“True Promise” and Jordan’s perception of Iran’s regional power.
Jordan’s cooperation with America, England, and France to counter the punitive attack of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the Zionist regime raised many questions in the political and media circles of the region. This report states whether Jordan, as the country’s officials have claimed, was on the side of the West to defend its airspace, or is it due to other demands. Another goal of this report is to show the consequences and results of Jordan’s alignment with the Western powers.
A look at the statements of analysts, internal protests in Jordan, and other dimensions of the regional diplomacy scene, has shown that neither Jordan’s political defense capacity nor the current atmosphere governing the public opinion of the Arab countries and the Islamic world justify cooperation with the West, and Amman authorities realized very soon. that they should not take action against Tehran.
The inevitability of defense or cognitive error?
Officials in Amman announced that their effort was only to defend Jordan’s own airspace. But even Western analysts did not accept Jordan’s justification, and according to Patrick Wintour, one of the British Guardian newspaper analysts, the Jordanian government put itself in a difficult and awkward position with this action. Interestingly, the government of the Kingdom of King Abdullah II, the King of Jordan, also faced protests from the people internally, and the efforts of the Jordanian Air Force and military intelligence agencies to restrain Iranian drones caused the protests of those citizens who took action to punish Iran. Israel and supporting the oppressed people of Palestine, they considered.
Jordan’s King Abdullah II, who previously supported the organization of umbrella aid to Gaza and his wife and Queen Rania defended the Palestinians, finds himself in a position that does not match Jordan’s capacity for power in the region.
The Guardian pointed out two other important issues that shed light on the position of the Kingdom of Jordan against both foreign and domestic situations: 1. Jordan’s common border with Israel and geopolitical and security sensitivities. 2. The presence of the largest population of Palestinian refugees in Jordan.
Although the Guardian and other Western media have preferred to ignore this fact, it must be said that the Palestinian refugees living in Jordan are not a passive and neutral population, and in terms of political and social action and reaction, they have extensive and effective dynamism and political dynamics. Most of them support the discourse of the Islamic Republic in support of the cause of Palestine.
Of course, it is not only Palestinian citizens of Jordanian descent who protested Amman’s recent approach. In addition to them, a significant part of Jordanians also complained about the actions of King Abdullah II’s government, and the gathering of protesters in front of the American Embassy in Amman was an important issue that worried Amman’s political authorities. In cyberspace, thousands of Jordanian and Palestinian users protested the decision of the King of Jordan, and Jordan soon realized that he had stepped on the wrong path.
Israel’s insidious action against Jordan
The Zionist regime’s hostile actions against Jordan have a long and distant history, and in the current situation, it has created many problems for Amman in the water and security fields. But on the surface, Tel Aviv seeks to show itself as Jordan’s friend and ally.
One of the important dimensions of the Zionist regime’s insidious approach towards Jordan was the attempt to insinuate that in the event of confronting the Islamic Republic of Iran’s drone-missile attack against Israel, the Jordanian Air Force acted exactly like a close ally of Israel. This is even though Jordan’s participation in this story was not comparable to the participation of America, England, and France. However, the Zionists, who have already clearly shown that they are fond of launching games based on psychological warfare and divisiveness between Arab countries, outwardly presented Jordan as a friend, but inwardly, they provided the ground for The credibility of Jordan in the Arab world will be questioned.
A message that was received very soon
A quick look at the positions of the Jordanian authorities and the diplomatic apparatus of this country in the past days showed that Amman received the necessary political message very soon. In the meantime, even Germany’s biased action could not move Jordan along the path of cooperation with Israel.
The visit of German foreign minister Berbuk Weir to Jordan took place in the continuation of Berlin’s biased policies in recent months regarding the developments in Gaza. During this time, Germany has unreservedly supported the Zionist regime and is now seeking to include the Arab countries in the ranks of Israel’s allies. However, Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman al-Safadi declared: “As long as the occupying regime exists, there is no peace, and as long as Israel continues to ignore the rights of Palestinians, there is no security.” The Security Council must make a binding decision on the ceasefire and Israel cannot be allowed to attack Rafah.
In the meeting that took place in New York between the foreign ministers of Iran and Jordan, Ayman al-Safadi showed that during the past days, Jordan has made an objective and clearer assessment of regional issues and he knows very well that the decision of the Islamic Republic to punish the Zionist regime is a valuable security achievement. has had for the region. Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi praised Iran’s diplomatic efforts to stop the war against Gaza and pointed out that the Palestinian issue is a high priority for Jordan and that this Arab country will continue to try to end the war against Gaza. Ayman al-Safadi considered the consensus of Jordan and Iran on the need to end the war against Gaza as soon as possible as a common point of view and emphasized the continuation of efforts in this direction.