Jordanian newspapers have recently witnessed an intense debate among prominent columnists over the unfolding war in the region and its political, religious, and strategic implications. Opinion writers addressed a wide range of issues, from concerns about the fate of Al-Aqsa Mosque to analyses of the United States’ calculations in its war against Iran, as well as the broader repercussions of the conflict for the region and the world.

Taken together, these columns paint a complex picture of a deeply volatile regional landscape. Religious sensitivities, political rivalries, and strategic calculations intersect with mounting fears that the war could expand and reshape the Middle East.

Al-Aqsa at the Center of Concern

Columnist Maher Abu Tair focused his article on what he described as growing threats facing Al-Aqsa Mosque amid the climate of war. He warned that Israel is exploiting every political or military development to consolidate its control over Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem.

Abu Tair wrote that Israel “has closed Al-Aqsa repeatedly since the beginning of the occupation,” noting that the most recent closure lasted twelve days during last June’s war with Iran before authorities again shut the compound while simultaneously closing the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron.

According to Abu Tair, these measures send a clear political message.

“Israel exploits any circumstance to show contempt for Islamic holy sites and to demonstrate that Al-Aqsa is under its control, opening it whenever it wishes and closing it whenever it wishes.”

He added that the latest closure came during the holy month of Ramadan, meaning that worshippers were unable to perform the nightly Taraweeh and Qiyam prayers at the mosque. At the same time, only “fifty Muslim worshippers were allowed to perform each obligatory prayer at the Ibrahimi Mosque.”

The columnist warned of even more alarming scenarios, writing that Israeli narratives have circulated about the possibility of destroying Al-Aqsa. Some voices in Israel, he noted, have even spoken about the possibility of “destroying the mosque with a missile that could be attributed to Iran,” a scenario he believes could serve either as preparation for such an act or as a tactic to deter Iran from targeting Jerusalem with missiles.

Abu Tair stressed that the idea of a “missile blamed on Iran” is not new. Similar talk, he wrote, surfaced during the previous war in June. The risks, he added, go beyond this scenario and include the possibility of detonations from underground tunnels or explosives planted beneath the compound, which could trigger a devastating security incident.

He further argued that Israel’s focus on Al-Aqsa is unmistakable. Authorities have tightened security restrictions in Jerusalem, imposed economic pressure on Palestinian residents, levied heavy taxes, and demolished homes. According to Abu Tair, the period following October 7, 2023 has created what Israel sees as “the most favorable climate to destroy Al-Aqsa and erase the Islamic identity of Jerusalem, and perhaps even its Christian identity.”

In conclusion, Abu Tair emphasized that the issue is not solely religious.

“Politically speaking, the Haram al-Sharif and Al-Aqsa Mosque are Israel’s most important strategic target. The issue is not purely religious; it is about the identity of the city and the removal of its most prominent Islamic landmark.”

The Calculations Behind the U.S. War

In a separate column, writer Alaa Al-Din Abu Zina examined a key question surrounding the conflict with Iran: Did the U.S. administration miscalculate its opponent?

Abu Zina based his analysis on an interview with Iranian-American scholar Vali Nasr, who argued that the American mistake goes beyond military tactics and reflects a deeper misunderstanding of the structure of the Iranian political system.

Nasr pointed out that the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, despite its enormous symbolic impact, did not paralyze the Iranian state. According to his analysis, the Islamic Republic was designed from its inception as a multi-centered institutional system rather than one dependent on a single individual.

Institutions such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Supreme National Security Council, and various political and religious decision-making bodies together form a network capable of maintaining continuity even in the absence of the supreme leader.

Abu Zina also highlighted Nasr’s argument that each side in the conflict defines victory differently. The United States, he wrote, appeared to shift its objectives repeatedly, from dismantling Iran’s nuclear program to pursuing regime change, then back to the nuclear issue and again to the goal of overthrowing the government.

