Introduction

The Middle East is experiencing one of the most complex historical moments since the emergence of the modern regional order. At this stage, profound transformations are intersecting in ways that extend beyond the boundaries of traditional conflicts, affecting the very structure of the state, the nature of alliances, the balance of power, and the future roles of regional and international actors.

The region has entered a phase of strategic fluidity characterized by the decline of certain traditional centers of power, the rise of new actors, and a shift from proxy warfare toward more direct confrontations among major global and regional powers.

At the heart of these transformations, Israel has emerged as one of the most significant determinants shaping the restructuring of the region, not only because of its military superiority and strategic relationship with the United States, but also because of its efforts to impose new realities on the ground and redefine the boundaries of security and influence in its surrounding environment. Iran, meanwhile, continues to play a central role in regional dynamics through the networks of influence it has built over recent decades, despite the increasing military, political, and economic pressures facing its regional project.

At the same time, countries such as Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Sudan, and Libya are undergoing profound transformations that have affected the foundations of the nation-state and exposed the vulnerability of certain political structures to foreign intervention and internal conflict. This raises fundamental questions regarding the future of the state as a concept in the region and the ability of societies to rebuild stable political entities beyond fragmentation and subnational identities.

These transformations cannot be understood separately from the cognitive and cultural dimensions of conflict. The Middle East is also engaged in a struggle over the production of narratives and the shaping of public consciousness. As Edward Said argued in his critique of Orientalism, knowledge is not separate from power; those who possess the ability to define the “other” also possess part of the power to determine that other’s position within the global order.

From this perspective, this position paper seeks to provide an analytical reading of the trajectories reshaping the Middle East by examining the nature of the forces involved, the changing concept of power, and the effects of ongoing conflicts on the future of the nation-state. It also explores the role of identity, knowledge, and political narratives in defining the features of the coming phase.

Chapter One: The Regional Context and the Transformation of the Complex Environment Surrounding Jordan

The Arab region and the broader Middle East are currently experiencing one of the most turbulent periods since the restructuring of the regional order following the Cold War. Successive crises can no longer be viewed as isolated events that may be contained within national borders. Instead, they have developed into a prolonged and complex condition that continuously reproduces itself, making war, uncertainty, and geopolitical fluidity permanent features of the regional order rather than temporary exceptions.

A careful reading of the course of events indicates that the region is undergoing a comprehensive reconstruction of power balances, alliance patterns, and the functional roles of states. This transformation is taking place amid intensifying competition among international and regional powers seeking to reshape the Middle Eastern order according to new strategic considerations that extend beyond traditional understandings of national security and state sovereignty.

Within this context, the countries surrounding Jordan appear to be immersed in varying trajectories of instability, despite differences in their causes and manifestations.

In Syria, despite the political transformations that followed the fall of the former regime, the state continues to face complex challenges related to rebuilding its institutions, restoring full sovereignty over its territory, and achieving security and economic stability. The continued presence of foreign interventions, the multiplicity of armed actors, and conflicting regional and international interests make the future of Syrian stability dependent on dynamics extending beyond national will alone. This prolongs the transitional period and leaves it vulnerable to repeated setbacks.

Lebanon, meanwhile, continues to suffer the repercussions of the war with Israel, amid the continued Israeli occupation of parts of southern Lebanon and the absence of an effective deterrent capability capable of establishing a new balance of power. This situation reflects a growing imbalance in the regional security architecture and indicates that international borders are no longer sufficient guarantees of state sovereignty in the context of unequal power relations.

In Iraq, political crises intersect with entrenched corruption, internal conflicts, and efforts to rebuild the state more than two decades after the political transformation of 2003. The repercussions of that period continue to affect state institutions, while public demands are intensifying for a redefinition of the relationship between the state and society, the restoration of trust in public institutions, and accountability for corruption networks that have drained national resources for decades.

The Gulf states, meanwhile, are no longer insulated from these transformations. Despite their relative political stability and significant economic capabilities, they face growing challenges related to fluctuations in the global economy, shifts in energy markets, and the rise of cross-border security threats. They must also continue reformulating their economic models in ways that ensure sustainable development and reduce dependence on traditional resources.

