Introduction

Jordan stands at the threshold of a regional phase unlike any that has preceded it—a phase in which crises are no longer confined to their geographical boundaries, nor can threats be contained within their original arenas. War, politics, water, energy, borders, demography, and media now intersect within a single landscape that is rapidly reshaping the Middle East. At the center of this landscape, Jordan faces an exceptionally complex equation: a state with limited resources and extensive geographical exposure, yet one that possesses a long history of stability, a network of regional and international relationships, and a political position that has made it an active participant in some of the region's most sensitive issues.

Against this backdrop, understanding the current phase begins with a fundamental question: What do these developments mean for Jordan, and what must change in the way the state and society assess risks and prepare to confront them?

This position paper emerges within the context of successive transformations that have begun to transcend conventional patterns of regional crises, particularly following the war in Gaza and its political, security, humanitarian, and regional repercussions. These developments have been accompanied by escalating tensions across multiple arenas, shifts in the balance of power, the restructuring of alliances and interests, and the growing significance of geography as an instrument of political, security, and economic influence.

Within this context, the messages conveyed in His Majesty King Abdullah II's address to the United Nations acquire particular importance. They represent not only an expression of Jordan's position on the Palestinian question and regional crises, but also an assessment of the broader transformations affecting the region, a warning against the continued management of crises without addressing their underlying causes, and a call to restore the centrality of political solutions, international law, and the fundamental rights of peoples.

This paper seeks to move beyond an analysis of the King's address toward a broader examination of the environment in which Jordan operates. It explores the state's capacity to translate political vision into institutional action, the necessity of building a more cohesive domestic front, and the relationship between political reform and national preparedness. It also examines developments in southern Syria and their potential implications for borders, water resources, and security.

Water occupies a central position in this analysis, as one of the issues most closely connected to Jordanian national security. Hydrological geography cannot be separated from political geography, and control over water sources, dams, wells, and water flows may, under certain circumstances, become part of the dynamics of influence and the restructuring of geographical space.

In parallel, the paper approaches border security as a concept extending beyond military deployment to the development of strategic depth based on population, development, investment, infrastructure, and public services. Protecting borders is closely connected to ensuring that border regions remain vibrant and integrated components of the state, its economy, and its society.

The paper also examines an issue that has received comparatively limited attention in traditional national security discussions: the media narrative. In an era of hybrid warfare and rapidly circulating information, the struggle increasingly revolves around the interpretation of events, who possesses the capacity to communicate their narrative, and who can reach audiences before competing narratives take shape.

This creates a need for national media to move from reaction to strategic planning, and from treating each crisis as an isolated incident toward developing a coherent national narrative capable of explaining developments and persuading audiences both domestically and internationally.

From a political and legal perspective, the paper opens a discussion concerning the Wadi Araba Treaty and the concept of reassessing it in light of the transformations the region has experienced since its signing in 1994. The paper does not treat such reassessment as a predetermined conclusion. Rather, it places the issue within its appropriate framework as a question requiring careful political, legal, and strategic examination: What has changed? What has remained unchanged? Which interests have become more important? What options are available to Jordan? And what are the costs and implications of each option?

Accordingly, this paper does not seek to provide definitive answers as much as it attempts to reorganize the questions imposed by the current phase. It proceeds from the understanding that national security is no longer a single issue managed by a single institution. Rather, it constitutes an interconnected system encompassing politics, diplomacy, water, borders, the economy, media, society, and the capacity for preparedness.

The central proposition underpinning this paper is that Jordan cannot control every variable in its surrounding environment, but it can strengthen its capacity to respond to those variables. The considerable distance between these two realities is determined by institutional effectiveness, information, planning, public awareness, economic resilience, diplomacy, and the capacity to make timely decisions.

Consequently, the real challenge lies in building a state that is better prepared for emerging challenges before they materialize—a state capable of identifying transformations at an early stage, precisely defining its interests, preserving its strategic options, managing its resources, protecting its borders, communicating its narrative, and employing its political and diplomatic instruments flexibly without compromising its fundamental principles.

Chapter One: The New York Address at a Critical Juncture — What Did It Convey, and How Did the Public Interpret It?

The political significance of His Majesty King Abdullah II's address in New York derives from its timing, content, and the regional context in which its messages were delivered. The address coincided with a period in which the war in the Gaza Strip, rapidly evolving developments in the West Bank, and transformations associated with the Syrian arena have become increasingly intertwined with broader efforts to restructure regional balances of influence and reshape energy, trade, and connectivity corridors linking the Middle East to its wider international environment.

Against this complex backdrop, the address extends beyond a conventional presentation of Jordan's official position. It can be understood as an attempt to draw attention to the risks associated with the emergence of new political and security realities that may become increasingly difficult to contain or reverse once consolidated on the ground.

The distinctiveness of Jordan's position stems from the fact that the Kingdom does not approach these transformations as isolated crises or events taking place beyond its borders. Rather, they constitute interconnected developments whose repercussions intersect directly with its national security, stability, and strategic interests.

Moreover, the trajectories emerging in Palestine and Syria, together with associated regional arrangements, trade corridors, energy networks, and the redistribution of influence, do not remain confined to their immediate geographical arenas. Their consequences extend to neighboring states, particularly Jordan, whose geographical position requires heightened sensitivity to any fundamental change in its surrounding environment.

From this perspective, the messages conveyed in the address acquire significance extending beyond warnings about the consequences of war or calls for a political settlement. They raise a deeper and more fundamental question: Are the region's crises being addressed as challenges requiring just and sustainable solutions, or are they being exploited to reshape the region according to new balances of power that do not equally accommodate the interests of its states and peoples?

This question lies at the heart of the Jordanian perspective, which connects the centrality of the Palestinian question to the requirements of regional stability and recognizes that disregarding the underlying causes of the conflict may create conditions for arrangements that are more complex and considerably more costly.

Eight Decades of Conflict: How Has the Palestinian Question Been Reduced to a Narrower Framework?

The implications of the King's address cannot be understood independently of the historical trajectory of the Palestinian question, which has evolved through decades of conflict, occupation, wars, displacement, and incomplete peace initiatives. From the period following the Second World War, accompanied by the expansion of the Zionist movement and British support for it, through the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, the establishment of Israel, and the resulting Nakba experienced by the Palestinian people, the Middle East entered a prolonged period of confrontation that extended beyond territorial disputes to become an integral component of regional security and stability.

Over nearly eight decades, successive peace initiatives have failed to end the conflict or address its political and historical roots. Meanwhile, the occupation has continued, realities on the ground have changed, and opportunities for achieving a final settlement that guarantees the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people have diminished at various stages.

Consequently, reducing the Palestinian question to a temporary crisis or a limited border dispute fails to reflect its complex nature and overlooks its broader regional implications, which have made it one of the most influential issues shaping relationships, alliances, and balances of power in the Middle East.

Within this context, a fundamental transformation has emerged in the characterization of the conflict. For decades, it was understood primarily within the framework of the Arab–Israeli conflict, reflecting a perspective in which occupation, national rights, and occupied Arab territories constituted central elements of regional stability.

Gradually, however, the issue has increasingly been presented in many political processes as a Palestinian–Israeli conflict. The implications of this transformation extend beyond the terminology used to describe the dispute. They affect the scope of political responsibility, the identification of the parties involved in reaching a solution, and the nature of the arrangements expected to bring the conflict to an end.

When the Palestinian question is confined to a bilateral framework, it becomes easier to approach it as a negotiating issue that can be postponed or managed according to prevailing political circumstances, rather than as a question directly connected to the future and stability of the entire region.

Such a reduction may also weaken awareness of the wider consequences of continued occupation and divert attention from the fact that the absence of a just settlement does not confine the problem within its geographical boundaries. Instead, it allows sources of tension to accumulate and reemerge in new forms.

From this perspective, the centrality of the Palestinian question in the King's address reaffirms that regional peace cannot be built by bypassing or marginalizing the issue, and that continued warfare, settlement expansion, and attempts to alter demographic and geographical realities cannot produce sustainable stability.

For Jordan, this issue is inseparable from national security considerations, as developments affecting the future of the Palestinian people or creating conditions for forcible displacement may have direct repercussions for the Kingdom and the wider region.

Peace That Failed to Alter the Balance of Power: Has the Era of Interim Settlements Come to an End?

Despite decades of peace initiatives and negotiations, the outcomes achieved have fallen short of ending the conflict or securing a just and comprehensive final settlement.

