Dr.Saud Al-Sharafat
In an era of recalibrated alliances and rebranded geopolitical visions, Jordan finds itself at the crossroads of evolving U.S. policies and an increasingly complex regional landscape. The longstanding strategic partnership between Jordan, Israel, and the United States is now being reshaped—not least by President Trump’s unconventional approach. His proposal to “rebuild” Gaza into a resort-like “Riviera” has stirred controversy and redefined expectations, further complicating the delicate balance Jordan must maintain in a turbulent Middle East.
I. Foundations of Strategic Alliances in a Changing Landscape
Jordan’s historical ties with the United States and Israel have long provided the Kingdom with a measure of security and stability. From its designation as a Major Non-NATO Ally to its critical role in regional military exercises, Jordan has capitalized on decades of established relationships. Yet, these same ties are now facing fresh challenges. The Trump administration’s approach—marked by its audacious “Riviera” plan for Gaza—exemplifies a shift from traditional diplomatic norms toward a vision that prioritizes spectacle over substance. Critics argue that Trump’s plan seeks to transform a conflict-torn territory into a luxury destination, sidelining the complex socio-political realities on the ground. This reimagining not only disrupts longstanding regional frameworks but also forces Jordan to reconsider how its strategic partnerships are structured in light of such disruptive ideas.
II. Impact of Trump’s Policies on Regional Dynamics
The repercussions of Trump’s policies extend far beyond rhetoric. His “Riviera” plan, which envisages a radical makeover of Gaza into a high-end resort zone, has polarized regional opinion. Proponents argue that such economic rebranding could usher in much-needed investment, yet local leaders and citizens see it as a superficial solution that glosses over deep-seated humanitarian and political issues. Moreover, Trump’s more assertive stance toward the West Bank and Gaza has been interpreted as an attempt to redefine American influence in the Middle East—one that risks alienating key regional players and destabilizing the delicate balance of power.
For Jordan, these developments have come at a time when public trust in U.S. policy is waning. With increasing domestic pressure and shifting political currents—exacerbated by incidents of border violence and rising extremism—Jordan’s traditional reliance on American backing is being questioned. The Kingdom is now forced to navigate a dual challenge: maintaining its strategic alignment with both Washington and Tel Aviv, while also safeguarding its own national interests and internal stability.
III. Adapting Security and Diplomatic Strategies
The complex interplay of regional security, domestic politics, and emerging U.S. policy trends requires Jordan to rethink its role as a mediator and stabilizer. Historically, Jordan has served as both a conduit for U.S.-Israel cooperation and as a bulwark against the region’s more volatile forces. However, Trump’s “Riviera” plan and his broader policies toward Gaza and the West Bank have disrupted traditional paradigms of alliance.
In response, experts suggest that Jordan might need to explore more flexible security arrangements—enhancing intelligence sharing, deepening economic ties, and broadening diplomatic outreach—to mitigate the risks posed by these new policy directions. By moving beyond conventional military coordination, Jordan could help forge a resilient framework that not only adapts to immediate crises but also anticipates longer-term shifts in regional power dynamics.
Conclusion
As the Middle East continues to evolve amid Trump’s unorthodox policy experiments and shifting alliances, Jordan’s role as a stabilizing force is more critical—and more challenging—than ever. Balancing the tangible benefits of U.S. support with the imperative to safeguard national interests, the Kingdom must navigate a landscape marked by reimagined borders, redefined conflict zones, and a bold yet contentious vision for Gaza. The future of regional security may ultimately depend on whether traditional alliances can adapt to new, disruptive ideas or whether fresh frameworks must be forged to accommodate the rapidly changing dynamics of the Middle East.