Against this complex backdrop, Jordan finds itself at the center of a regional environment marked by an unprecedented degree of complexity. It is surrounded by multiple crisis zones extending to the north, east, and west, while military threats increasingly overlap with economic pressures, political challenges, border-security risks, refugee movements, supply-chain disruptions, energy security concerns, and food-security vulnerabilities.

Although the Jordanian state has succeeded in maintaining a high level of political and security stability in recent years compared with its regional surroundings, this stability should not be viewed as a complete or permanent condition. Rather, it is an achievement that requires continuous strategic management and a high capacity to adapt to rapidly evolving regional and international developments.

In light of the recent regional escalation, several strategic transformations have emerged that warrant close examination.

The first of these transformations is the reordering of security priorities among the countries of the region. The security approach has shifted from focusing solely on the protection of land borders toward a more comprehensive concept of national security that integrates border security with airspace security, the security of trade corridors, energy security, cybersecurity, and the protection of critical infrastructure, all of which are increasingly regarded as interconnected components of national security.

The second transformation is the decline in confidence in the American security umbrella, which for decades constituted the principal foundation of the regional security system. This has prompted many countries to reassess their strategic options and seek more diversified partnerships and alliances in order to reduce the risks associated with relying on a single international power to manage regional security balances.

In the same context, the region has begun to witness early indications of new patterns of regional coordination among several influential powers, particularly Egypt, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. These arrangements are taking shape through flexible understandings based more on converging interests than on rigid traditional alliances. Although these arrangements remain at an early stage, they reflect a growing awareness among regional powers of the need to play an active role in shaping future balances rather than merely responding to their outcomes.

However, the success of such arrangements will remain dependent on several determining factors, most notably conflicting national priorities, continued international intervention, and Israel’s opposition to the emergence of any regional bloc that could restrict its margin of strategic superiority in the region.

At the same time, these transformations indicate that the ability of states to respond to the new regional environment depends on possessing strategic flexibility that allows them to diversify international partnerships, strengthen autonomy in decision-making, and invest in the knowledge economy, advanced technologies, artificial intelligence, energy security, and cybersecurity. Such measures would reduce states’ vulnerability to external shocks.

For Jordan, the most decisive factor in confronting this turbulent regional environment lies in strengthening domestic cohesion as the first line of defense for national security. The greater the state’s ability to build trust between its institutions and citizens, expand political participation, uphold the rule of law, promote economic justice, and improve the efficiency of public services, the greater its capacity to absorb regional repercussions and transform challenges into opportunities for adaptation and development.

Accordingly, the current regional landscape represents a long-term strategic transformation that requires Jordan to continuously reassess its surrounding environment and develop proactive policies capable of managing risks before they evolve into direct threats. This is essential to preserving state stability and strengthening Jordan’s ability to protect its national interests in a regional environment characterized by a high degree of fluidity and uncertainty.

Chapter Two: Transformations of Regional Power and the Dilemma of the Nation-State in the Middle East

The transformations taking place in the Middle East extend beyond the boundaries of traditional military conflicts to affect the political structure of the nation-state, patterns of power distribution, and the redefinition of centers of regional influence. The current landscape reflects a deeper process involving the restructuring of the regional environment, including the redistribution of roles, changes in deterrence equations, and the reshaping of balances of influence across the region.

From this perspective, the ongoing transformations cannot be analyzed in isolation from the strategic objectives governing the behavior of influential international and regional powers. The conflict extends to shaping the structure of the future regional order, making the region an arena for multilevel competition in which security and military considerations intersect with economic, technological, demographic, and cultural dimensions.

Within this context, Israel’s role stands out as one of the most influential factors in reshaping the strategic environment of the Middle East, whether through its security policies, international alliances, or efforts to reconstruct the regional deterrence system in accordance with its vision for the region’s future. The war in Gaza, the escalation with Iran, and developments in Lebanon and Syria have produced a new environment that has reordered regional security priorities and created political and military realities that will have long-term consequences for the future of the region.

At the same time, these transformations cannot be fully understood without considering the historical context within which the Arab nation-state emerged. Numerous studies in international relations and political economy indicate that the modern borders of the region were largely connected to the balance of power among colonial states in the early twentieth century. Consequently, many Arab states were established through political arrangements that were not always based on considerations of national identity or economic and social integration, but were instead closely associated with the calculations of international influence prevailing at the time.

