Introduction

This paper emerges from the heart of an intense debate surrounding the nature of conflicts in the Middle East. The region’s complex geopolitical terrain, abundance of resources, and uniquely strategic location have effectively transformed it into a global arena for the settling of accounts among major powers—while its peoples bear the burden of these intricate confrontations in a profoundly inequitable manner.

Adopting a deeply analytical perspective, this paper examines both the direct and indirect consequences of these dynamics on Arab societies—from the erosion of food and economic security to the fragmentation of social structures and the depletion of human capital.

At its core, the paper revolves around a central question: Who pays the price?

Chapter One: What the Middle East Needs to Understand Its Adversary

In its current structure, the region exists in an incomplete transitional state between an old regional order that has lost cohesion and a new order whose contours have yet to crystallize. This condition of strategic fluidity creates space for escalating conflicts, expanding external intervention, and the growing influence of non-state actors, while some states experience a relative decline in their capacity to monopolize sovereignty and internal control mechanisms.

Within this context, manifestations of instability are particularly visible in several pivotal regional states. Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine continue to grapple with compounded crises spanning institutional fragility, political fragmentation, economic pressure, and the aftermath of armed conflict—rendering them open arenas for the reproduction of regional and international tensions.

Amid this landscape, Jordan is directly and profoundly affected by these transformations, given its geographic position, the interdependence of its economic interests, and the linkage between its national security and regional stability. This impact manifests across three interrelated levels:

First: The political–security level, connected to border management, refugee files, regional balances, and negotiation trajectories in major issues—foremost among them the Palestinian question.

Second: The economic level, tied to trade flows, energy markets, reconstruction opportunities in neighboring countries, and pressures related to public expenditure and fiscal challenges.

Third: The social level, where regional crises shape public sentiment, societal expectations, and perceptions of long-term stability in the region.

Concurrently, the notion of a “New Middle East” re-emerges as an explanatory framework for attempts to reshape regional power balances—whether through the reconfiguration of alliances, the imposition of new security and economic arrangements, or the promotion of alternative governance models in certain states. However, this concept cannot be isolated from a broader restructuring of the international system itself, marked by the rise of competing global powers and the relative decline in the hegemonic capacity of a dominant power to impose its models without resistance or cost.

At the heart of these equations, the Syrian file emerges as a pivotal case with wide-ranging political, security, and economic ramifications. Its significance stems from its direct connection to reconstruction prospects, refugee movements, and regional power balances, in addition to its position within international calculations related to energy corridors and geopolitical influence. For Jordan, this file represents a multidimensional strategic depth that extends beyond border considerations to encompass economic exchange, trade flows, and broader regional stability.

Conversely, the Palestinian issue remains the most constant and influential variable in Middle Eastern dynamics. As a central cause, it continues to reshape political alignments, affect levels of regional tension, and generate complex international interactions. It also constitutes one of the most critical determinants of Jordan’s foreign policy posture, given its historical, political, and security ties to the Kingdom, as well as its direct implications for domestic and regional stability.

At the international level, the Middle East remains one of the primary arenas of strategic competition among major powers. The strategies of the United States, Russia, China, and the European Union intersect across multiple files, including energy security, maritime routes, military alliances, markets, and political influence. This competition frequently takes indirect forms—through proxy wars, economic pressure mechanisms, or the restructuring of regional alliances.

Within this framework, several key determinants shape the region’s conflict dynamics, most notably:

• Competition over energy resources, supply lines, and global trade corridors.
• Struggles for geopolitical influence and the redrawing of spheres of control.
• The growing role of non-state actors and the resulting complexity of conflict structures.
• Increasing reliance on economic and technological instruments as tools of leverage and dominance.

The repercussions of these determinants extend beyond the political sphere into the societal domain, manifesting in waves of displacement and migration, declining development levels, widening social disparities, and mounting psychological and economic pressures on local communities. Their impact also reverberates at the level of the international system itself, amid growing debates about the effectiveness of international institutions, the limits of international law, and the challenges of applying human rights standards within prolonged conflict contexts.

In light of the above, the Middle East stands at a historical crossroads where the reconfiguration of the regional order intersects with broader transformations in the international system. This reality places the region’s states—including Jordan—before the strategic challenge of formulating adaptive approaches capable of navigating an environment marked by extreme fluidity and complexity, without falling into complete dependency on external power balances.

