“It’s not a complex thing to do. With the United States being in control of that piece of land — that fairly large piece of land — you’re going to have stability in the Middle East for the first time.” Donald Trump.
One can only imagine how a king would react to such ignorant words uttered before him, with the world watching. In addition to the feeling of embarrassment by association, the head of the Jordanian state must have been dumb-folded. Instead of sinking low, as a royal he chose the route of diplomacy and regal etiquette, and got media backlash for that.
The February 2025 meeting between King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Donald Trump in the White House shed the light on the dangers of misinformed public perception, and expectations. Some hailed the monarch, and other criticized him for avoiding the use of stern, confrontational statements. The divide in reactions in the media is extremely clear and confirms the takeover of political binarism. One is either with or against, pro or contra, right or left. Such clarity of position is hailed in some circles, the same circles that praised the US President for speaking his mind and calling things as they are. The same circles that also cheer for revolutionary leaders and outspoken political figures who fear nothing and no one.
Whilst there is indeed some longing for unapologetic justice and clear positions, politics does not function that way. The dark web of interests, power, alliances, dependence, agendas, weaknesses, and strengths render the gray, lukewarm world of slow diplomacy a necessity.
The King of Jordan realised in his meeting that years of friendship with the US cannot, and must not, turn into animosity because of one deranged leader. The US is much more than Donald Trump and his policies, and if the latter is too near sighted to appreciate this friendship, then the former must remind him. And that is exactly what he did.
Jordan and the US enjoy long years of reciprocal benefits exchanged. Economic, diplomatic, and security ties link the two nations. Jordan needs the US, and the US - to a varying extent - also needs Jordan. Agreements were inked, missions were coordinated, and favors were exchanged for decades. This friendship cannot be forgone at the first mishap. King Abdullah could have used passionate statements of indignation, but he opted for patience and kind redirection of proposed plans. When asked whether Jordan would receive Palestinians displaced from Gaza, he clarified that he would do what is “best” for his country, and that Arabs would come up with a counter proposal. His answers were measured, poised, and inclusive of the opinion of other Arab states.
However, it should have ended there. There was no need for subsequent messages shared on social media and though Jordanian political figures. The position of Jordan is clear. The respect that the King has for Jordanians and Palestinians alike does not need affirmation and bold statements. The meeting could have ended as it did without the need for additional reassurances and confirmations. This route is followed by the likes of Trump, who constantly feel the urge to share, explain, and clear contradictions in their contradictory, non nonsensical statements.
Personally, I found a lot of merit and elegance in the King's exchanges with Trump. After all, when a clown moves into a palace, he doesn't become a king. The palace turns into a circus. The Jordanian King did not, and will not, join the circus.
Comments
Post a Comment