As current regional transformations continue, debate has once again emerged regarding the future of the nation-state in the region and its ability to maintain internal cohesion in the face of domestic and external pressures. Many states are confronting challenges associated with declining institutional effectiveness, growing societal divisions, and the increasing influence of non-state actors, all of which place mounting pressure on the traditional model of the state.

Within this framework, the challenge lies not only in the possibility of redrawing geographical borders, but also in the restructuring of the functions of the state itself, the limits of its sovereignty, and the nature of the relationship between central authority and society. This makes the concept of the “functional fragmentation of the state” more relevant than direct geographical partition in many cases.

Regional experiences also demonstrate that the weakening of state institutions does not necessarily occur through direct military intervention. It may also result from the prolonged continuation of economic crises, the polarization of societies along sectarian, ethnic, or regional lines, and the erosion of public trust in state institutions. Over time, these factors gradually diminish the state’s ability to perform its fundamental functions.

From another perspective, the ongoing transformations have renewed a fundamental question concerning the concept of power in the international system. Recent experiences have demonstrated that, despite its importance, military capability is no longer the sole measure of influence or the capacity to shape outcomes. Economic power, industrial capacity, technological superiority, innovation, and control over supply chains have become equally significant factors in determining the position of states within the international system.

The Asian experience, particularly that of China, stands out as a model reflecting this transformation. Within only a few decades, China succeeded in moving from a developing country dependent on foreign assistance and imported technology to a major global economic and technological power. This shift was achieved through long-term investment in education, industrialization, scientific research, and infrastructure, confirming that the construction of influence begins with the development of national capabilities before engagement in geopolitical competition.

By contrast, many countries in the region continue to experience varying forms of economic and technological dependence, which constrain their ability to maintain an autonomous margin in strategic decision-making. The greater the degree of economic and technological dependency, the more limited the state’s capacity for political maneuvering becomes, leaving it increasingly vulnerable to external transformations.

The central challenge facing Arab states, therefore, lies in building the internal sources of power that would enable them to move from the position of passive recipients to that of active participants. This requires developing national economies, enhancing productivity, investing in knowledge and innovation, improving the efficiency of public institutions, and building human capital capable of leading future transformations.

For Jordan, these changes underscore the need to adopt a long-term strategic vision that moves beyond the management of immediate crises toward the development of sustainable national resilience. Strengthening economic capacity, expanding national industries, modernizing the education system, and investing in technology and the digital economy are no longer merely development choices; they have become integral components of a comprehensive national security framework.

Accordingly, preserving the stability of the Jordanian state within a changing regional environment depends on its ability to build a development model capable of reducing external dependence, strengthening social cohesion, and enhancing the state’s preparedness to address regional scenarios characterized by a high degree of uncertainty. Such a model would help safeguard the independence of national decision-making and reinforce Jordan’s position within the emerging regional order.

 

Chapter Three: Emerging Actors and the Future of Regional Balances in the Middle East

The rapid transformations unfolding across the Middle East reveal that the region is moving away from conventional conflicts governed by relatively clear frameworks toward a more complex phase characterized by a multiplicity of actors, overlapping levels of influence, and a declining ability to interpret events through rigid political binaries or traditional alignments. The current landscape has become an open arena for multidimensional international and regional competition, in which interests intersect and alliances intertwine in unprecedented ways.

Within this context, a fundamental reality has emerged: the regional balance of power has become part of a broader international equation shaped by considerations of security, energy, trade, technology, and the global economy. Accordingly, any attempt to understand the ongoing transformations requires an examination of the complex relationships among local, regional, and international actors rather than reducing the landscape to a single party or factor.

Recent years have witnessed a gradual shift from the pattern of “proxy wars” toward a more direct form of engagement, in which major international and regional powers have become increasingly involved in managing conflicts. After decades of relying on local actors and allied groups to conduct regional rivalries, many major powers have assumed a more visible presence in the political and military landscape, whether through direct intervention or through the more overt management of security and economic balances.

This shift reflects a fundamental change in the nature of regional conflicts. Disputes have become directly linked to the restructuring of international and regional power balances and to competition for influence within a changing international system.