 

Chapter Two: Consolidating Control over Middle Eastern Resources

This chapter moves the analysis from describing the region’s broader context to unpacking the actual power balances that shape its trajectory. These balances are not governed by the logic of absolute victories or total defeats; rather, they operate within pragmatic frameworks that prioritize minimizing losses and maximizing incremental gains as central pillars of state strategy.

In this regard, Middle Eastern dynamics cannot be understood in isolation from the existing international hierarchy. The United States continues to occupy the most influential position in the global order—not solely due to military superiority, but also through economic, technological, and institutional instruments of dominance, and through its capacity to reproduce influence via alliances and transnational networks. Within this reality, key regional actors tend to manage their relationship with this dominant power rather than confront it directly, guided by cost calculations, risk assessments, and the limits of their own capabilities.

Within this landscape, a group of regional powers can be described as forming a “strategic relative-weight bloc” in the Middle East—most notably Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. These states possess composite elements of power, including military capabilities, economic resources, geopolitical positioning, and political influence within their surroundings. Yet despite differences in alignment and orientation, these actors do not pursue comprehensive confrontation with the globally dominant power. Instead, they operate within a framework of ongoing negotiation, seeking interim understandings that preserve interests and reduce potential losses.

This approach reflects a broader transformation in strategic thinking across the region. The notion of “complete victory” has become increasingly unrealistic amid structural power asymmetries. Priority is instead given to crisis management, the avoidance of systemic collapse, and exiting conflicts with the lowest possible political, economic, and security costs. This aligns with what political literature often refers to as “pragmatic realism”—a doctrine that emphasizes adaptation to prevailing power balances rather than challenging them without possessing credible counterbalancing tools.

From another angle, conflicts in the Middle East are increasingly managed through a pattern of proxy warfare, whereby regional and local actors are instrumentalized to pursue strategic objectives within indirect conflict frameworks. This model enables major powers to secure geopolitical and economic advantages without incurring the full costs of direct military confrontation, while leaving the region in a state of prolonged attrition.

This pattern is closely linked to a redefinition of control in the Middle East, which now encompasses multiple forms of influence, including:

• Security control through regional arrangements and military alliances.
• Economic leverage via financing mechanisms, investment flows, and sanctions regimes.
• Demographic restructuring through displacement and forced migration.
• Technological and informational dominance, shaping public opinion and influencing decision-making processes.

Within this context, parallel and competing influence projects are taking shape across the region. American, Israeli, Turkish, and Iranian strategies intersect with emerging Arab efforts aimed at rebuilding regional cooperation frameworks capable of balancing external pressures. These projects, however, do not operate in isolation; they frequently intersect within temporary negotiated arrangements or confrontational episodes, depending on shifting calculations of interest and threat.

At the military level, U.S. strategy has evolved from large-scale direct intervention toward a model of “indirect engagement,” relying on regional allies, intelligence tools, economic pressure, and limited operations to achieve strategic objectives without descending into prolonged and costly wars. Many regional conflicts can thus be understood as episodes within broader long-term struggles, in which political and economic pressures accumulate over time before culminating in calibrated military action or decisive strikes.

From a deeper analytical perspective, it can be argued that conflict in the Middle East has evolved into a struggle over reshaping the political, social, and economic structures of states, as well as redistributing centers of influence within the region. This is evident in attempts to redefine the very concept of the “Middle East”—whether in terms of its political boundaries, demographic composition, security arrangements, or economic patterns.

Within this framework, a fundamental question emerges regarding the capacity of Arab states to formulate an autonomous regional project capable of reducing reliance on external powers and strengthening collective bargaining power. Past experiences suggest that the absence of coordinated Arab strategic alignment, divergent national priorities, and the accumulation of internal crises have weakened the ability to produce unified positions or independent regional initiatives.

Nevertheless, ongoing shifts in regional alliance structures and emerging convergences in certain economic and security files may open space for new forms of cooperation—albeit within the constraints of political realism and international balance-of-power considerations.