Political agreements and arrangements, foremost among them the Oslo process, were based on the assumption that an interim phase could pave the way toward a final settlement founded on the two-state solution. This was expected to facilitate an end to the occupation and fulfill the aspirations of the Palestinian people to establish an independent state, alongside arrangements guaranteeing security and stability.

However, the continuation of the transitional phase without achieving its intended objectives, combined with changing realities on the ground, expanding settlements, and an increasingly complex political environment, has raised growing questions about the effectiveness of interim settlements.

The problem does not lie in the principle of negotiation or the existence of political agreements themselves. Rather, it concerns the ability of these processes to transform the conditions that produced the conflict and whether they ultimately lead to a final resolution or become mechanisms for managing the dispute and postponing its fundamental obligations.

Peace that fails to address the underlying causes of the conflict, halt measures that undermine the prospects for settlement, or guarantee the political and security rights of the parties concerned remains vulnerable to becoming a merely formal framework that leaves existing balances of power unchanged.

Under such circumstances, the political process may continue in form while the prospects for a substantive solution diminish. Time then becomes an instrument for consolidating new realities rather than an opportunity for building confidence and achieving a negotiated settlement.

Accordingly, commitment to the two-state solution does not fundamentally mean simply reviving previous negotiating formulas. Rather, it requires reaffirming the necessity of an achievable political horizon grounded in legitimate rights and preventing transitional arrangements from becoming an indefinite, open-ended process.

Furthermore, any discussion of peace must take into account the regional transformations occurring alongside the Palestinian question. Addressing the issue in isolation from its surrounding strategic environment may leave essential dimensions of the broader crisis outside the scope of any proposed solution.

From the Centrality of Palestine to the Restructuring of the Region

The Palestinian question, as examined in this chapter, is connected to broader transformations in the structure of the Middle East, where competition for influence intersects with the restructuring of regional relationships, alliances, and strategic corridors.

The region is not confronting a single crisis that can be separated from other developments. Rather, it is witnessing interactions among the situations in Palestine, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, alongside the roles of various regional powers and the interests of international actors, within a geopolitical space extending from the Gulf to the Red Sea and the Mediterranean.

A particularly significant development in this context has been the transformation of the region since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the subsequent expansion of Iranian influence across several Arab arenas.

These developments have contributed to increasingly complex regional balances, exposing multiple arenas to overlapping interests and competition for influence. This has, in turn, affected the capacity of Arab states to preserve their stability, security, and freedom of strategic action.

Within this environment, the risks extend beyond conventional territorial conflict to include the possibility of restructuring the region according to balances of power in which military, economic, and geographical superiority play decisive roles in determining future developments.

Warnings concerning regional hegemony or overreach therefore reflect broader concerns that existing crises could become instruments for imposing new arrangements that do not necessarily accommodate the interests of neighboring states or the requirements of collective regional stability.

The significance of this analysis becomes even greater when the Palestinian question is examined within the context of the redistribution of regional influence. The continuation of the conflict without a political settlement may create an environment in which security calculations become increasingly intertwined with competing regional projects, making the prospects for resolution more difficult.

Accordingly, defending the centrality of the Palestinian question is inseparable from the necessity of maintaining a regional balance that prevents existing crises from becoming instruments for redrawing political and strategic maps at the expense of regional stability.

Syria at the Heart of Regional Transformation: Energy at the Center of the New Geography

Syria occupies a strategically sensitive position in the evolving regional landscape because of its connection to trade routes, energy corridors, and geographical connectivity between East and West. Syrian geography intersects with multiple proposals concerning oil and gas pipelines, ports, land and maritime corridors, and the reconstruction of economic networks linking regional states to international markets.

Within this framework, this chapter examines the possibility that developments in Syria may be connected to the redirection of certain energy routes, including proposals involving oil pipelines extending from northern Iraq through Syria and Türkiye toward Europe, alongside alternative routes that could connect to Israeli ports, including the Port of Haifa. The significance of these proposals lies in illustrating the extent to which economic geography intersects with political and security calculations.

Trade corridors and energy pipelines do not serve exclusively economic functions. They can influence the positions of states within regional networks of interests, the nature of their relationships with other powers, and their capacity to benefit from trade and transit activities. Consequently, any fundamental change in the direction of these routes could redistribute economic and strategic roles among regional states, granting additional importance to certain geographical locations while potentially limiting opportunities for others.

In this context, Jordan has a direct interest in developments in Syria because of its location at the intersection of routes connecting Iraq, Syria, and the Gulf states to the Mediterranean. Any restructuring of southern Syria, the emergence of new security arrangements near Jordan's borders, or changes in transportation, energy, and trade routes could have implications for national security, opportunities for economic connectivity, and the Kingdom's position within the regional system.

Accordingly, understanding developments in Syria requires moving beyond the immediate security landscape toward a broader assessment of the long-term consequences that geographical and economic transformations may generate.

Jordan Confronts a New Strategic Equation: National Security Begins Beyond Its Borders

Amid these transformations, Jordan faces a strategic equation that requires balancing the preservation of domestic stability, the protection of national interests, and early engagement with risks emerging beyond its borders.

In a highly interconnected regional environment, national security depends on the state's capacity to anticipate surrounding developments and influence their trajectories through diplomacy, political engagement, and the cultivation of international relationships.

From this perspective, the King's New York address can be understood as part of Jordan's efforts to remind the international community of its responsibilities regarding developments in Palestine and the wider region, while warning that leaving crises unresolved through just and sustainable solutions may produce realities whose consequences extend far beyond the parties directly involved.

Time constitutes a decisive factor in risk management. Delaying responses to emerging sources of tension may narrow the options available at a later stage and increase the costs of intervention. Conversely, early engagement can provide greater opportunities to prevent crises from escalating and contain their repercussions.

The West Bank assumes particular importance in this context as one of the arenas most directly connected to Jordanian strategic calculations, especially amid concerns over annexation, forcible displacement, and changes to demographic and geographical realities.

These developments cannot be treated as exclusively internal Palestinian matters, as they may generate direct pressures on Jordan, affect regional stability, and raise fundamental questions concerning the future of political settlement efforts and Palestinian national rights.

Accordingly, Jordan's presence in international forums cannot be reduced to conventional diplomatic activity. Rather, it constitutes one of the instruments through which the Kingdom protects its national interests in an environment where political transformations increasingly intersect with security and economic considerations.

Given its geographical position, Jordan must preserve its capacity to influence international discussions, reaffirm its established positions on the Palestinian question, advocate the two-state solution, and develop a network of relationships and interests that enables it to respond to regional transformations with the greatest possible degree of preparedness and flexibility.

Ultimately, according to the analytical perspective adopted in this chapter, the New York address highlights a critical moment that extends beyond the conventional question of war and peace to raise a broader issue concerning the nature of the emerging regional order, the actors capable of influencing its governing rules, and the interests that will determine its future direction.

The Palestinian question cannot be separated from the restructuring of the Middle East. Similarly, Jordanian national security cannot be isolated from developments in Palestine and Syria or from transformations involving energy and trade corridors and centers of regional influence.

While the contours of the coming phase remain open to multiple possibilities, there is a growing need for a strategic approach that connects different issues rather than treating them in isolation, balances diplomatic engagement with security preparedness and economic involvement, and preserves the centrality of the Palestinian question as a fundamental determinant of regional stability.

The challenge lies in understanding the direction of these transformations and influencing them before they become established realities that are difficult to reverse.

From this perspective, protecting Jordanian national security becomes closely linked to the Kingdom's ability to combine anticipatory risk assessment, consistency in its political positions, and a stronger regional and international presence, within a strategic vision that recognizes that Jordan's future is directly influenced by the nature of the Middle East being shaped today.

Chapter Two: What Comes After the Clarity of the Royal Message?

If His Majesty King Abdullah II's address in New York clearly presented regional transformations to the international community, the question now coming to the forefront concerns the Jordanian state's capacity to provide the necessary instruments to safeguard this vision and translate it into policies and practices. Political discourse, regardless of the strength of its content, does not operate in a vacuum. Likewise, diplomacy derives its effectiveness not only from its international presence, but also from the nature of the domestic environment supporting it and the state's ability to maintain its cohesion in the face of mounting pressures and rapidly evolving developments.