In light of these developments, the region appears to be undergoing a period of “strategic fluidity,” during which traditional structures are receding in favor of new arrangements that have yet to take their final form. Many established centers of power have been destabilized, while emerging centers of power have not yet fully consolidated, creating a prolonged state of political and security uncertainty.

Moreover, recent developments indicate that the concept of power itself is undergoing rapid transformation. Although military power remains important, it is no longer the sole decisive factor in determining influence. Contemporary experiences have demonstrated that economic resilience, access to advanced technology, the development of cybersecurity systems, and the strengthening of institutional adaptability have all become essential elements of the national security equation.

Some states have also demonstrated that developing advanced defense systems and investing resources in security and technological infrastructure can enhance their capacity to absorb shocks and respond to contemporary threats. This confirms that national security now encompasses the economy, energy, information, technology, and society.

Within the same framework, several regional actors can be identified as increasingly influential in shaping the next phase. Israel continues to consolidate its position as a principal actor in regional security dynamics, benefiting from an extensive network of international alliances and from its ability to influence numerous regional issues.

Türkiye, meanwhile, has emerged as a regional power seeking to expand its political, economic, and security presence across several regional arenas. It draws upon its geographical position, military and economic capabilities, and continuing efforts to strengthen its influence throughout its regional surroundings.

Iran, despite the political, economic, and security pressures it faces, remains one of the most influential regional actors due to its network of regional relationships and its ability to employ multiple instruments of influence that extend beyond direct military means.

Saudi Arabia has also emerged in recent years as an increasingly influential regional actor through its adoption of a more engaged approach to regional and international affairs and its efforts to play mediating roles in several strategic issues.

Alongside this, Egypt is gradually reclaiming its position as a central pillar of regional balances, drawing on its demographic, geographical, and political weight, as well as its traditional role in managing numerous Arab and regional issues.

The growing presence of other powers that have begun to assert themselves more clearly should not be overlooked, particularly Pakistan, which possesses significant strategic capabilities that may enable it to assume greater roles in the future, especially as cross-regional alliances become increasingly important and security, energy, and economic issues grow more interconnected.

At the international level, current indicators suggest that the Middle East is moving toward interaction with a more multipolar global order. While the United States continues to maintain its position as the most influential international actor in the region, China is gradually expanding its presence through economic, investment, and development instruments, while Russia seeks to preserve its areas of influence through political, security, and military means.

This means that the region is increasingly affected by the logic of multipolarity, which provides middle powers with broader opportunities for strategic maneuvering and the diversification of partnerships, while simultaneously imposing more complex challenges in managing their external relations and balances.

From another perspective, the region is experiencing profound social and political transformations associated with the rise of new generations that possess different tools for influence and public participation. Digital platforms and social media have become effective spaces for shaping public opinion and setting political and social agendas, to the extent that they now directly influence decision-making processes and the direction of public debate in many countries.

The influence of these platforms has evolved into a source of pressure capable of reordering public priorities, raising societal issues, and directing national debates. This reflects the emergence of new forms of political influence that differ from traditional mechanisms of representation and participation.

At the same time, ideological movements across the political spectrum face growing challenges in adapting to these new transformations. Economic, social, and technological changes are generating new questions that transcend traditional discourse and require a reassessment of many of the intellectual and political propositions that have dominated the public sphere over previous decades.

For Jordan, these transformations underscore the need to develop a strategic vision grounded in a deep understanding of shifting power balances and the nature of accelerating social and technological changes. Engaging with a regional and international environment characterized by multipolarity and fluidity requires strengthening institutional resilience, diversifying international partnerships, and developing national capabilities in the fields of economics, technology, and cognitive security.

Accordingly, Jordan’s future within the emerging regional environment will be determined by its ability to anticipate forthcoming transformations, leverage its geopolitical position as a source of strength, and build a development model capable of reinforcing domestic stability and enhancing the state’s effectiveness in responding to a highly volatile and complex regional and international environment.

Chapter Four: Rebuilding Strategic Awareness and Moving Beyond the Constraints of History in Interpreting Regional Transformations

The rapid transformations taking place in the Middle East require a reassessment of the intellectual and methodological tools used to analyze regional realities. Traditional approaches based on single-factor explanations are no longer capable of capturing the level of complexity that characterizes the current landscape. Understanding political transformations now requires a multidisciplinary approach that brings together history, politics, economics, sociology, and the study of ideas and identities.

