Follow us on social

Jordan’s Abdullah at White House, looking down the barrel of a gun

Jordan’s Abdullah at White House, looking down the barrel of a gun

The monarch looked uncomfortable and deflected reporters' questions, as Trump reiterated call to clear out Gaza and force Jordan to accept a million refugees

Analysis | Middle East

Jordan’s King Abdullah II just met with President Trump, and afterwards during a short press conference, deflected journalists’ questions about Trump’s insistence he accept Palestinian refugees from Gaza.

Abdullah said he would need to wait for other Arab leaders, including Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia and President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt, before responding directly. President al-Sisi and other Arab leaders will meet in Cairo on February 27, ostensibly to propose an alternative to Trump’s plan to forcibly remove Palestinians from Gaza, which would be a war crime.

For his part, Trump asserted that Palestinians do not want to be in Gaza, would be happy to leave, and that they would not want to return. Trump did not address questions about how he would handle the fact that many Palestinians will refuse to leave. Sitting beside King Abdullah, who looked uncomfortable, Trump appeared to walk back his intention to force Jordan to accept Palestinians by withholding U.S. assistance to the kingdom, which he is already doing.

Jordan is in a difficult position, given the country’s reliance on U.S. support, which makes up about 10 percent of its national budget. Egypt similarly relies on U.S. assistance. Both countries began to receive significantly more financial support from the U.S. after signing peace treaties with Israel in 1994 and 1979, respectively.

When asked by Fox News’ Brett Beier about how he would convince Jordan and Egypt to take approximately a million Palestinian refugees each, Trump said, “We give them billions and billions of dollars a year.” Trump’s cut to foreign assistance includes the $1.45 billion the U.S. sends to Jordan annually (the only countries to which he did not cut assistance were Israel and Egypt). It is evident that from Trump’s perspective, Jordan owes the U.S., and so should be willing to take in Palestinian refugees.

Trump may not realize that by trying to strongarm King Abdullah into accepting Palestinians, he is not only risking the U.S.-Jordan relationship, but potentially the willingness of other Arab states to partner with America. Trump seems to believe that the U.S. sends military and humanitarian assistance to Jordan and other countries and receives little in return, rather than grasping that U.S. support to other countries has played a key role in maintaining U.S. leadership, and when forced to accept political suicide in order to support Trump’s regional agenda, countries like Jordan will increasingly seek other partners.

Moreover, Trump appears unaware that he is posing an existential threat to Abdullah’s rule and the stability of a major non-NATO ally. Jordan’s population is already approximately half Palestinian, due to previous Israeli expulsions of Palestinians in 1948 and 1967. Jordanians are seething over Israel’s war on Gaza. Ninety-four percent of the population are boycotting American goods as a result of U.S. support for Israel’s war on Gaza. Three attacks on the Israeli border or embassy have already occurred. If hundreds of thousands of new Palestinian refugees were forced into Jordan, the fragile status quo would likely collapse. Abdullah’s government could be overthrown, and given the success of the Muslim Brotherhood in September’s parliamentary election, the government most likely to replace it would not be interested in signing another peace treaty with Israel, or be willing to host U.S. troops.

In addition to the political instability that would result, Jordan simply does not have enough resources to take in additional refugees. Jordan lacks adequate water for its existing population, a scarcity made worse by Jordan’s refugee burden from previous conflicts, including the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the years of Syria’s brutal civil war. Jordan has remained a bastion of relative stability despite regional upheaval, due largely to the U.S. and Europe helping pay for Jordan to host refugees.

Despite this support, Jordan’s debt is already 90 percent of its GDP. Twenty-two percent of Jordan’s population are unemployed. When I visited last fall, interlocutors emphasized the economic distress faced by the majority of the population.

From Abdullah’s perspective, Jordan already does a lot for the U.S. At Washington’s urging, Jordan has maintained a peace treaty with Israel for the past 30 years, despite its deep unpopularity among the Jordanian population. Jordan hosts 15 different U.S. military installations and almost 4,000 American troops.

When I was last in Jordan in October to assess the impact of the war on Gaza, Iran fired missiles over Jordanian territory at Israel. The Jordanian military issued a statement that it had worked with the U.S. military to help shoot down some of the Iranian missiles. One of these even fell and killed a Jordanian. The next day, Jordanians expressed outrage: why was their government helping the U.S. to defend Israel, even at the expense of their own safety?

America’s partners from Saudi Arabia to the U.A.E. to Egypt have been willing to acquiesce to the U.S. vision for the Middle East — a vision that prioritizes the desires of Israel over the existence of Palestinians — because it served their own interests. With U.S. support and weapons, Arab autocrats have consolidated their hold on power. Their collaboration with the U.S. is predicated on the U.S. helping to keep them in power.

When the Obama administration failed to save Mubarak’s regime from the popular uprising that overthrew it in 2011, many Arab autocrats were shocked at what they saw as Obama’s betrayal of a key U.S. partner. If they observe Trump not only failing to support a U.S. partner but actively coercing him into a decision that could lead to his overthrow, rulers from Riyadh to Rabat may reconsider their partnership with the United States.


Top photo credit: CSPAN screengrab
Analysis | Middle East
Russia Navy United Kingdom Putin Starmer
Top Photo: Russian small missile ships Sovetsk and Grad sail along the Neva river during a rehearsal for the Navy Day parade, in Saint Petersburg, Russia July 21, 2024. REUTERS/Anton Vaganov

How Russia’s naval rearmament has gone unnoticed

Europe

Today, there are only three global naval powers: the United States, China, and Russia. The British Royal Navy is, sadly, reduced to a small regional naval power, able occasionally to deploy further afield. If Donald Trump wants European states to look after their own collective security, Britain might be better off keeping its handful of ships in the Atlantic.

European politicians and journalists talk constantly about the huge challenge in countering an apparently imminent Russian invasion, should the U.S. back away from NATO under President Trump. With Russia’s Black Sea fleet largely confined to the eastern Black Sea during the war, although still able to inflict severe damage on Ukraine, few people talk about the real Russian naval capacity to challenge Western dominance. Or, indeed, how this will increasingly come up against U.S. naval interests in the Pacific and, potentially, in the Arctic.

keep readingShow less
Senator Rand Paul
Top photo credit: Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky ( Maxim Elramsisy/Shutterstock)

Rand Paul blasts away at antisemitism speech bill

Washington Politics

In President Donald Trump’s first 100 days, his administration has arrested and detained, without due process, visa holders and other non-citizens in the U.S. for speaking out against Israel’s military actions in Gaza.

That’s not how the administration frames it, but that is the connective tissue in each of the cases.

keep readingShow less
Volodymyr Zelenskiy and Donald Trump
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and U.S. President Donald Trump meet, while they attend the funeral of Pope Francis, at the Vatican April 26, 2025. Ukrainian Presidential Press Service/Handout via REUTERS

US, Ukraine minerals deal: A tactical win, not a turning point

Europe

The U.S.-Ukraine minerals agreement is not a diplomatic breakthrough and will not end the war, but it is a significant success for Ukraine, both in the short term and — if it is ever in fact implemented — in the longer term.

It reportedly does not get Ukraine the security “guarantees” that Kyiv has been asking for. It does not commit the U.S. to fight for Ukraine, or to back up a European “reassurance force” for Ukraine. And NATO membership remains off the table. Given its basic positions, there is no chance of the Trump administration shifting on these points.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.