From this perspective, the domestic front represents one of Jordan's fundamental sources of strength. The resilience of the state is not determined solely by its material resources or network of international relationships; it is also closely connected to its capacity to preserve social and political stability, strengthen public confidence in institutions, and manage economic and livelihood challenges that may intensify under the influence of regional crises.

The stronger the state's domestic foundations, the greater its room for maneuver in foreign affairs and the stronger its capacity to resist external pressures and defend national interests in an environment characterized by continuously shifting balances of power.

Accordingly, the royal message should be understood as a starting point for a parallel domestic responsibility. Clarity of vision in foreign policy places national institutions before the obligation to create the conditions necessary for its implementation through public policies that strengthen Jordan's resilience and provide practical instruments for addressing the security, economic, and political repercussions of regional transformations.

This cannot be achieved through political discourse alone. It requires institutional performance commensurate with the clarity of the political position, making domestic cohesion an effective component in protecting national interests.

From the Power of Political Discourse to Generating Political Impact

The strength of diplomatic discourse, or the level of attention it receives, is insufficient in itself to determine its success in influencing the course of events. The more important criterion lies in its capacity to move beyond the declaration of political positions toward influencing policies and decisions and expanding international support for the causes it advocates.

This raises a fundamental question following the New York address: How can the messages it conveyed be effectively utilized and transformed into sustained positions within international institutions and political initiatives capable of influencing the way regional crises are addressed?

This issue is particularly significant for Jordan, which links its position on the Palestinian question to the necessity of achieving a just settlement that safeguards the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people while protecting regional security and stability.

What is required is the development of a sustained diplomatic process that translates these messages into dialogue, partnerships, and political positions, preventing them from remaining confined to symbolic discourse or reactive responses to emerging events.

Within this framework, responsibility for translating the royal message into action extends across several institutions, foremost among them the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the diplomatic corps, alongside Parliament, political parties, political actors, and civil society organizations.

The effectiveness of contemporary diplomacy increasingly depends on a state's capacity to articulate a coherent national narrative in which official positions are complemented by political and societal discussions, enabling different actors to contribute to strengthening Jordan's international presence and defending its priorities.

Accordingly, the real value of the address begins after its delivery. While political discourse establishes direction, institutions ensure the continuity of influence.

Without effective mechanisms for follow-up and coordination, the message may retain its political and symbolic strength without producing the desired influence on the positions of international actors.

Transforming it into an operational strategy therefore requires sustained diplomatic communication, active participation in international institutions, expanded parliamentary and party-level dialogue, and the development of relationships with decision-making centers in influential countries.

Occupation, Not Merely Conflict: When Terminology Becomes Part of the Political Struggle

The choice of the term "occupation", rather than describing developments solely as a "conflict", carries political and legal implications extending beyond linguistic differences.

The way a problem is characterized significantly influences how it is addressed, which parties are considered responsible, and the framework upon which a settlement is expected to be based.

When the situation is presented as a conflict between two parties, attention may shift away from the imbalance of power and the distinct legal status of each party. The immediate objective may consequently become managing confrontation and bringing positions closer together.

By contrast, employing the concept of occupation places the Palestinian question within its legal and political context and brings Palestinian rights and international obligations to the center of the discussion.

According to this interpretation, Jordan's position approaches current developments as extensions of an underlying problem that cannot be overcome through transitional arrangements or understandings that fail to address its fundamental causes.

The significance of this characterization lies in its rejection of the risk of reducing the Palestinian question exclusively to its humanitarian dimensions, notwithstanding the importance of responding to humanitarian suffering, or treating it merely as a security issue that can be contained through temporary de-escalation.

A sustainable resolution requires a clear political horizon, an end to the occupation, guarantees for the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, and efforts toward establishing a sovereign Palestinian state within the framework of the two-state solution.

This perspective also broadens the responsibility of the international community. Treating occupation as the underlying cause of the problem requires moving beyond monitoring crises and managing their consequences toward addressing their fundamental causes.

Conversely, the continued normalization of scenes of violence and escalation, without serious movement toward a political solution, risks transforming the crisis into a permanent condition in which the causes of renewed confrontation accumulate and its repercussions extend beyond the Palestinian territories.

The Gap Between Vision and Policy: A Test for Jordanian Institutions

The clarity of the royal position raises a domestic question no less important than the content of the address itself: To what extent can the government, Parliament, political parties, and social actors translate this vision into integrated policies?

Engaging with the address involves an equation that combines appreciation for the clarity of Jordan's political message with concern that the gap between the level of political vision and the level of institutional performance may widen.

Raising this question does not imply an absence of existing efforts or diminish the roles of national institutions. Rather, it emphasizes the necessity of aligning political positions with the instruments required for their implementation.

When protecting national security, preserving the centrality of the Palestinian question, and anticipating regional risks are established as strategic priorities, these priorities should be reflected in economic, administrative, social, and security policies, as well as in planning mechanisms, priority-setting processes, and resource allocation.

Foreign policy alone cannot generate sustainable influence unless it is supported by a resilient economy, effective public institutions, and the capacity to respond to domestic crises.

Similarly, defending regional stability requires strong domestic foundations that enhance the state's ability to maneuver and reduce its vulnerability to external pressures.

From this perspective, issues concerning water, energy, food, trade, education, and public administration are integral to national security and should not be treated as sectoral matters detached from the state's broader strategic direction.

This responsibility also extends to Parliament, political parties, and social actors, which are expected to contribute to building a rational national dialogue concerning the transformations surrounding Jordan and developing a shared understanding of the nature of emerging risks and available policy options.

What is required is a transition from reaction to anticipation, and from addressing each crisis in isolation to recognizing the interconnectedness of regional and domestic issues, thereby enabling the formulation of more coherent and responsive policies.

Water, Borders, and Drug Trafficking: An Integrated National Security System

Water security stands out among the issues requiring a strategic approach that extends beyond conventional service delivery or sector-specific management.

In Jordan, water is directly connected to economic and social stability, the state's capacity to meet the needs of its population, resource management, and relations with neighboring countries.

Consequently, treating water as a development issue separate from national security risks obscuring a fundamental dimension of its potential implications for state stability and the capacity to withstand external pressures.

This interconnectedness becomes particularly evident when examining security along Jordan's northern borders, where challenges associated with smuggling, drug trafficking, and border violations intersect with broader economic and security considerations.

Borders are geographical spaces in which security threats overlap with trade flows, resource movements, and transboundary risks. As instability intensifies in the surrounding region, the need for an integrated approach that prevents these challenges from being treated as separate issues becomes increasingly urgent.

The essence of this approach lies in moving from responding to crises after they occur toward developing preventive alternatives before they reach critical stages.

Water security requires early planning, border security demands continuous preparedness, and economic security depends on the capacity to absorb shocks.

Accordingly, strategic anticipation of risks must become an integral component of public administration rather than merely a precautionary measure adopted when circumstances demand it.

Recognizing these interconnections can also reshape governmental priorities by integrating water, economic, and security policies within a unified national security framework and ensuring that decisions are informed by assessments of their interrelated consequences.

The central challenge lies in preventing different sources of pressure from interacting in ways that compound their costs and further restrict the policy options available to the state.

Jordan Between National Interests and Pan-Arab Responsibility

According to the ideas presented in this chapter, Jordan's approach is not based on a narrow conception of national security. Rather, it seeks to reconcile the protection of national interests with broader pan-Arab responsibilities and the requirements of regional stability. Issues concerning Palestine, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, together with their implications for security, energy, development, and peace, interact within a single regional system. Tensions in one arena may extend to other countries through trade, energy, and borders, while shifts in the balance of power may generate renewed risks in multiple directions.

From this perspective, the language Jordan employs in addressing the international community acquires additional significance, as it connects the Kingdom's national interests with broader interests relating to regional and international stability. Within this framework, preserving sovereignty and border security, rejecting infringements upon national resources, and advocating a just settlement of the Palestinian question are not separate demands, but interconnected elements in preventing the spread of instability and preserving opportunities for peace and stability.

This approach provides Jordan with opportunities to expand its diplomatic presence by presenting its positions within a framework of shared interests and international responsibility. At the same time, however, it requires the Kingdom to develop domestic instruments commensurate with the scope of these responsibilities, whether through strengthening institutional effectiveness, developing preventive policies, or enhancing the capacity of the economy and society to respond to ongoing transformations.

Ultimately, the central question raised by the New York address, following the clarity of its message, is not whether Jordan has defined its position on regional crises, but whether its institutions are capable of acting with the speed and coherence required to implement this vision.