Within this framework, the concept of “shaping awareness” emerges as a central element in understanding contemporary conflicts. Competition among powers has expanded into the symbolic and cognitive spheres, where control over narratives, the construction of public images, and the direction of collective perception have become influential tools in managing conflict and shaping political positions.

The Orientalist school, and the extensive intellectual debates it generated, offers an important model for examining the relationship between knowledge and power. Palestinian thinker Edward Said’s analysis of Orientalism argued that the production of knowledge about the East was not separate from the political and historical power relations between the West and the East, and that certain Western representations contributed to the construction of stereotypical images of the region.

At the same time, this argument generated wide-ranging critical debate within academic circles. Some scholars maintained that Western perceptions of the East were not always uniform or exclusively connected to domination, pointing to the role played by certain Orientalist traditions, including German Orientalism, in editing, translating, and studying significant aspects of Arab and Islamic heritage. This debate highlights the importance of treating major intellectual propositions as subjects of research and criticism rather than as fixed frameworks to be accepted or rejected without examination.

Building strategic awareness therefore requires moving beyond simplified interpretations that reduce the world to rigid binaries, such as East versus West, one civilization versus another, or alliances based solely on identity. States within the modern international system operate primarily according to calculations of national interest, their ability to secure development and security, and their efforts to maximize influence.

In this context, the concept of the state and its interests represents a central point of reference for understanding international relations. Historical experience also demonstrates that alliances are often formed around the convergence of political, economic, and security interests. Accordingly, relations among Arab and regional states should not be interpreted through emotion or idealized perceptions, but through an analysis of actual interests, instruments of influence, and calculations of power.

History itself also requires a different approach. It should serve as a source of learning and a means of drawing lessons. The invocation of major historical events, with all the disagreements and divisions they contain, should not become a tool for deepening contemporary polarization. Rather, history should be used to understand the causes of transformation and to explore how more stable and resilient political models can be constructed.

One of the most significant challenges facing the region today is the continued treatment of the past as a source of conflict rather than as a body of knowledge and experience. Excessive reliance on history without critical examination contributes to the reproduction of old divisions at a time when societies need to build future-oriented visions grounded in knowledge, institutions, and development.

In this context, the transformations experienced by several Arab countries in recent years demonstrate the importance of understanding the nature of political change without resorting to oversimplification. Domestic and regional changes are the outcome of a complex interaction among social and economic conditions, foreign interventions, and local and regional balances of power.

The Syrian issue provides a clear example of the complexity of regional transformations. Internal factors have intersected with international and regional rivalries, making Syria’s future dependent on multiple considerations, including security, institutional reconstruction, relations with neighboring countries, and the nature of the regional arrangements that may emerge.

Accordingly, any forward-looking analysis of Syria must begin with an understanding of its position within a broader network of regional interests, rather than focusing solely on domestic events. The Syrian state represents a point of intersection among numerous security and geopolitical issues, making its future trajectory highly dependent on the regional and international understandings that will take shape during the coming phase.

Moreover, the persistence of unresolved conflict among major regional powers requires medium-sized and smaller states, including Jordan, to adopt policies based on risk management and strategic resilience. Remaining within zones of tension between competing projects requires strong domestic capabilities, the ability to maintain balanced relations, the development of the national economy, and greater autonomy in decision-making.

The coming phase also requires a redefinition of national power. Power is increasingly linked to the state’s ability to produce knowledge, build a productive economy, develop technology, and strengthen trust between the state and society. States with strong institutions and productive economies are better equipped to withstand external pressures, regardless of their form.

Within this context, building self-reliance becomes a form of strategic resistance. No state can achieve genuine independence in political decision-making without a strong economic, knowledge-based, and institutional foundation. Contemporary international experience demonstrates that influence is built through long-term investment in people, institutions, and productive capacity.

At the same time, the Arab public sphere is undergoing a visible transformation driven by the rise of younger generations and the growing influence of social media, which has become a central arena for shaping public opinion and political debate. The impact of digital platforms has moved beyond social expression to become an influential force in directing public policy, reordering priorities, and creating new forms of political participation.