Israel, on the other hand, seeks a broader strategic outcome: weakening Iran to the point that it can no longer act as a major regional power. Iran itself views the war as an existential struggle, making a quick ceasefire politically unacceptable.

Central to Nasr’s analysis is the concept of “endurance” or the ability to absorb pain. Modern wars, he argued, are not decided solely by military strength but by how much loss each side can sustain politically, economically, and socially.

From this perspective, Abu Zina wrote, both Iran and Israel may have a greater capacity for endurance than the United States, where public opinion historically shows little appetite for prolonged and costly wars in the Middle East.

Calls for Ending the War

Columnist Rashad Abu Daoud approached the conflict from another angle, urging a sober and rational assessment rather than emotional reactions.

“This war requires thinking with the mind, not the heart,” he wrote. “Even as the region grows hotter, our analysis must remain cold. The questions are far more numerous than the answers.”

Abu Daoud raised a series of questions about how the war might end, who might emerge victorious, and who will ultimately bear the costs.

He noted that the United States and Israel justified the war by claiming that Iran was “on the verge” of developing a nuclear weapon. However, he argued that such wording does not mean the act had actually occurred and therefore should not have led to a destructive war with catastrophic consequences.

The columnist also suggested that U.S. President Donald Trump hesitated before launching the conflict, holding multiple meetings with advisers and military leaders before ultimately deciding to proceed.

Some analysts, he wrote, attribute the decision to intense pressure from pro-Israel circles and political lobbies in the United States.

Abu Daoud warned against attempts to expand the war to include the Gulf states, urging them not to become entangled in a conflict that does not serve their interests.

He concluded by suggesting that Trump may eventually seek an exit from the war.

“The president may soon climb down from the tree,” he wrote, “ending the war while declaring victory.”

Shifting Global Opinion

In another column, writer Sultan Al-Hattab discussed changing global attitudes toward Israel. He recounted attending a cultural event in Cairo marking the anniversary of the historic Egyptian magazine Al-Hilal, where discussions touched on the historical roots of the Palestinian narrative in Arab journalism.

During the event, he said, a participant cited passages from the diaries of former U.S. President Harry Truman, which contained critical remarks about Jewish political influence.

However, the central focus of Al-Hattab’s article was a recent debate at Oxford University’s Oxford Union, where members voted on a motion describing Israel as an apartheid state responsible for genocide.

According to the column, the motion passed by 278 votes, reflecting a striking shift in sentiment among students in one of the world’s most prominent debate forums.

Al-Hattab quoted Jewish scholar Norman Finkelstein, who said during the debate:

“When you look at Gaza today, what you see is not a conventional war but the destruction of an entire society.”

For Al-Hattab, the debate illustrates a broader transformation in Western academic circles, where universities have become a major arena for political debate over the Middle East conflict.

Harsh Criticism of Trump’s Administration

Finally, columnist Ali Saadeh offered a sharp critique of President Trump, arguing that the decision to wage war against Iran was based on questionable advice.

Saadeh wrote that presidents typically rely on national security councils and intelligence briefings.

“Trump, however, relies on family,” he wrote, referring to his son-in-law Jared Kushner.

According to Saadeh, Trump justified his decision by saying:

“Based on what Jared Kushner told me, I believed Iran was going to attack us.”

For the columnist, this reflected what he described as nepotism in decision-making, warning that the war could ultimately be remembered as a historic mistake.

He added that the consequences of such policies could prove devastating not only for the region but also for the global economy and supply chains.

A Region on Edge

Taken together, these columns illustrate how Jordanian opinion writers are grappling with what they see as a pivotal moment in the region’s history. Concerns over Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa intersect with strategic calculations about a widening war between major powers.

From warnings about threats to holy sites, to debates over the logic of the conflict and calls for de-escalation, Jordanian columnists are offering a critical reading of a rapidly evolving crisis that could reshape the Middle East for years to come.