The domestic front becomes a source of national strength through policies that reinforce trust, stability, and resilience. Likewise, a diplomatic message can only develop into sustainable influence when supported by an institutional framework capable of ensuring its continuity and effective implementation.

Accordingly, the significance of the coming phase will be determined by the ability of state institutions to connect political vision with practical action, diplomacy with public policy, and border, water, and economic security within an integrated strategic framework.

The royal address establishes the direction, but institutions determine the practical capacity to pursue it. Between the clarity of vision and the effectiveness of implementation lies Jordan's ability to protect its interests, expand its strategic room for maneuver, and respond to a region whose governing dynamics are changing at an accelerating pace.

Chapter Three: From the Strength of the Message to the Strength of the Domestic Front

The political significance of His Majesty King Abdullah II's address in New York does not end with the messages conveyed to the international community. Rather, it begins when those messages are translated into domestic responsibilities requiring a reassessment of national instruments and their readiness to confront regional transformations.

The clarity of political positions depends on effective institutions, a cohesive domestic front, a political environment capable of producing new leadership, and security, economic, and diplomatic systems suited to the demands of the current phase.

Against this backdrop, a fundamental question emerges concerning the capacity of the government, Parliament, political parties, and social actors to respond adequately to the royal warnings and translate them into an integrated national vision that moves beyond managing daily crises toward preparing for the challenges that the coming phase may bring.

The challenges confronting Jordan extend to the possibility of political pressure, changes in demographic realities, border instability, growing water and economic challenges, and the potential repercussions of shifting regional balances of power on national interests.

Consequently, strengthening the domestic front becomes an integral component of comprehensive national defense, rather than merely a political slogan or an expression of social cohesion.

A state better equipped to withstand shocks is one in which institutions operate in a coordinated manner, public policies enjoy confidence, citizens feel that they have a meaningful role in public affairs, and the government is capable of maintaining continuity in decision-making and accumulating institutional expertise.

Within this framework, particular importance is attached to developing political party and parliamentary life, strengthening youth participation, and connecting educational institutions with pathways for preparing future political leaders. These efforts can contribute to establishing a national foundation better prepared to respond to emerging transformations.

This responsibility cannot be separated from the realities of student unions and student political blocs, which represent potential spaces for developing new generations of political leaders.

The transition of young people into public life cannot be achieved merely by providing opportunities to participate in elections. It requires an environment that enables learning, practical engagement, and organized competition, while providing clear political and programmatic frameworks within legal arrangements that safeguard the independence of educational institutions.

From this perspective, the university is not an academic environment detached from the development of the state, but one of the settings in which a culture of participation, responsibility, and leadership can emerge.

Displacement Is Not an Option for Jordan: Between Political Rejection and the Capacity to Prevent Its Imposition

Displacement represents one of the most dangerous scenarios directly affecting Jordanian national security and the future of the Palestinian question. The rejection of displacement, permanent resettlement, and the alternative homeland concept constitutes a fundamental and unwavering principle of Jordan's political position. However, the significance of this rejection extends beyond political declarations to the capacity to prevent displacement from becoming an imposed reality as a result of external pressures, developments on the ground, or regional arrangements that may emerge from the continuation of the war and changes to existing territorial realities.

Within this context, displacement cannot be regarded as a solution to the conflict or a means of ending the crisis. Removing Palestinians from their land does not address the underlying causes of the problem; rather, it reproduces them in an even more complex form, confronting the rights of the Palestinian people, Jordan's future, and regional stability with interconnected challenges.

Furthermore, distinguishing between forced displacement and what may be described as voluntary migration should not obscure the necessity of examining the circumstances governing population movements or the pressures that may render apparently voluntary choices inconsistent with genuine freedom of choice.

Forced displacement places the issue within a legal and humanitarian framework extending beyond Jordan's political position, as it concerns the protection of civilians, the rights of peoples, and relevant rules of international law.

Nevertheless, confronting this possibility requires, alongside diplomatic engagement, a state capable of preserving its internal cohesion, coordinating the positions of its institutions, managing pressures effectively, and preventing contradictory messages or uncertainty over priorities in matters affecting its fundamental national principles.

Accordingly, strengthening the domestic front does not mean military preparedness alone. It also requires reinforcing trust between society and state institutions, improving parliamentary performance and political party life, strengthening coordination among decision-making centers, and developing a clear national discourse that reflects the sensitivity of the current phase.

From this perspective, displacement represents a comprehensive test of the state's capacity to protect its national interests and fundamental principles in the face of scenarios whose consequences may extend beyond Palestine's borders.

Closely connected to this is the issue of continuity in government policies. Frequent changes of government, when not accompanied by clear institutional continuity and the accumulation of expertise, may weaken the sustainability of programs and constrain the state's capacity to develop long-term strategies.

Strategic issues cannot be addressed adequately through temporary decisions or responses determined solely by immediate circumstances. They require policies that extend beyond the terms of individual governments and parliamentary sessions, ensuring continuity in planning, the accumulation of institutional experience, and the effective implementation of national priorities.

Political Modernization Put to the Test: Legislation Alone Does Not Create a Vibrant Party System

The political modernization process reveals a potential gap between legislative frameworks and actual political practice. According to the assessment presented in this discussion, political will has constituted a central foundation of the reform process, while laws, constitutional amendments, and legislation governing elections and political parties have contributed to establishing a framework conducive to the development of political life.

Nevertheless, the most significant challenge remains the extent to which this framework can generate political party and democratic practices consistent with its intended objectives.

Legislation, despite its importance, cannot independently produce a new political culture, nor does it automatically guarantee the emergence of parties capable of representing society or competing on the basis of political programs.

Several challenges arise in this context, including vote-buying, the handling of electoral violations, and the ability of political parties to nominate individuals who enjoy public confidence and possess the competence and social credibility necessary for effective representation.

If these shortcomings remain unaddressed, political reform may advance at the legislative level while its practical outcomes in public life continue to lag behind.

Accordingly, the success of political modernization should be assessed in terms of the political party's ability to perform its fundamental function as an institution for generating ideas, policies, and leadership.

An effective political party possesses clearly defined programs, develops its members and cadres, presents alternatives open to public debate, enables organized participation, and establishes sustainable relationships with society based on trust and accountability.

Connecting student life with organized political engagement can also contribute to cultivating this political culture at an early stage, provided that such engagement takes place within legal and institutional frameworks that safeguard university independence and prevent educational institutions from becoming arenas of irresponsible political polarization.

The objective is to create opportunities for developing political awareness, learning constructive dialogue, and acquiring leadership and teamwork skills.

The significance of this process extends beyond domestic political reform, as an effective political party system contributes to strengthening Jordan's national resilience.

A strong domestic front rests on a society that trusts its institutions, a Parliament that fulfills its responsibilities, political parties that represent public interests and aspirations, a government with a clear vision, and young people who believe that public life offers genuine opportunities for participation and influence.

The more effectively these elements are integrated, the greater the state's capacity to absorb external pressures and prevent them from developing into domestic crises.

A Century of Moderation: From Political Capital to Strategic Strength

Jordanian moderation represents one of the key elements of the Kingdom's accumulated political capital. It is a historical strategic choice that has helped shape Jordan's position, its international relationships, and its ability to communicate with diverse international actors, even during periods of heightened crises and divergent positions on regional issues.

The significance of this moderation lies in the fact that it does not necessarily conflict with firmness. Rather, it can provide a framework for expressing clear political positions through diplomatic and political instruments that preserve channels of communication and prevent the state from becoming isolated from spheres of influence.

This approach allows Jordan to defend its fundamental national principles while continuing to build relationships and expand opportunities for mutual understanding with states and international institutions.

The discussion highlighted the respect and relationships that Jordan has accumulated through this policy among European and other international actors, despite differences in their positions concerning regional conflicts.

This can be understood as a long-term political investment, as credibility and the ability to engage in dialogue provide the state with opportunities to articulate its positions, establish partnerships, and broaden international support for its priorities at critical moments.

However, the challenge lies in transforming this accumulated political capital into a strategic capacity to exert influence, rather than merely preserving it.

Moderation loses part of its value if it is interpreted as passivity or hesitation. Similarly, firmness may lose its effectiveness if it is not supported by political and institutional instruments capable of translating it into tangible outcomes.

What is required, therefore, is a combination of clearly defined national red lines, flexibility in diplomatic engagement, and early preparedness to address emerging transformations before available options become increasingly constrained.