This transformation requires states to reconsider existing models of political participation and representation. Traditional institutions are no longer able to monopolize the production of public discourse in the presence of digital spaces capable of rapidly and widely influencing societal attitudes.

Accordingly, the greatest challenge facing Jordan and the region lies in building a new form of strategic awareness capable of interpreting transformations objectively and enabling a shift from merely responding to events toward actively shaping policy choices.

Chapter Five: Jordan—Building Proactive National Capacity and Redefining the Sources of Power

Jordan’s position amid the ongoing regional transformations can be understood as that of a state located at an exceptionally sensitive geographical and political crossroads, where competing regional and international interests intersect along its borders and where the consequences of nearly every major regional development are felt directly. Jordan does not exist outside the circles of conflict; rather, it lies at their center—geographically, because of its location between major zones of tension; politically, because of its connection to central issues such as the Palestinian cause; and in security terms, because it borders states that have experienced collapse or profound transformations in the structures of the state and political system.

The particularity of the Jordanian case lies in a delicate equation that combines domestic stability, political flexibility, and the ability to manage external crises. However, sustaining this equation requires a shift from the logic of risk management to the logic of capacity-building—that is, moving from responding to challenges after they arise toward developing proactive tools capable of identifying future trends and shaping policy options before regional developments impose them.

 

First: The Need to Develop an Independent Jordanian Perspective on Regional Changes

Recent transformations have demonstrated that the region has entered a new phase in which the traditional rules governing conflict are no longer sufficient to explain the landscape in its entirety. Military power is no longer the sole decisive measure of influence, while traditional alliances are no longer as stable as they were during previous decades. The regional order is moving toward a state of strategic fluidity in which alliances shift, new powers emerge, and the roles of other actors decline.

Within this context, Jordan needs to develop a strategic approach based on a deep understanding of its national interests, while avoiding involvement in sharp regional polarization. Jordan’s interests do not lie in aligning itself with competing blocs, but rather in preserving a broad margin of maneuver that enables it to maintain its international and regional relationships, diversify its partnerships, and strengthen its capacity for political maneuvering.

The coming phase requires a redefinition of strategic autonomy for small and medium-sized states. Strategic autonomy, in this sense, refers to the possession of sufficient national capacity to make the state an influential partner rather than a passive actor waiting for the outcomes of conflicts among others.

Second: Strengthening the Domestic Front as the First Line of Defense

The experiences of states exposed to major crises have demonstrated that the decisive factor in national resilience is not limited to the strength of security and military institutions. It also depends on the cohesion of the domestic front and the state’s ability to build trust between public institutions and society.

In Jordan’s case, building national resilience requires treating domestic challenges as integral components of comprehensive national security rather than as issues separate from the regional environment. Security is closely connected to the economy, education, development, national identity, and the capacity to confront disinformation and digital warfare.

Accordingly, accelerating political and economic reform is an essential element in strengthening the state’s ability to navigate a regional phase characterized by uncertainty.

The more cohesive the relationship between the state and society becomes, the greater the state’s ability to confront attempts at infiltration, external influence, or the exploitation of crises.

Third: The Need for a More Resilient Jordanian Economic Model

Global and regional transformations demonstrate that the economy has become one of the most important instruments of power and influence. States that depend on fragile economic models or remain heavily reliant on aid and grants are more vulnerable to external crises.

Jordan therefore needs to develop a distinctive economic model that takes into account its geographical and demographic characteristics, as well as the resources available to it.

This requires a transition toward an economy based on:

1. Knowledge and innovation.
2. High-value-added industries.
3. Food and water security.
4. Renewable energy.
5. Technology and artificial intelligence.
6. A strengthened role for the private sector.
7. Human capital development.

States that have succeeded in building their power have done so by transforming knowledge, organization, and effective administration into sources of strategic strength.

Fourth: Diversifying International Partnerships and Building a Broad Network of Interests

One of the most important lessons of the current phase is that dependence on a single international partner is no longer a reliable option in a world moving toward multipolarity. China’s rise, Russia’s continuing role, and shifts in United States policy all indicate a transition from a system dominated by a single power toward a more complex and competitive global order.