Accordingly, the Middle East appears poised in the coming years to enter a phase characterized more by the management of conflict than its resolution, and by continuous efforts to recalibrate power balances without reaching a definitive point of stability. Within this equation, the realistic objective for regional actors is not decisive victory, but rather improving negotiating positions, minimizing the costs of confrontation, and preserving a minimum threshold of political and economic stability.

This chapter thus sets the stage for a more specialized analysis in the subsequent sections, examining competing regional projects, patterns of alliance formation, and their direct implications for states affected by regional dynamics—foremost among them Jordan—in terms of strategic options, constraints on maneuverability, and opportunities for adaptation within an exceptionally fluid regional environment.

Chapter Three: The Cost of Assuming the Hero’s Role

Historically, the region has served as a theater for the interaction of diverse nationalist and regional projects. Yet the current phase reveals a shift from direct ideological confrontation toward a model of composite influence, relying on a multiplicity of tools—including economic leverage, energy corridors, security arrangements, demographic engineering, technological influence, and the management of internal crises within states.

Within this context, an active regional triangle emerges in shaping Middle Eastern trajectories: Israel, Iran, and Turkey—alongside shifting Arab roles, particularly those of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. This configuration does not represent a fixed alliance structure; rather, it reflects a complex competitive matrix in which interests intersect and diverge simultaneously, depending on moment-specific political calculations and international power balances.

The concept of the “functional role of states” also gains prominence in this landscape as an analytical framework explaining how states engage within the international system. Each state, to varying degrees, performs specific functions within global networks of interest—whether in security, energy, trade, or political equilibrium. Such roles do not inherently signify weakness or dependency; rather, they reflect a state’s ability to leverage its geopolitical position to maximize gains and minimize the costs of engagement in conflict.

At the international level, American presence remains the most influential factor shaping Middle Eastern interactions—through military alliances, economic leverage, and the capacity to manage conflict trajectories. In contrast, Russia’s and China’s roles are governed by different strategic considerations. Russian engagement is concentrated in geopolitical spaces proximate to its vital borders, while China adopts an approach centered on economic and commercial expansion without broad-scale direct military involvement. As a result, their influence in the region differs in nature from that of the United States.

Simultaneously, transformations within Gulf states, convergence across selected regional files, and attempts to redefine the roles of major Arab powers indicate a gradual process of repositioning the region within the international system—from a passive “arena of conflict” to a more assertive negotiating actor seeking to safeguard its interests within a complex global order.

Yet identity-based conflicts—sectarian, ethnic, and nationalist—remain deeply intertwined with geopolitical struggles, compounding complexity and undermining efforts to produce inclusive cross-cutting regional projects. These entanglements have contributed to the prolongation of crises and their transformation into protracted conflicts that resist both military and political resolution in the short term.

Chapter Four: The Role of the Victim and Its Burdens

The cumulative layering of regional transformations, the overlap of competing international influence projects, and the persistence of open conflict zones have led to a central outcome: the deepening fragility of the Arab region. This fragility is not incidental, but rather the historical product of prolonged political, security, and economic interactions in which external pressures converged with internal divisions to produce a vulnerable and permeable environment prone to fragmentation.

Within this context, analytical readings increasingly suggest that the real cost of ongoing regional conflicts has not been borne primarily by major powers or international actors, but by Arab states and societies themselves. The consequences are visible in the erosion of the nation-state, the fragmentation of social cohesion, and the expansion of political, economic, and security vulnerabilities. Entire societies have become arenas of attrition, where identity-based and sectarian conflicts intersect with geopolitical pressures amid weakened institutional capacity to manage or contain crises.

This trajectory cannot be understood apart from the pragmatic nature of international and regional politics. Influential actors operate according to strategic interest rather than normative or moral considerations. International relations, in their realist structure, function through power balances, rendering the region a crossroads of intersecting and competing interests—particularly given its geopolitical importance and its linkage to energy security and critical trade corridors.

Amid this landscape, identity conflicts have emerged as one of the most fragmenting forces in the region. Ideological and sectarian divisions have redrawn lines of tension within states and weakened their capacity to generate inclusive internal consensus. In some cases, these divisions have escalated into open-ended conflicts with regional extensions, prolonging crises rather than resolving them.

