscoring the absence of polarization or partisan alignment within the Jordanian digital sphere.

This pattern reflects a calculated social posture rather than passive neutrality. The analysis indicates a tendency among Jordanians to avoid binary alignments and instead frame the conflict as a destabilizing force. The war is approached less as a geopolitical contest requiring allegiance and more as a source of systemic risk, signaling a structural shift in how regional crises are socially interpreted.

From a sentiment perspective, the discourse is dominated by negative emotional expression, with 66% of participants articulating their views through anger. This emotional intensity remains non-directional, encompassing all actors involved, including U.S.–Israeli strikes, the Iranian response, and the intervention of Hezbollah. The distribution of anger across all sides reinforces the interpretation of a generalized rejection of escalation as a governing logic of public opinion.

At the same time, expressions of fear and sadness emerge as structurally significant components of the discourse. These sentiments are closely tied to concerns over economic vulnerability and humanitarian fallout, particularly given Jordan’s exposure to energy markets, maritime trade routes, and remittance flows from Gulf countries. This economic-security nexus is clearly reflected in discussions following strikes targeting the Gulf region.

The temporal evolution of engagement reveals a pattern of reactive peaks followed by sustained attention. Public interaction intensified sharply at the onset of the war and later stabilized at elevated levels, indicating a transition from immediate shock to continuous monitoring of developments.

One of the most prominent peaks occurred following the announcement of the assassination of Ali Khamenei, which generated more than 21.7 thousand posts within days. A majority of 62.5% rejected the event, primarily due to concerns over escalation, while only 3.1% expressed support, often framed sarcastically. Despite the intensity of engagement, the discourse quickly reverted to broader concerns surrounding the war’s trajectory and consequences.

In assessing attitudes toward international actors, the report identifies widespread skepticism toward the U.S. role, with 64.4% expressing negative views and minimal positive engagement. A recurring narrative attributes strategic miscalculation and the prolongation of the conflict to U.S. President Donald Trump.

Reactions to Hezbollah’s involvement follow a similar pattern of rejection, accompanied by disapproval of the Israeli response. The dominant framing emphasizes the risks of regional spillover, particularly for Lebanon, alongside expressions of humanitarian solidarity with affected civilian populations.

Iranian strikes on Gulf states constituted another critical inflection point, generating over 23.1 thousand posts. The prevailing reaction combined rejection of the attacks with heightened concern over direct economic consequences, including energy price volatility, remittance flows, and the security of maritime corridors.

The Russian position also entered the scope of debate, where it was largely met with critical scrutiny. Most participants expressed dissatisfaction, particularly in light of Russia’s limited visible role in de-escalation efforts.

Domestically, the discussion is heavily concentrated in Amman, while still reflecting participation from across the country. Gender disparities appear primarily in participation rates rather than in substantive positions, with both men and women expressing broadly similar views on the conflict.

The report emphasizes that these findings capture publicly observable discourse, while acknowledging that portions of engagement remain within private or restricted digital spaces. It also notes that patterns of expression may be shaped by legal and social considerations surrounding online communication.

Methodologically, the analysis relies on advanced digital listening tools, integrating quantitative and qualitative techniques. Data integrity was reinforced through the exclusion of inauthentic accounts and non-organic content.

The report ultimately concludes that Jordanian public opinion has moved beyond traditional frameworks of alignment and mobilization in response to regional conflicts. It now reflects a cautious and cost-sensitive orientation, where economic and security considerations take precedence over ideological positioning. This shift signals a deeper transformation toward pragmatic engagement with regional crises.

To download the Full Paper