Southern Syria: A New Test for Jordanian Security

Alongside the political risks associated with the Palestinian question and displacement, southern Syria emerges as a geographically and strategically sensitive area in Jordan's security calculations.

One of the contributions to the discussion expressed concerns about the potential expansion of Israeli influence into areas of southern Syria, linking these concerns to scenarios involving Suwayda, Quneitra, the Golan Heights, and the Syrian Desert.

The contribution employed the expression "Zionist Crescent" to describe a political conception involving the possible extension of such influence toward Jordan's borders.

This expression should be understood as a characterization used by the contributor, reflecting the concerns raised in that intervention, rather than as an established fact concerning the trajectory of regional developments.

The significance of this assessment lies in the fact that border security is influenced by the nature of the actors operating on the other side of the border, the agreements and arrangements that may emerge, and their potential impact on the security and political balances surrounding the Kingdom.

Any fundamental change in the distribution of influence across southern Syria could introduce new strategic considerations for Jordan and require an assessment of its potential implications for security, borders, and regional movements.

Within this context, Jordan cannot treat southern Syria as an arena detached from its national interests.

At the same time, however, a distinction must be maintained between the responsibilities of the country's leadership and military and security institutions in assessing threats and making specialized decisions, and the role of society, political parties, and other political actors in strengthening national cohesion and providing broader support to the relevant institutions.

This distinction is essential to prevent public debate from becoming a substitute for specialized security assessments or a source of conflicting messages.

The objective is to ensure complementarity of roles: specialized institutions addressing risks through their assessments and available instruments, alongside political and societal institutions that strengthen public confidence, awareness, and national responsibility.

Such coordination can support the state's capacity to protect its security without exaggerating threats or underestimating their significance.

Parliamentary Diplomacy: A Channel That Must Move from Formality to Effective Action

Parliamentary diplomacy is one of the areas Jordan can develop to strengthen its international presence.

Although parliamentary participation, visits, and communications already take place, this form of diplomacy remains, according to the assessment presented, closer to formal representation than to sustained institutional engagement.

This observation renews the discussion concerning how Parliament can be utilized as a complementary channel to official diplomacy rather than as a substitute for it.

Effective parliamentary diplomacy cannot be reduced to attending conferences or organizing official visits. It depends on establishing sustained relationships with foreign parliaments, influential parliamentary committees, and political actors; communicating Jordan's positions on regional issues; and developing common ground for understanding and cooperation.

This channel also creates opportunities to engage with political and legislative circles that may not be equally accessible through conventional government-to-government relations.

Achieving this requires clearly defined priorities for international engagement, advance preparation of relevant policy files, systematic follow-up on the outcomes of meetings, and coordination between parliamentary activities and the state's broader foreign policy.

A visit that does not produce a sustainable relationship or an outcome capable of being monitored remains limited in its effectiveness.

By contrast, well-organized parliamentary diplomacy can expand Jordan's international presence, help communicate national positions, and build bridges with diverse political actors.

The same principle applies to political parties, which need to develop their international relationships within national and legal frameworks, benefit from the experiences of other political parties, and strengthen their capacity to represent Jordanian society and its aspirations.

Political modernization can therefore also enhance the ability of Jordanian political actors to engage with their international environment, thereby supporting the Kingdom's international standing and national interests.

What Comes Next? The Question Where the Real Work Begins

This is where the defining equation of the coming phase takes shape: preparedness must precede crises, reform must advance ahead of mounting pressures, diplomacy must be supported by a cohesive domestic front, and political messages must be translated into programs, institutions, and policies that can be monitored and evaluated.

Ultimately, the New York address is not an endpoint, but a starting point for a broader test of the state's capacity to safeguard its fundamental principles and national interests in a region whose governing dynamics have yet to stabilize.

Between the clarity of political vision and the effectiveness of implementation lies Jordan's ability to confront the challenges of the coming phase, protect its national security, and transform its historical commitment to moderation into a strategic strength that provides greater room for maneuver and influence.

Chapter Four: Jordanian Strategic Intelligence — An Address That Interprets Regional Transformations and Reshapes Response Options

The significance of royal addresses lies in their capacity to reveal how the state interprets surrounding transformations, identifies sources of risk, and establishes priorities within an increasingly unstable regional environment.

From this perspective, His Majesty King Abdullah II's address to the United Nations General Assembly can be understood as part of a broader effort to communicate Jordan's assessment of regional developments and warn of the potential consequences of continuing current trajectories without meaningful political solutions.

Previous royal addresses have also conveyed important messages concerning violations, threats, and breaches of international law, including references to genocide. According to this analysis, such messages reflect a Jordanian political position informed by continuous monitoring of a regional trajectory in which political, security, demographic, and geopolitical considerations increasingly intersect.

From a Discourse of Political Positions to a Discourse of Awareness: Why Does Jordan Need a Society That Understands Transformations Rather Than an Audience That Merely Expresses Support?

There is a need to move beyond a discourse focused solely on political positions toward one that promotes public awareness. What is required is a society capable of understanding unfolding events, interpreting the transformations surrounding the state, and recognizing the nature of the risks that may arise from them.

This need becomes particularly important in light of media campaigns and disinformation targeting the Jordanian state and attempting to influence public decision-making.

In such an environment, public awareness becomes an integral component of national security, because a society lacking the tools to distinguish reliable information from disinformation is more vulnerable to confusion and uncertainty during crises and periods of transformation.

The responsibility for cultivating such awareness cannot therefore be confined to the government or media institutions.

Universities, academic faculty, political and intellectual elites, and societal actors all bear responsibility for developing a discourse that explains events and places them within their broader context, rather than leaving public debate vulnerable to fragmented or emotionally driven interpretations.

According to this perspective, the current phase requires a deeper understanding of regional developments. As transformations become increasingly complex, the need grows for a society capable of interpreting them within a shared national framework.

The cohesion of the domestic front depends not only on unity of political position, but also on a shared understanding of the nature of the challenges confronting the country.

Displacement and Southern Syria: Two Issues at the Core of Jordanian National Security

Displacement and developments in southern Syria emerged as central concerns in the contributions to the discussion, as both are directly connected to Jordan's national security environment and cannot be treated as external developments detached from the state's strategic calculations.

Regarding displacement, the contributions presented the issue as one that did not emerge solely from recent developments. Rather, they linked it to an Israeli political and ideological discourse extending over decades, encompassing references to displacement and the alternative homeland concept in political literature, public statements, and political and diplomatic practices.

Consequently, renewed discussions of displacement acquire heightened significance when they become directly connected to Jordan's future and national security.

This explains why Jordan's longstanding rejection of displacement and the alternative homeland concept carries implications extending beyond its political position on the Palestinian question.

The issue concerns fundamental national principles affecting the character, cohesion, and future of the state. When displacement becomes a potential element of regional strategic calculations, it shifts from being an external political issue to a direct consideration in national risk assessment.

Southern Syria, meanwhile, was presented as both a longstanding and a renewed concern for Jordan.

Geographical proximity, developments within Syria, and changing regional balances of power are all factors that make any transformation in southern Syria directly relevant to Jordan.

Examining displacement and southern Syria together therefore illustrates the expanding scope of Jordanian national security, which increasingly encompasses political, demographic, and security transformations whose consequences may extend into the Kingdom through multiple channels.

After October 7: How Did Jordan Enter Regional Phases It Neither Chose Nor Helped Initiate?

The contributions to the discussion interpret the region's trajectory as a succession of historical turning points whose consequences Jordan has had to confront, despite not having participated in the decisions or events that initiated them.

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the September 11 attacks were cited as two major turning points that reshaped balances of power and introduced the region into new political and security phases, with Jordan bearing some of their consequences.

Within the same historical perspective, October 7 represented another turning point that fundamentally altered existing regional dynamics.

According to the interpretation presented in the contributions, the events provided Israel with political and security justifications for actions that subsequently reshaped the regional landscape.

Jordan, however, was not involved in deciding or initiating those events, yet found itself confronting consequences and repercussions that required a response.

This helps explain the particular sensitivity of Jordan's position toward regional transformations.

The Kingdom is situated in a region where balances of power can change rapidly, and major crises affect its security, economy, borders, and political and social composition, even when it is not directly involved in them.

Preparedness therefore cannot depend on waiting for events to occur before identifying appropriate responses.

Rather, it requires developing a continuous capacity to assess potential developments and prepare for their consequences before they become realities that are difficult to contain.