Accordingly, Jordan needs to expand its network of international relations on the basis of mutual interests, while preserving its traditional alliances and simultaneously opening the way for new partnerships in the fields of economics, energy, technology, investment, and development.

Diversifying partnerships does not mean abandoning or replacing existing alliances. Rather, it underscores the importance of strengthening Jordan’s national capacity to choose among strategic options and ensuring that its national decisions are not tied exclusively to the trajectory of a single international power.

Fifth: Developing Jordan’s Concept of National Security in Light of Emerging Threats

Geographical borders are no longer the sole domain of national security. Modern conflicts have demonstrated that threats may emerge through cyberspace, economic pressure, media influence, or unconventional networks of power and interference.

Jordan’s concept of national security therefore requires a comprehensive approach that includes:

1. Strengthening cybersecurity.
2. Developing the capacity to confront media and information warfare.
3. Protecting economic security.
4. Strengthening energy and water security.
5. Developing intelligence and analytical capabilities.
6. Establishing a national system for strategic foresight.

Sixth: The Palestinian Cause as a Central Component of Jordan’s National Security

Jordan’s strategic future cannot be separated from developments related to the Palestinian cause, given that it remains the issue with the greatest influence on the political and security environment surrounding the Kingdom.

The transformations taking place in the West Bank, the expansion of settlement projects, and attempts to impose new realities on the ground make the Palestinian issue directly connected to Jordan’s national security.

Addressing these developments therefore requires an approach that combines diplomatic and political engagement, the strengthening of international relationships supportive of Jordan’s position, and the preservation of the state’s capacity to respond effectively to any potential scenarios.

Seventh: Moving from Waiting for Events to Developing Strategic Scenarios

Perhaps the most important lesson of the current phase is that states capable of anticipating the future are the best positioned to protect their interests. The contemporary world favors those who possess the ability to plan and adapt, rather than those who rely solely on power.

Jordan therefore needs to invest in think tanks, futures studies, risk analysis, and the development of national databases that enable decision-makers to move beyond crisis management toward strategic planning and proactive policymaking.

 

Chapter Six: Between Orientalism, the Shaping of Awareness, and the Redefinition of Power in the Middle East

As part of the continuing discussion on the future of the region, the issue of political Islam has been raised as one of the influential forces within the regional landscape. It has been emphasized that this phenomenon should be addressed within a broader analysis of the nature of international and regional transformations.

From this perspective, political Islam encompasses diverse movements that differ in their intellectual references, instruments, and political roles. Some of its manifestations have also historically been linked to international and regional calculations, as certain political movements with Islamic backgrounds have been employed within contexts of conflict and competition for influence—whether through containment, confrontation, or redirection—in accordance with changing international interests.

In this context, any discussion of the actors shaping the region must begin by redefining the concept of “agency.” Not every actor that possesses a political or military presence can be regarded as a decisive power within the regional order. There is a fundamental distinction between a state that influences the course of events and one that merely adapts to events shaped by others.

Accordingly, classifying the United States, China, and Russia as influential global powers is fundamentally different from describing certain regional states in the same terms. Here, agency is associated with possessing the instruments of influence and the capacity to shape and produce decisions, rather than merely the ability to respond to decisions made by others.

The Arab State Between Reality and Aspiration

In the discussion surrounding the idea of an Arab state and Arab unity, it has been emphasized that the concept of unity rests upon a rare combination of objective foundations. A shared language, history, geography, and common interests constitute a basis upon which a collective project could potentially be built.

However, the central question remains: Why have these foundations not developed into a unified political project?

According to this analysis, the answer cannot be attributed solely to internal factors. External interventions have also obstructed the formation of a unified Arab political bloc capable of exercising independent decision-making. Historically, colonial powers did not regard the emergence of a unified Arab entity as compatible with the international structures of influence. They therefore contributed to consolidating fragmentation and sustaining political division.

The fundamental problem, however, does not lie in the existence of Arab states as established political entities. Rather, it lies in the fragility of their shared political project and in the persistence of dependency and reliance on external powers. This has resulted in many Arab states operating within boundaries and margins shaped by foreign actors rather than according to an autonomous strategic vision.

Orientalism: From Studying the East to Constructing Its Image

Another dimension of the discussion focused on the intellectual project of the Palestinian thinker Edward Said and his concept of Orientalism, emphasizing that the concept extends beyond the superficial interpretation that reduces it to the mere study of the East by the West.

