The Jordanian Challenge Under Trump
This material was published in the second issue of the Jordanian Politics and Society magazine (JPS).
The past year, since October 7, 2023, has been catastrophic for the Palestinians. It also poses significant challenges for Jordan. The country has always been concerned that if a two-state solution is not reached to settle the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel might attempt to solve the conflict at Jordan’s expense—either through a mass transfer of Palestinians into Jordan or through forcing Jordan to administer the Palestinians in those areas of the West Bank Israel is not interested in keeping. Jordan’s peace treaty with Israel, signed thirty years ago to primarily guard against Israel’s “Jordanian option,” suddenly does not seem to have succeeded in that goal. Israel’s war on Gaza, practically making the strip uninhabitable and killing more than 45,000 people, coupled with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s declaration that a two-state solution is a “reward for terrorism” and Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich’s public statement that 2025 will witness the annexation of all of the West Bank, have only heightened the fears within official Jordan that its treaty with Israel is not serving to protect it from Israeli designs.
The election of former President Trump to the White House again only adds to these Jordanian fears. Trump has announced several appointments regarding the Middle East that will be bringing into his administration individuals with strongly ideological views—and all on Israel’s side. His new ambassador to Israel, Mike Hackabi, is already on record saying that “the title deed (of the land of Palestine) was given by God to Abraham and his heirs,” that “there is no such thing as Palestinians,” and that the whole land from the river to the sea belongs to Israel. With U.S. and Israeli positions such as these, annexation has become a real possibility, posing serious challenges not only regarding the Palestinians but Jordan as well.
What is Jordan to do? While the country is small and cannot, nor does it need to, enter into a direct confrontation with the United States, that does not mean it has to accept its fate given these developments. In the next phase, the country should adopt several policy recommendations.
First, all forces in the country should put aside their differences and focus on this looming challenge, which affects all Jordanians, regardless of their political outlook. In situations like these, the system has successfully resorted in the past to national dialogue, leading to a national consensus on the path forward. In 1989, as a result of a fierce economic crisis, followed by a political crisis as a result of Jordan’s position during the first Gulf War, and the election of a parliament with more than 40% of its members belonging to a serious opposition, the late King Hussein asked for the formation of a national committee, which produced a highly credible “National Covenant” that achieved high consensus on the elements of political, economic, and social reform. The country’s current crisis is no less serious than the one in 1989 and demands a similar effort.
Jordan is not without friends in Washington. It has wisely invested in forging excellent relations across the aisle with Democrats and Republicans. Such relationships need to be utilized. There needs to be a concerted, daily, and systematic effort to reach out to Jordan’s friends—Republican and Democrat alike—to explain the dangers that an annexation of the West Bank poses to Jordan, not just to the Palestinians.
In 2004, Jordan was overly concerned by a letter that then-President George W. Bush gave to Israel, claiming that a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict could not be based on the 1967 borders but needs to consider settlement reality in the West Bank. Jordan was concerned that Israel might interpret this position as a prelude to absorbing significant portions of the West Bank into Israel and obstructing a serious path to a two-state solution. It made these concerns known to Washington in the most potent diplomatic ways possible, which resulted in a May 6, 2004, letter President Bush wrote to King Abdullah II. “Your Majesty, I understand that your country and your people have important interests at stake in any settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. And I know that your country has important interests in the emergence of a new Iraq. I assure you that my government views Jordan’s security, prosperity, and territorial integrity as vital, and we will oppose any developments in the region that might endanger your interests”.
Washington needs to be reminded of this by the assurance given by the Republican administration. The role of the Jordanian embassy in Washington needs to be enhanced, buttressed by adding diplomats who know the U.S. scene to support the efforts of His Majesty in reaching out to Washington’s different quarters. The Jordanian ambassador in Washington, Dina Kawar, has worked with the first Trump administration and Biden. She knows the U.S. scene well, has extensive ties in Washington, and needs support.
Finally, Jordan needs to create an Arab axis supportive of efforts to prevent an annexation of the West Bank. While Jordan’s relations with Saudi Arabia have witnessed serious tensions during the last decade, its objective remains to develop a unified stance alongside Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Qatar, and others that could be collectively argued to Washington. This is no easy feat, but it should be a top priority.
The second Trump administration will offer serious challenges to Jordan, but it does not mean that Jordan is helpless in acquiescing to the abovementioned new policies. This is the time for very active Jordanian diplomacy, led by King Abdullah and involving a team operating within a clear plan of action that fully uses Jordanian diplomatic skills and Jordan’s vast network of international contacts.