This is where the concept of "Sustained Geopolitical Vigilance" emerges as one of the central ideas highlighted in the contributions.

The concept refers to maintaining a continuous awareness of changing geopolitical conditions and incorporating potential transformations into the state's strategic calculations before they materialize.

The Peace Treaty: From Constraints to Instruments for Protecting Jordanian and Palestinian Interests?

The Jordanian–Israeli Peace Treaty can be viewed as a framework that the state may manage according to its national interests, while utilizing the instruments it provides to advance Jordanian and Palestinian interests and defend Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa Mosque, prisoners, and refugees.

The significance of this perspective lies in the argument that Jordan has employed the treaty within its broader policy toward the Palestinian question, and that the treaty's existence has not prevented the state from adopting firm political positions during the war in Gaza.

These positions have included intensifying warnings against displacement and treating it as an exceptionally serious threat.

Accordingly, the treaty is presented in this interpretation as one instrument within a broader framework of foreign policy tools.

This perspective opens the door to a different understanding of existing political instruments and the ways in which they may be employed to protect national interests.

Sustained Geopolitical Vigilance: How Does Jordan Interpret Shifting Balances of Power?

One of the most prominent concepts emerging from the contributions was "Sustained Geopolitical Vigilance."

This concept refers to the state's recognition that shifts in balances of power and regional and international alignments constitute an ongoing process capable of reshaping priorities and redefining threats.

The discussion connected the royal address to disruptions in the international and regional balance-of-power system resulting from changing priorities and the region's entry into a period of instability.

It also raised the possibility that the interests of certain major powers may intersect with the continuation of regional instability, a consideration that requires small and medium-sized states to exercise greater vigilance in assessing their interests and strategic calculations.

For Jordan, this interpretation is particularly significant given its geographical and political position, its direct exposure to developments in Palestine, Syria, and Iraq, and the implications of relations between major international powers and regional actors for its strategic environment.

From this perspective, the royal address becomes part of a broader effort to communicate Jordan's understanding of the international landscape.

It seeks to warn that the continuation of the current regional trajectory may have far-reaching consequences for the stability and future of the Middle East.

The Royal Address: A Message Directed at Multiple Audiences

The royal address does not appear to have been directed exclusively at the international community. Rather, it conveyed messages on multiple levels, beginning with Jordanian society and extending to the Palestinians, the Arab world, and the broader Islamic world.

At the domestic level, the message emphasizes the importance of awareness, preparedness, and understanding the nature of the current phase.

At the Palestinian level, it reaffirms that the Palestinian question remains central to Jordanian policy and that issues concerning Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa Mosque, prisoners, refugees, and displacement are directly connected, within Jordan's strategic perspective, to national security and the future of the Palestinian question.

At the Arab level, the message warns that existing policies may generate long-term consequences, requiring regional transformations to be addressed as strategic challenges rather than temporary crises.

At the Islamic level, the message highlights the religious significance of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque and the need for the Islamic world to remain actively engaged in responding to developments affecting the Palestinian question.

Similarly, the message carries a Syrian dimension, reflecting the recognition that the security and stability of the Syrian people, particularly in southern Syria, intersect directly with Jordanian national security.

Accordingly, the address becomes an instrument for defining Jordan's position within the region and clarifying its relationship with surrounding issues, rather than merely presenting its political position to the international community.

The State Is Aware: What Does It Mean for Institutions to Be Prepared Before Threats Become Reality?

According to this perspective, the royal address was not delivered at a moment when the Jordanian state was discovering regional risks for the first time.

Jordan possesses military and security institutions responsible for monitoring developments, assessing threats, and keeping decision-makers informed of emerging circumstances. The state has also undertaken measures to address the burdens imposed by regional developments.

The central question therefore shifts from "Does the state understand what is happening?" to a more important one: "How does the state translate this understanding into policy options?"

The existence of institutions capable of monitoring developments and assessing threats represents the first step. However, their real value emerges through the ability to translate these assessments into policies, practical measures, and preparedness mechanisms.

From this perspective, the royal address reflects an accumulated strategic assessment rather than a reaction to an isolated event.

The discussion also recalled the period following October 7, when His Majesty the King undertook international diplomatic initiatives at a time when many channels for communicating positions defending the Palestinian people or calling for the delivery of humanitarian assistance were severely constrained.

These initiatives were presented as part of a broader political effort to influence international public opinion and encourage positions more supportive of the Palestinians.

This perspective highlights another dimension of crisis management: some political and diplomatic efforts are not necessarily visible to the public, yet they remain connected to protecting national interests and maintaining Jordan's political position within an exceptionally complex environment.

Chapter Five: The Water Conflict in Southern Syria — When Rivers and Dams Become Instruments for Redrawing Geography

While political geography is traditionally assessed through borders, spheres of influence, and trade and energy corridors, water introduces a deeper and more enduring dimension to this equation.

The consequences of controlling water resources do not end with the political circumstances in which such control emerges. Rather, they may extend over decades, influencing agriculture, population stability, development, and national security, while redistributing elements of power among states and communities.

From this perspective, Jordan's water security cannot be examined independently of developments in southern Syria, particularly because this region is directly connected to the Yarmouk River system, its tributaries, and its recharge areas.

Water resources in this geographical environment form part of a broader system in which geography intersects with security, politics, and territorial control.

This issue is particularly significant for Jordan because the Kingdom lies in the downstream portion of the Yarmouk River basin. Consequently, any changes affecting water sources, storage mechanisms, or patterns of use in the upper basin may have direct repercussions on Jordanian territory.

The question of water security therefore does not begin at Jordan's borders. Rather, it begins at every point capable of influencing the movement and availability of water before it reaches the Kingdom.

The Yarmouk River: From a Watercourse to a Geopolitical Issue

The 1951 Bunger Plan allocated Jordan approximately 300 million cubic meters of water and linked this allocation to arrangements concerning the Unity Dam, which has been known by several names at different stages.

In 1953, Jordan and Syria reached an agreement addressing the construction of the Unity Dam, without establishing clearly defined water allocations. The agreement referred to a flow rate of 10 cubic meters per second, equivalent to approximately 320 million cubic meters annually.

The 1954 Johnston Plan subsequently introduced a more detailed framework for allocating the basin's water resources. Under the figures presented in this account, Jordan's estimated allocation increased to approximately 700 million cubic meters, compared with 135 million cubic meters for Syria, 400 million cubic meters for Israel, and 32 million cubic meters for Lebanon.

The West Bank did not receive a separate allocation under the arrangement described, as it was associated with Jordan at the time, and part of Jordan's allocation was designated for its use.

Regardless of the specific nature of each arrangement, these successive stages reveal a fundamental reality: the waters of the Yarmouk River have never been an exclusively technical matter.

From the outset, water allocation was connected to the distribution of influence, territorial control, and political geography.

Whenever balances of power shifted or territorial control changed, water returned to the forefront as an integral component of the political and security equation.

From Bunger to Johnston: How Did the Arrangements for Sharing the Yarmouk River's Waters Evolve?

The Yarmouk water question underwent a gradual transition from preliminary estimates of water allocations toward more detailed attempts to regulate water use and resource management.

The Johnston Plan represented an important milestone in this process, particularly because it estimated Jordan's share of the basin's water resources at approximately 700 million cubic meters.

However, these figures cannot be separated from the geographical conditions that shaped them.

Jordan and Syria share an interconnected water system encompassing tributaries, recharge areas, dams, and watercourses, while significant portions of the basin are located in areas directly affected by political and security developments.

This means that any change in water utilization practices in the upper basin may affect downstream areas.

Jordan's sensitivity to storage, diversion, and pumping activities that could influence water flows toward its territory therefore reflects the interconnected nature of the basin and its strategic importance.

The 1987 Agreement: Between Legal Provisions and Actual Conditions — What Has Changed in Syrian Dams and Water Resources?

In 1987, Jordanian–Syrian water relations entered a new phase through an agreement that, according to the material presented, incorporated more detailed technical provisions.

These included specifying elevation levels above which water use would be permitted, linking such provisions to the recharge areas of the Unity Dam, and agreeing on the construction of a defined number of Syrian dams.

According to the figures cited in the contribution, the agreement permitted the construction of 25 dams, provided that their combined water storage capacity did not exceed 132 million cubic meters.

However, the current situation, as described in the source material, involves 49 dams within the Yarmouk River basin, with a total storage capacity of approximately 250 million cubic meters.

