The Middle East has not known for decades a moment when its crises intertwine as they do today. However, the deepest problem does not lie in the multiple centers of tension, but in a logic that has long governed the region: every party can build its security at the expense of others. The result is that everyone is now less secure. The region has not been devoid of initiatives for coordination and cooperation, but they have not reached a true regional security system, due to competition between regional powers, and the failure to separate common strategic issues from bilateral disputes, so that disagreement on a side issue can paralyze cooperation on vital issues. We are facing a region whose crises are cascading onto each other, and security can no longer be fragmented.
Three structural transformations
First: the futility of the 'conflict management' model. Many people bet that freezing the Palestinian issue was possible, and that stability could be bought by postponement. But the events in Gaza proved that postponement has only produced rounds that are more costly for everyone, Palestinians, Israelis, and the peoples of the region, and that the two-state solution is eroding on the ground day by day.
Second: the conflict of projects and the vacuum of the regional system. Regional and international projects compete to fill the void wherever they find it, based on the zero-sum game logic, and feed on the fragility of states and turn them into arenas.
Third: the erosion of trust in international law. When the rules are applied selectively, not only the weak lose, but the international system loses its legitimacy, and everyone loses the reference that protects stability.
From conflict management to managing differences
If the 'conflict management' model has proven to be a failure, the alternative is not military resolution, but the transition to 'managing differences'. Wars do not create solutions, but postpone and deepen crises, and distribute suffering to everyone without exception: populations are displaced, economies are drained, generations grow up on fear and revenge, and even the strongest militarily comes out of them less secure than they entered. Conflict management assumes an adversary who must be contained or subdued, and usually ends in the next round. Managing differences starts from the premise that the divergence of interests is a permanent reality, and that it needs to be controlled by common rules: mutual recognition of rights, respect for sovereignty and international law, and dialogue channels that do not break at every crisis. By this logic, Israel will not achieve sustainable security through military superiority alone as long as the Palestinians are deprived of their state, and the Gulf and its vicinity will not stabilize without clear coexistence rules between its two shores, and countries exhausted by wars will not rise unless their sovereignty is respected. Managing differences can only be based on justice, and therefore the Palestinian state is not an obstacle to regional stability, but its first condition.
The Jordanian model: the pivotal state between realism and constants
Jordan presents a model for a state with limited resources, surrounded by crises, that has turned its location from a geographical burden into a political asset. Its approach is based on 'strategic patience governed by red lines': openness to everyone, mediation where possible, and de-escalation where escalation can be contained, without flexibility in constants: rejection of displacement and the alternative homeland, Hashemite guardianship over Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, security of borders and water, and good neighborly relations. The secret to the effectiveness of this approach is the credit capital that Jordan has accumulated: a state consistent in its discourse, fulfilling its commitments, combining words with action, and speaking to everyone in one language. This gives its position a weight that exceeds its material size, and makes it a reliable partner for major powers and international institutions.
UN speech: reframing the issue
The importance of His Majesty the King's speech before the 81st session of the General Assembly did not lie solely in its content, but in the reframing it brought about. It moved the Palestinian issue from the category of 'humanitarian tragedy' to the category of 'test of the international system', named practices with their legal descriptions instead of diluting them, and refused to portray the conflict as a war between religions, affirming that it is an issue of equal rights for a people of Muslims and Christians. It recalled that the Arab Peace Initiative offered peace and comprehensive normalization in return for the Palestinian state, so the problem was never the absence of an outstretched hand. At the same time, the speech presented Jordan as a party with a direct security interest, when it linked any threat to the northern borders or water security to national security, and affirmed that preferring diplomacy does not mean weakness. It is the language of a state that knows the limits of its power, but also knows the limits of its patience.
National security and regional security: the equation of changing geometry
It is realistic to acknowledge the right of every state to protect its security as it sees fit, including alliances and treaties. However, external umbrellas are subject to the calculations of their owners, and opposing alliances often produce an endless race. The solution is not to choose between national security and collective security, but the logic of 'changing geometry': a core of countries with the closest proximity, led by Arab countries after arranging their internal affairs, that build practical arrangements that can be expanded, so that bilateral alliances complement the regional system and do not replace it.
Towards a regional security system
Getting out of this spiral requires a regional framework for security and cooperation, similar to other regions that have overcome their wars, based on respect for sovereignty, non-interference, rejection of changing borders by force, and resolving disputes by peaceful means. This framework cannot be established without a just solution to the Palestinian issue that forms its natural entry point. This framework needs tools to protect it from collapse at the first crisis: permanent communication channels, rules for maritime security, and early warning mechanisms that contain tension before it explodes. However, the strongest guarantor of stability remains economic interdependence; energy, water, and transportation networks from the Gulf to the Mediterranean make the stability of each country a direct interest for its neighbors, and Jordan, by virtue of its location and stability, is qualified to be its natural center. All of this remains contingent on countries that are cohesive from within, as development, governance, youth empowerment, and countering hate speech are the first line of defense against extremism and interventions. At the international level, there is a need for the Arab Group, in partnership with countries seeking a more just international system, to advance a draft resolution to the UN General Assembly that adopts the principles of His Majesty the King's speech as a roadmap for reforming the organization's institutions and restoring confidence in international law: applying the rules with a single standard for everyone, serious follow-up to the implementation of resolutions, objective criteria for activating accountability tools, keeping prolonged crises on the international agenda, and protecting the historical and legal status of the holy sites in Jerusalem.
From reaction to future-making
There are no victors in the wars of the Middle East, only losers in varying degrees. The choice today is not between strength and weakness, but between a spiral that reproduces itself and a system that manages differences with justice and law. As His Majesty the King warned, the future is shaped not only by what we do, but also by what we choose to ignore; and the stability of this region is the most that cannot be ignored.