The gravity of these dynamics is compounded by the centrality of the Palestinian issue within Arab political consciousness. Although the issue retains symbolic and political resonance, it has at times been instrumentalized within broader regional and international power calculations. This has, in certain phases, partially displaced it from its position as a unifying national liberation cause to that of a bargaining instrument within regional competition.

At the level of strategic losses, three primary spheres of impact can be identified:

1. The Palestinian sphere, which remains the most directly pressured—both on the ground and in terms of political representation and unity of national decision-making.
2. The neighboring regional states, which find themselves at the heart of the conflict’s security, economic, and demographic repercussions due to geographic proximity and structural interlinkage with the Palestinian question.
3. The broader Arab sphere, where the cumulative result has been a decline in the effectiveness of the Arab regional system and a widening gap between collective capabilities and actual influence.

In the specific case of Jordan, the state’s position acquires heightened sensitivity due to its placement at the core of regional interactions. This exposes it to both direct and indirect consequences of surrounding imbalances. Yet such sensitivity does not imply an absence of maneuverability or resilience; rather, it underscores the central importance of national awareness and internal cohesion as determinants of stability.

Regional experiences over the past two decades demonstrate that sharp ideological polarization has been one of the most significant pathways to state weakening, particularly when political and intellectual disagreements evolve into structural conflicts threatening the very foundations of the state. In this light, the notion of “national consensus” emerges as a preventive instrument—aimed not at eliminating difference, but at managing it within the institutional framework of the state.

At the same time, another challenge surfaces in the tendency of public discourse—at times—to entrench a self-image of perpetual victimhood in the face of international conflicts. Such a posture risks limiting the transition from passive reception to strategic initiative. Moving toward agency requires redefining priorities and constructing policies grounded in a realistic assessment of capabilities and constraints, rather than engaging in strategic gambles that exceed national capacity.

This dimension gains particular importance within a regional environment that offers little tolerance for strategic miscalculation. Political or security missteps can generate costs that extend beyond national borders. Accordingly, calibrating expectations and aligning political discourse with practical capabilities becomes essential to avoiding high-risk trajectories.

Furthermore, the evolution of the international system toward a form of relative multipolarity compels small and medium-sized states to adopt flexible survival strategies. These strategies depend on diversifying partnerships, managing balance-of-power dynamics, and leveraging geopolitical positioning without full alignment to any single axis.

At the knowledge-production level, multiple experiences indicate that insufficient investment in strategic research centers and policy-planning institutions has curtailed the capacity to anticipate and effectively navigate structural transformations. Policymaking is not built on reactive measures alone; it rests upon cumulative knowledge and long-term strategic analysis that connects past trajectories with present realities and future scenarios.

In sum, the region appears to be undergoing a historical phase marked by simultaneous recalibration of power balances and redefinition of the nation-state’s role and functions. Within this phase, the prospects for survival and influence depend on states’ ability to consolidate internally, manage difference constructively, fortify the national sphere, and engage regionally and globally from a position of agency rather than vulnerability.

Chapter Five: Invoking History… Between Pride and Lament

Analyzing the trajectory of international and regional interactions necessitates moving beyond emotional approaches to conflict toward a strategic, knowledge-based framework grounded in understanding how major powers think, operate, and define the limits of their maneuverability. Comprehending international behavior does not come from treating events as isolated political scandals or episodic crises, but from transforming them into analytical material upon which realistic, adaptive policies can be built—policies aligned with prevailing balances of power.

Within this context, one of the persistent shortcomings in certain Arab approaches has been the tendency to invoke history either as a source of pride or as a space for lamentation—without converting it into a cognitive tool for anticipating the future. Reading history as accumulated experience rather than emotional narrative enables a deeper understanding of patterns of external intervention, mechanisms of division, and processes through which political identities in the region have been reshaped.

Over time, identity-based tensions have entrenched classificatory and divisive patterns within societies, weakening the ability to produce inclusive political projects. Here, invoking history should serve to reconstruct awareness rather than reproduce fragmentation—offering insight into how current political and social structures were formed and how the roots of their fragility might be addressed.

From another perspective, analyzing international interactions requires acknowledging that the region remains governed largely by the logic of power and its balances. International engagement in the Middle East has been driven by strategic awareness of geopolitical positioning, resource wealth, energy corridors, and security configurations. States that fail to internalize the “rules of engagement” within this international order risk marginalization and loss.