This raises the discrepancy between "the agreement's provisions and conditions on the ground" as one of the most sensitive issues in the regional water equation.

If the figures presented in the material are accurate, the increase in the number of dams and their combined storage capacity indicates a significant transformation in the management of water resources in the upper basin.

The issue, however, extends beyond dams.

The material also refers to alleged noncompliance with provisions concerning springs located above an elevation of 200 meters, as well as extensive well-drilling activities in areas adjacent to the Yarmouk River and the Jordanian border.

This is significant because control over water resources does not necessarily occur through a single facility or decision.

Dams, wells, springs, recharge areas, and irrigation networks are interconnected components of a single hydrological system. Expansion in any one of these components may affect the volume of water reaching downstream areas.

Accordingly, the issue cannot be reduced to questions concerning a particular dam or a specific annual water allocation. Rather, it concerns an integrated system of water control and management.

Water Depletion in Southern Syria: From Dams to Wells

Water resources in southern Syria are reportedly being depleted, as reflected in the drilling of approximately 4,000 wells in areas adjacent to the Yarmouk River and the Jordanian border. This raises further questions concerning how water stored behind dams is utilized and the extent to which farmers can access and use available water resources.

This highlights the importance of viewing the river basin as an interconnected hydrological system. Water retained in dams or extracted from wells in recharge areas does not have effects confined to the locations where storage or pumping occurs. Rather, its consequences may extend to downstream areas.

For Jordan, the issue becomes particularly sensitive given the Kingdom's limited water resources and its dependence on transboundary water sources. Consequently, any reduction in water flows originating beyond its borders may affect agriculture, water reserves, and the country's capacity to meet domestic demand.

Accordingly, monitoring developments in southern Syria should not be limited to assessments of the military or security situation. Following the reasoning presented in this paper, it requires close monitoring of the hydrological geography itself: Where are the water sources located? Who controls them? How are they stored? What is happening in the recharge areas? And where does the water subsequently flow?

Wadi al-Raqqad: The Most Critical Geographical Link

Understanding this equation requires examining the precise geography of the Yarmouk River's tributaries. The river is fed by two principal tributary systems: one originating in the Jabal al-Arab region and passing through Suwayda and Daraa, and the other associated with Mount Hermon and the Golan Heights, connecting to Wadi al-Raqqad.

Several tributaries and valleys branch from Wadi al-Raqqad and form part of the water system flowing toward Jordan, including Wadi Allan and Wadi Khadem. Some of these tributaries join the river upstream of the Unity Dam, while others enter downstream.

This geographical configuration gives Wadi al-Raqqad significance extending beyond its function as a watercourse. It forms part of an interconnected network of water sources and tributaries, and any change in control over recharge areas or waterways may affect the volume of water reaching Jordan.

Here, physical geography intersects directly with political geography. A location that appears on a map to be merely a valley or tributary may acquire strategic significance when territorial control changes, because it influences part of the flow of a transboundary water resource.

Southern Syria Between Two Hypotheses: A Potential Druze Entity or an Israeli Buffer Zone?

The contributions to the discussion present two principal hypotheses to explain certain developments in southern Syria.

The first hypothesis concerns the possibility that areas of southern Syria, particularly Suwayda, could separate and form a predominantly Druze entity extending toward areas near the Golan Heights. The material indicates that this hypothesis has appeared in Western studies and analyses, as well as in political and journalistic writings.

However, the contribution itself expresses reservations regarding the feasibility of this hypothesis from an engineering, economic, and geographical perspective. Establishing a viable and stable entity would require resources, an economic base, water supplies, transportation and communication networks, energy infrastructure, and other conditions necessary for its sustainability.

The second hypothesis concerns what the material describes as an Israeli strategic perspective linking developments in Quneitra and the southern Golan Heights to the establishment of a buffer zone or security perimeter intended to prevent militias affiliated with Iran and Hezbollah from reaching the area. According to this interpretation, such an approach is associated with a perceived lack of confidence in the Syrian state's capacity to provide security in the region.

These hypotheses are not presented in the material as definitive conclusions, but rather as analytical interpretations proposed to explain developments in southern Syria.

Nevertheless, water remains a relevant factor in both scenarios. If territorial control leads to control over dams and water sources, water security may become an integral component of broader geographical and political arrangements.

The Policy of "Permanent Temporariness": What Does a Military Presence Around Dams and Water Sources Mean?

One of the most significant concepts raised by this position paper is the expression "the policy of permanent temporariness," referring to a military or security presence initially presented as temporary but which, through its continuation and repeated extension, may become an established and influential reality.

The material connects this concept to control over several dams and water sources in southern Syria.

According to the figures cited, military forces maintain a fixed presence in the area surrounding Al-Mantara Dam, which has a storage capacity of approximately 40 million cubic meters. The account also refers to restrictions preventing the Syrian side from controlling the dam's gates, inlets, and outlets.

Other dams mentioned include Qutaynah Dam, with an estimated capacity of 30 million cubic meters; Burayjah Dam, with approximately 2 million cubic meters; Ruhaynah Dam, also with approximately 2 million cubic meters; and Ghadir al-Bustan Dam, associated with Wadi Allan in the Wadi al-Raqqad area, with an estimated capacity of 10 million cubic meters.

Taken together, these figures amount to approximately 85 million cubic meters, and the contribution suggests that this volume represents nearly 40% of the water resources in southern Syria.

If the underlying information is accurate, these figures are significant because they broaden the understanding of territorial control.

Land itself is not the only source of geopolitical influence. Control over water infrastructure can also become an instrument for influencing agricultural production, population stability, and the economic capacity of surrounding communities.

In this context, water is transformed from a consequence of territorial control into an instrument through which geographical influence is established and exercised.

From Dams to Reservoirs: Do Different Terms Reveal Different Functions of Water Infrastructure?

The contributions to the discussion highlight an issue that appears linguistic on the surface but, according to the analysis presented, carries engineering and political implications. While certain facilities are locally referred to as "dams," some Israeli reports and newspapers use the term "reservoir" when referring to several of these structures.

The material identifies a functional distinction between the two terms. From the technical perspective presented in the contribution, a reservoir may constitute part of a water conveyance system rather than merely a facility designed to store water at a particular location.

This raises a fundamental question: Does the nature of these facilities indicate functions extending beyond local water storage?

The material refers to the construction of 16 reservoirs in the Wadi al-Raqqad and Wadi Allan areas, with a combined capacity of approximately 45 million cubic meters. It also mentions five reservoirs located near the Israeli border, whose storage capacity, according to the account, amounts to approximately 10 million cubic meters.

On this basis, the contribution raises the possibility that these facilities may be connected to the Sea of Galilee (Lake Tiberias) and Israeli water conveyance networks.

This remains a hypothesis presented in the material rather than a definitive conclusion. Nevertheless, its significance lies in the question it raises: If these facilities are not intended exclusively for local storage, what functions might they perform within a broader water system, and where might the water be directed?

At this point, the issue moves beyond the management of a local water resource toward the possibility of its integration into a wider regional network.

The Sea of Galilee and Water Conveyance Networks: Where Could the Water Be Directed?

The contribution concludes by examining the Sea of Galilee as part of the regional water system. It indicates that the lake contains approximately 4 billion cubic meters of water and that its operational water extraction capacity, according to the cited figures, reaches approximately 700–720 million cubic meters.

The discussion also recalls the historical development of water conveyance networks, from the East Ghor Canal, constructed in 1959, to Israel's National Water Carrier, developed during the 1960s to transport water from the Sea of Galilee area toward the coastal, central, and southern regions.

This historical reference illustrates a principle extending beyond the figures themselves: the strategic value of water is determined not only by where it is located, but also by the capacity to transport it.

A water source that cannot be transported remains geographically limited in its potential impact, whereas a sophisticated conveyance network can transform control over that source into a means of distributing water to distant areas.

From this perspective, questions concerning dams and reservoirs in southern Syria become inseparable from the broader question of water conveyance networks.

The issue concerns not merely the existence of water resources, but also who can store them, who possesses the capacity to transport them, and which geographical areas they can ultimately reach.

The Water Conflict: When Control Over a River Basin Becomes Part of Territorial Control

Taken together, the contributions reveal an important shift in how developments in southern Syria are interpreted.

Competition over this region cannot be reduced to military control, border arrangements, or the establishment of buffer zones, because water introduces an additional dimension to the equation—one whose effects may prove more enduring than military movements themselves.