From Said’s perspective, Orientalism represents a complex relationship between knowledge and power. The production of knowledge about the East was not separate from the power relations that shaped the world during the colonial era. Accordingly, the “East” became a concept constructed by the Western imagination within a system of knowledge that produced a particular image of it and defined its characteristics, attributes, and position within the global order.

The question, therefore, is not only: How did the West study the East? It is also: How did those studies influence the way in which the East came to perceive itself?

Discourses produced by centers of power contribute to shaping reality. Knowledge becomes an instrument for constructing awareness, while awareness, in turn, develops into a framework that determines how peoples understand themselves and the world around them.

History: A Burden or a Source of Strength?

With regard to the question of history, the discussion addressed the argument that history constitutes a burden on Arab societies. It was clarified that the problem does not lie in history itself, but rather in the manner in which it is employed. History becomes a burden only when it is transformed into an instrument for reproducing divisions, reviving past conflicts, and reinforcing subnational identities at the expense of a shared collective identity.

When history is approached as a body of knowledge and a human experience that can be analyzed and used for learning, however, it becomes a source of strength and constructive development.

The central issue therefore lies in how history is used. Some powers employ the past to fragment societies, while other nations draw upon their history to strengthen unity and shape their future. The United States, despite the relative modernity of its historical experience compared with ancient civilizations, succeeded in constructing an inclusive national narrative. Similarly, the European Union, despite the long history of wars among its constituent states, chose to pursue a project of unity rather than reproduce historical conflicts.

This reveals a central paradox: crises arise not from history itself, but from the way in which history is politically reconstructed and reproduced.

Knowledge, Power, and the Making of the Future

The essence of the conflict in the region extends into the spheres of knowledge production and the shaping of awareness. Those who possess the ability to formulate the dominant narrative also possess a significant capacity to influence events. The struggle for the future is therefore a struggle over ideas, concepts, and interpretive frameworks.

Accordingly, the region’s repositioning requires moving beyond intellectual and political dependency and shifting from the role of merely responding to events toward becoming an active participant in shaping them.

 

Conclusion

A careful examination of the rapid transformations unfolding across the Middle East reveals that the region is experiencing a moment of historical exposure, in which old structures are disintegrating before the features of a new order have fully emerged. It is a transitional phase characterized by what may be described as “geopolitical fluidity,” in which traditional foundations of stability are receding, local, regional, and international levels of conflict are increasingly intertwined, and the boundaries separating security, politics, economics, and knowledge have become more blurred than ever before.

The current landscape is being shaped by the distinction between those who possess the ability to produce and shape the regional order and those who merely adapt to an order created by others. Power in today’s world has become a complex combination of the capacity to shape decisions, control economic flows, manage narratives, and produce the political meanings that confer legitimacy upon actions.

Amid this process, the fragmentation of the nation-state emerges as a particularly serious threat, given that the state remains the primary framework capable of regulating social diversity and protecting the public sphere. When the state weakens, the result is not a neutral political vacuum. Instead, alternative forces advance, carrying subnational identities or transnational projects, thereby transforming social and cultural divisions into political instruments that can be exploited within broader struggles for influence.

Nevertheless, an analysis of current realities should not lead to the deterministic conclusion that the region is inevitably destined for fragmentation. History remains an open arena of contestation between forces of disintegration and forces of reconstruction. Identity, despite being subjected to political manipulation, can be transformed from an instrument of division into the foundation of an inclusive collective project when connected to modern institutions and a just and capable state.

Just as control over territory generates geographical influence, control over narratives generates symbolic influence. Those who possess the power to define concepts—such as terrorism, resistance, security, the state, and legitimacy—also possess a fundamental capacity to influence the direction of events.

Accordingly, the central question confronting the Middle East is: Who will possess the ability to produce a political model capable of moving the region beyond this transitional phase?

The region stands at a decisive crossroads between two opposing paths: either continuing within a framework of dependency and revolving within the spheres of external powers, where its peoples become subjects of conflicts shaped by others, or moving toward a new phase in which it regains its capacity for initiative and independent decision-making.

 

 

Issued by the Jordanian Masarat Foundation for Development and Progress