Re-examining the Arab political experience—including the Palestinian case—reveals the centrality of internal unity in strengthening political and negotiating capacity. Multiple historical experiences demonstrate that internal division often served as an entry point for eroding agency and weakening bargaining positions in the face of external pressure.

Furthermore, transformations in the international system since the end of the Cold War initially produced a unipolar or near-unipolar environment before gradually evolving toward a form of relative multipolarity. Yet this shift does not signify a decisive decline of the dominant power; rather, it reflects a redistribution of influence across military, economic, and technological domains.

In this broader landscape, the question of a coherent “political project” emerges as one of the weakest links in contemporary Arab experience. A unified regional vision capable of pooling resources and capabilities within a long-term strategic framework has yet to crystallize. As a result, many states remain reactive rather than proactive.

Comparative international experiences suggest that engagement with major powers is not determined solely by military strength. States that have preserved stability have often done so not through direct confrontation, but through a combination of political pragmatism, diplomatic flexibility, and careful maximization of national interests.

In the Jordanian case, this logic assumes existential significance rather than constituting a mere policy choice. Geographic location, interwoven regional files, and the sensitivity of internal balances make foreign policy management a delicate process requiring multi-layered calculations and a careful equilibrium between national constants and international realities.

Fortifying the domestic front remains the most decisive factor in enabling external maneuverability. Social cohesion, national awareness, and clarity of priorities constitute the first lines of defense against external pressures, granting decision-makers broader room to operate within a volatile regional environment.

Strategic thinking, moreover, requires moving beyond reliance on an external “savior” or speculative bets on sudden international shifts. Instead, it calls for the gradual construction of self-reliant capacities grounded in a realistic assessment of national capabilities, the effective use of geopolitical positioning, and the development of economic and political instruments of influence.

Ultimately, the central challenge facing Arab states lies in transforming knowledge into policy, history into lessons, division into consensus, and weakness into a long-term reform project capable of enhancing resilience and agency within an evolving international order.

Chapter Six: Room for Maneuver… Limits of Cohesion… and Moving Beyond Divisions

This chapter proceeds from a central premise: a state’s ability to maneuver within a turbulent regional environment is determined primarily by its internal cohesion, the clarity of its national project, and its capacity to transform challenges into opportunities. In the case of medium-resource states, national strength is measured less by raw power and more by the ability of state and society to generate internal consensus, manage disagreements within institutional frameworks, and build an economy capable of resilience.

First: The Internal Front Between Cohesion and Legitimate Difference

The Jordanian reality reflects a considerable degree of consensus around major national constants—foremost among them state stability, preservation of political identity, and protection of strategic interests. Yet this consensus does not eliminate differences in perspectives and policy choices among political and social actors. Such differences are natural in modern societies; they become destabilizing only when they evolve into political rupture or a breakdown of dialogue channels.

The absence of structured dialogue between the state and political and societal forces gradually hardens positions, narrows areas of mutual understanding, and reinforces defensive postures on all sides. Conversely, institutionalized dialogue helps rebuild trust, broaden participation, and ease tension—thereby strengthening the state’s ability to manage external challenges from a more cohesive internal position.

From this standpoint, reactivating national dialogue platforms emerges as a strategic necessity rather than a temporary political measure. These platforms should serve as foundations for shared approaches concerning the future of the state, its economic priorities, and the boundaries of its regional options.

Second: The Economy as a Stabilizing or Destabilizing Force

Comparative experiences demonstrate that economic pressure is among the most decisive factors affecting state stability—particularly when intersecting with social imbalances or growing perceptions of injustice. In the Jordanian context, the economy stands as a central determinant of internal stability, directly shaping the relationship between state and society.

Persistently limited growth patterns, rising living costs, unemployment, and declining purchasing power risk becoming internal pressure points if not addressed within a comprehensive long-term economic vision. Conversely, the economy can serve as a stabilizing lever through expanded productive capacity, investment stimulation, and development of strategic sectors.

In this regard, reassessing the cost borne by the state due to its regional roles—especially in hosting refugees and providing humanitarian services—becomes essential. While these roles carry moral and humanitarian significance, they have imposed substantial burdens on infrastructure and the national economy. This reality necessitates more sustainable international cost-sharing mechanisms and a transition from short-term humanitarian assistance toward long-term development partnerships.