Control over dams provides the ability to regulate water storage. Control over wells enables influence over groundwater extraction. Control over recharge areas allows water resources to be affected before they reach their principal channels, while conveyance networks make it possible to transport water to other locations.

In this way, hydrological geography becomes an integral component of political geography.

Political borders do not necessarily coincide with the geographical boundaries that determine sources of strategic influence.

A relatively small location in the upper reaches of a river basin may exercise greater influence over a downstream state than a considerably larger geographical area situated within that state's own territory.

For Jordan, this equation is exceptionally sensitive. The Kingdom lies downstream within the Yarmouk River system, meaning that any changes in water sources, storage mechanisms, or patterns of use in the upper basin may have consequences that extend into Jordanian territory.

For this reason, discussions concerning southern Syria should not remain confined to conventional security considerations.

According to the information presented, southern Syria constitutes "a source of hydrological strategic depth for Jordan, an interconnected geographical space, an area where Syrian, Israeli, and Jordanian interests intersect, and an arena in which control over water may become an instrument for reshaping regional influence."

From Water Security to National Security: What Would a Changing Equation in Southern Syria Mean for Jordan?

The potential danger for Jordan lies in the emergence of a new system of control over water resources in southern Syria.

This possibility requires a broader understanding of water security itself. Security monitoring along the borders is insufficient on its own, just as monitoring political developments cannot be separated from tracking dams, wells, recharge areas, and watercourses.

Understanding the nature and functions of newly established facilities also becomes increasingly important, particularly where terms such as "dam" and "reservoir" are used interchangeably, or where facilities emerge near borders that, according to the proposed hypothesis, could be connected to water conveyance networks.

At the same time, interpreting these developments requires methodological caution.

The material itself distinguishes between information and figures presented as available data and hypotheses concerning the objectives of Israeli activities and the future of southern Syria.

These hypotheses require continuous monitoring and verification before they can be treated as definitive conclusions.

Nevertheless, such caution does not negate the broader strategic conclusion: "Water in southern Syria can no longer be regarded as a purely technical issue separable from politics, security, and geography."

From the water development plans of the 1950s, through agreements regulating the waters of the Yarmouk River, to subsequent developments involving dams, wells, and water sources, the Yarmouk has remained part of a broader regional equation.

Today, as patterns of territorial control change in southern Syria, water may return to the forefront of this equation in an increasingly complex form—not merely as a resource requiring allocation among different parties, but as an element capable of influencing the structure of regional power itself.

This brings Jordan's central strategic challenge into focus: moving from "managing water allocations" to "managing hydrological geography."

This entails understanding the sources of water, its flow routes, storage locations, and the actors exercising control over them, while developing the capacity to anticipate what any new arrangements in southern Syria might mean for Jordanian water security.

The most serious aspect of a "water conflict" is that it may not require an explicit declaration.

It may begin gradually through changes in dam locations, expanded storage capacities, well drilling, altered access to water sources, or the construction of new conveyance networks.

As these transformations accumulate, balances of power may shift without the situation initially appearing to constitute a conflict over water.

Accordingly, the struggle over the Yarmouk does not begin at the Jordanian border, nor does it end at the Unity Dam.

It begins in the upper basin, where the conditions determining whether water can reach downstream areas are established. It extends through dams, wells, and recharge zones, and ultimately concerns the capacity of different actors to determine how water resources are controlled and used.

The water question therefore becomes part of a larger geopolitical question: Who possesses the capacity to control geography—not merely the land itself, but the water that makes that land capable of supporting life, stability, and development?

It is precisely here that one of the most sensitive dimensions of Jordanian national security becomes apparent.

The water reaching Jordan is a strategic resource directly connected to sovereignty, security, and stability. Control over its sources and flow routes may become one of the least conspicuous, yet most enduring, instruments for reshaping the balance of power in southern Syria.

Conclusion

The integrated analysis of the issues examined in this position paper demonstrates that Jordan is entering a phase that requires moving beyond the traditional concept of security, which addresses each threat separately, toward a more comprehensive strategic vision that recognizes politics, water, borders, diplomacy, the economy, media, and society as interconnected components of a unified national security system.

Developments in Palestine cannot be separated from Jordanian national security, just as events in southern Syria cannot be examined independently of border and water security. Water security cannot be treated as an issue detached from politics and geography. Meanwhile, the media narrative has become an integral component of the state's capacity to protect its image and interests within a regional environment where information circulates as rapidly as events themselves unfold.

This interconnected equation reveals that threats do not always emerge in the form of direct confrontation. They may manifest through gradual geographical transformations, pressures on resources, the restructuring of borders and spheres of influence, demographic shifts, economic crises, or media narratives that penetrate the public sphere and reinterpret events according to the interests of other actors.

Preparedness, therefore, should not be limited to reacting to threats after they materialize. Rather, it must take the form of a continuous process aimed at strengthening the capacity to anticipate risks, mitigate their consequences, and maintain multiple options for responding to them.

Within this framework, His Majesty King Abdullah II's address to the United Nations acquires significance extending beyond the immediate political moment in which it was delivered. It can be understood as a broad framework for a Jordanian strategic vision seeking to move from addressing consequences to examining underlying causes, from awaiting regional developments to attempting to influence their direction, and from merely articulating political positions to developing the institutional capacity to implement them.

However, political vision, regardless of its clarity, is insufficient on its own. The real test begins when that vision is translated into implementable policies, institutions operating within a shared strategic framework, diplomacy capable of persuasion, media capable of communicating the national narrative at the appropriate time, and a society whose awareness enables it to become an active partner in protecting the state rather than merely a recipient of its messages.

The discussion concerning the reassessment of the Wadi Araba Peace Treaty also illustrates the nature of the questions that should guide decision-making in the coming phase. A serious review does not necessarily imply adopting a predetermined position. Rather, it involves evaluating existing policies, agreements, and strategic options against national interests in light of changing circumstances.

In addressing such issues, the state requires legal clarity, political calculations, security assessments, and a precise understanding of available alternatives, their associated costs, and their potential consequences.

Regarding water security, the need to develop a long-term strategy that treats water as an essential component of sovereignty and national security appears increasingly urgent. Jordan cannot control the climate, water sources located beyond its borders, or broader regional transformations. Nevertheless, it can strengthen its resilience by diversifying water sources, reducing water losses, developing water infrastructure networks, improving efficiency of use, and cultivating genuine public awareness of the value of water resources.

The same principle applies to border security. Military strength remains a fundamental element of border protection, but its effectiveness becomes more firmly established when supported by economic development, stable populations, investment, infrastructure, public services, and communities that regard their border regions as integral parts of the national territory and society.

The media sector, meanwhile, faces a new responsibility. It is no longer sufficient for official communication to emerge only after events have occurred. There is now a need for an integrated national communication system capable of preparing for potential scenarios, providing accurate information, coordinating key messages across institutions, and explaining Jordan's position to domestic and international audiences.

A state that fails to communicate its narrative at the appropriate time leaves an open space for others to interpret events on its behalf.

Ultimately, Jordan's strength lies in its capacity to transform its accumulated experience into a comprehensive system of preparedness for the future. Every previous crisis should provide an opportunity to identify institutional shortcomings and develop new capabilities for confronting similar challenges.

Jordan cannot reshape the region on its own, but it can reorganize its domestic instruments to expand its room for maneuver internationally. It cannot control the decisions of major powers, but it can define its interests more clearly, increase the costs associated with attempts to undermine its stability, and diversify its strategic options.

This brings the paper to its central conclusion: Jordan's capacity to navigate the coming phase will depend on its ability to establish an integrated national system that makes the state better prepared before crises, more resilient during them, and more capable of capitalizing on opportunities in their aftermath.

The coming phase will test Jordan's capacity to become a state that is more proactive in anticipating risks, more precise in defining its interests, more integrated in its institutional performance, clearer in communicating its narrative, more flexible in employing its instruments, and more steadfast in protecting its fundamental national principles.

Accordingly, the final question this paper leaves before decision-makers, society, and political, media, and intellectual elites moves beyond:

How can Jordan navigate the next crisis?

Toward a more fundamental question:

How can Jordan build a state that is less vulnerable to future crises, more capable of determining its own course, better positioned to defend its national interests, and more empowered to shape its future rather than merely adapting to a future shaped by others?

Issued by Jordanian Masarat for Development and Progress