Jordan’s decades of stability, rooted in inclusive governance and strategic alliances, now face existential threats from regional upheavals—particularly Israeli policies and the persisting notion of Jordan as an alternate state.  Escalating regional conflicts threaten Jordan’s internal cohesion and destabilizing its role as the Middle East’s few enduring mediators.

The Emirate of Transjordan, under the Hashemite leadership, emerged in a volatile 20th century, relying on a strategic partnership with the British to uphold stability in a turbulent region. Early accords symbolized a favorable perception of Hashemite rule among Western allies; the McMahon-Hussein Correspondences and the Anglo-Transjordanian treaty mirror this satisfactory view: these unities established a framework of governance with the British maintained influence over military and foreign affairs in exchange for stability and allegiance.

This foundational relationship evolved during the Cold War as the United States sought regional allies to counter Soviet Influence, specifically under its “ABC” (Anything but Communist) policy. Jordan’s “moderate, stable, and anti-communist” stance aligned with U.S. strategic interests, positioning the Hashemite Kingdom as a pivotal mediator in advancing regional stability while bearing Western influence in the Middle East.

Internally, Jordan faced divisions and continuous attempts at revolutions as it embraced citizens from neighboring states as its own. Yet, the Hashemite family embraced a form of governance that countered the forces attempting to exploit these divisions. Hashemite ruling fostered social candor towards the diverse ethnic components of society. The diverse ethnic groups in Jordan equally contributed to its economic, social, and political spheres; the social equity offered relative openness to the opposition and at times provided oppositionists political roles to effect change. The tolerant policies of the ruling family have reverberated top down in Jordanian society. While Jordan has cultivated internal unity through inclusive governance, external pressures, especially Israeli policies, threaten the stability that has allowed it to play this mediator role.

Decades of turbulence, internally and externally, was enriching Jordan’s track record as a reliable mediator and an anchor to regional stability. Jordan has served as the nexus between the West and the Arab world, mediating during key regional conflicts, the Palestinian Israeli conflict, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the Arab Quartet-Qatar Crisis. These conflicts—combined with Jordan’s unique position as a mediator—have earned the Kingdom esteem on the global stage, reinforcing its sovereignty and profound impact on Middle Eastern stability. Yet, as external pressures escalate, these same roles face increasing jeopardy.

The very same factors that have allowed Jordan to maintain stability, its inclusive governance and mediator role, are now under direct threat from Israeli policies and their impacts extend far on Jordanian sovereignty and regional standing; exponentially increasing following the October 7^th incidents, the long term Israeli objective remains clear of Jordan’s role as an alternate state—with record high settlement violence in the West Bank following the war on Gaza.

Based on discussion I have had with students at my college I noticed a shifting mindset among Israeli citizens post-October 7, reflecting trends in Israeli policy that potentially impact Jordanian stability. Participants expressed skepticism regarding the feasibility and viability of a two-state solution; but instead rejuvenated the controversial vision of resettling Palestinians, West Bankers in Jordan, and Gazans in Sinai as a solution to the ongoing conflicts. Many also advocated for continued military action in Gaza and Lebanon, even at the expense of regional stability. Such rhetoric not only undermines the peace process but also exacerbates tensions for Jordan, where any proposal involving Palestinian resettlement threatens its social fabric and sovereignty—recognizing that 1 in 5 Jordanians are of Palestinian descent. Furthermore, the focus group’s alignment with the “Samson Option,” underscores consensus on Israeli ambitions where national security supersedes regional stability: a strategy that directly undermines Jordan’s role as a mediator and anchor to stability.

Collectively, the role of Jordan as an alternate state, coinciding with the record-high settlement violence in the West Bank, hints at the possibility of an influx of refugees that will further strain Jordan’s limited resources by requiring more local GIS urban planning, providing jobs in record high unemployment rates, and health care in a malfunctioning public sector; ultimately, acting as a burden on the Jordanian economy. In addition, the relocation of Palestinians will also alter the status quo of Jordan as custodian to Jerusalem’s Islamic and Christian holy sites—a cornerstone to Hashemite legitimacy in the Arab and Islamic world—shedding light on an ulterior religious legitimacy conflict, threatening internal stability and jeopardizing Jordan’s role as a reliable mediator in the increasingly uncertain Arab world.

Jordan’s long standing role as a moderate, inclusive, and mediating state is a basis of its identity and resilience. Though, the escalating conflicts in the region present a clear Israeli policy that directly coincides with Jordanian stability as a sovereign nation. The potential influx of refugees, coupled with increasing settlement violence and undermining Jordan’s custodianship of Jerusalem’s Islamic and Christian holy sites, potentially jeopardizes the foundations of Hashemite legitimacy and Jordan’s carefully maintained internal cohesion.

As the external pressures mount, alongside the hardline pro-Israeli Trump administration, safeguarding Jordan’s stability is not merely a national imperative but a regional inevitability. The Kingdom’s role as a mediator and anchor of tolerance and peace in a sea of instability remains indispensable. Addressing these existential threats requires concentrated independent efforts to uphold Jordan’s sovereignty through serious navigation of independent reform efforts and further exploring key regional partners that cement the historical identity Jordanian leadership strived to achieve.

Jordan’s steadfast commitment to ensuring an open model of co-existence—internally and externally—remains its stabilizing might in the Middle East. By limiting the spillover effects of the multitude of conflicts by acting as a buffer zone; Jordan provides invaluable stability to its neighbors and the international community. A stable and prosperous Jordan is vital for Middle Eastern prosperity, making its assurance of stability the cause of all.

The writer is a recent Jordanian high school graduate and a freshman at Portland Community College. Since the age of 13, he has engaged in interviews with prominent businessmen and politicians throughout the region, seeking to deepen his understanding of the Jordanian political and economic landscape. Laith is currently being mentored by Dr. Marwan Muasher, who has guided him in the development of this article.