Third: Diversifying Partnerships and Reducing Single-Axis Dependence

Global transformations compel medium-sized states to adopt flexible foreign policies rooted in diversification of partnerships rather than reliance on a single axis. Multiplicity in political and economic relations broadens maneuverability and reduces exposure to the volatility of international politics.

This includes strengthening cooperation with Arab states, deepening relations with Europe, and engaging with emerging economic powers—while maintaining balanced relations with major global actors. Diversification does not imply disengagement from traditional partners; rather, it entails recalibrating relationships on the basis of mutual interests and respect for sovereignty and national particularity.

Ultimately, maneuverability in a volatile region depends less on dramatic geopolitical shifts and more on sustained internal consolidation, economic resilience, and calibrated external engagement. In such an environment, cohesion becomes strategy, balance becomes policy, and pragmatism becomes a condition for endurance.

Fourth: Reducing Dependence on a Volatile Region and Building Relative Self-Sufficiency

Jordan’s geographic position necessitates engagement with a turbulent neighborhood. However, such engagement should not evolve into excessive economic dependence on unstable environments. Accordingly, there is a pressing need to develop policies that reduce exposure to regional crises by strengthening domestic production and broadening the national economic base.

This includes:

• Investing in renewable energy to reduce import dependence and enhance energy autonomy.
• Advancing food security projects and decreasing reliance on volatile external supply chains.
• Utilizing available natural resources within transparent and sustainable frameworks.
• Stimulating productive sectors capable of generating meaningful employment opportunities.

Fifth: Active Diplomacy as a First Line of Defense

Effective diplomatic presence constitutes a primary instrument for safeguarding national interests, particularly within a region marked by intensifying conflict. Communicating the state’s narrative, emphasizing the importance of its stability, and reinforcing its regional role all contribute to strengthening its international standing and enhancing its ability to attract political and economic support.

In this regard, diplomacy cannot be separated from domestic dynamics. The strength of external messaging is intrinsically linked to the solidity of the internal front and the clarity of the national project articulated by the state.

Sixth: The Human Being as the Core of National Security

Contemporary transformations demonstrate that conflict is no longer confined to the military domain. It has expanded into digital, economic, cultural, and knowledge spheres. Within this evolving environment, the human element becomes central to resilience and recovery.

Investment in education, curriculum reform, youth empowerment, and strengthening trust in institutions constitute deep lines of national defense. Neglecting these dimensions risks generating societal fragility whose consequences may surpass external pressures.

Recent experiences further indicate that economic warfare, supply chains, data governance, and currencies have become instruments of influence comparable in significance to military power. This reality necessitates strengthening national capacities in digital economy sectors, cybersecurity, and knowledge management.

Seventh: Toward a Comprehensive National Project

The most pressing challenge lies in transitioning toward the construction of an integrated national project that links economy, politics, education, and culture within a long-term vision. The absence of such a unifying project leaves the state in a continuous cycle of crisis management without the capacity to transcend recurring vulnerabilities.

This transition requires:

• Formulating a productive, rather than rent-based, economic vision.
• Developing strategic thinking institutions and policy-making capacities.
• Enhancing structured political participation.
• Rebuilding the relationship between state and society on the basis of trust and shared responsibility.

Ultimately, Jordan’s resilience is inseparable from its capacity to transform the domestic sphere into a source of strength rather than a space for absorbing external pressure. States that successfully navigate major transformations are not merely those that avoid conflict, but those that build internal systems capable of absorbing shocks and adapting to them.

Conclusion

The analyses and discussions presented in this paper underscore that the Middle East, as a theater for settling strategic rivalries, demonstrates a recurring pattern: the heaviest costs are borne by human societies. Economic strain, social fragmentation, and political instability accumulate within communities, while major powers continue to redraw lines of influence in pursuit of their own interests.

Sustainable peace and security in the region cannot be achieved through isolated or reactive measures. Rather, they require multi-level strategies that strengthen human resilience, restructure institutions, safeguard vital resources, and develop intelligent diplomatic mechanisms capable of absorbing crises and minimizing their societal impact.

Issued by Masarat for Development and Progress
11/02/2026