51吃瓜

鈥淗e who desires peace, let him prepare for war.鈥� 鈥� Vegetius

In the cold desert dawn of July 17, an Iranian ballistic missile screamed across the Jordanian sky toward Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Azraq, and found its mark in the sleeping barracks of American soldiers. Three young lives, each carrying the weight of home across vast oceans, were extinguished in an instant: First Lieutenant , 25, of Ewa Beach, Hawaii, whose islands now feel impossibly distant; Private , 19, of Carrollton, Texas, barely more than a girl, her future stolen before it could properly begin; and Sergeant , 28, of Ozone Park, New York, a name that speaks to the great immigrant tapestry of America.聽

All came from the edges of the republic, from Pacific shores and southern plains and the boroughs of New York, united only by the uniform they wore and the sand that would receive them. Their blood now mingles with the dust of a kingdom that never asked for this war, staining the earth with a tragedy that will be recounted in small-town newspapers and whispered in family kitchens for generations. American souls have now been claimed since this conflict began, nearly in the fortnight鈥檚 carnage, yet it is these three names 鈥� Feehan, Gonzales, Rampersad 鈥� that hang like a question mark over the desert, demanding to know why they had to die for alliances they did not forge, in a war they did not choose, on a battlefield far from everything they ever loved. The blood of the fallen now mingles with the sand of a kingdom that never sought this war.聽

As Jordanian King Abdullah II sat in London on July 23, meeting with executives of British companies to discuss economic cooperation, one question echoed through the corridors of power in Washington, Amman and Tehran alike:

Why is Iran targeting Jordan鈥� and not Israel?

This is not a question of military tactics. It is a question of strategic theology, of the dark logic of power politics in an age when the old certainties have crumbled like the walls of Jericho. To understand why the Islamic Republic of Iran has chosen to strike the Hashemite Kingdom, one must venture into the Machiavellian calculus of Tehran鈥檚 grand strategy, the Shakespearean tragedy of Jordan鈥檚 geopolitical predicament and the Orwellian doublethink that governs the new world disorder.

The logic of the wolf: Tehran鈥檚 strategic calculus

Iran does not fight wars as the West imagines them. Tehran fights a war of mortal geometry 鈥� a conflict measured not in territory conquered, but in influence projected; not in armies defeated, but in systems destabilized. Analysts at聽Al Jazeera聽have that Iran is 鈥渦sing Gulf states to pressure Washington while avoiding direct confrontation with US forces.鈥� The Islamic Republic鈥檚 strategy is to inflict maximum pain on American interests through the most vulnerable points in the American alliance system.

During the first round of the US/Israel war on Iran in March and April, Iranian officials justified attacks on Gulf states by arguing that US operations were launched from military bases on their territory. Jordan, as one of eight Arab countries hosting permanent US military facilities, has become a target by association.

The asymmetric gambit: punishing the host, not the guest

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has been explicit in its targeting logic. On July 22, the IRGC it had struck three major US air bases in Jordan: Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Azraq, King Faisal Air Base in Ma鈥檃n Governorate and Prince Hassan Air Base in Mafraq Governorate. The IRGC claimed to have destroyed US fighter jets, refueling aircraft and military equipment.

鈥淭he IRGC鈥檚 Aerospace Force once again US bases in Jordan in response to the enemy鈥檚 aggression,鈥� the IRGC declared. According to the IRGC, in the first phase of the response, a missile and drone attack on King Faisal and Prince Hassan bases an F-15 preparation shed.聽

This is the Orwellian logic of perpetual war 鈥� a conflict that must never end because its continuation serves the interests of those who wage it. By striking Jordan, Iran achieves what direct strikes on Israel could not: It deters the American alliance system without triggering an existential response from the Jewish state. Jordan is the Achilles鈥� heel of the American regional posture 鈥� close enough to matter, vulnerable enough to hurt.

Jordan: the strategic sandwich

Jordan finds itself caught in a geopolitical vice. As the聽听丑补蝉 , 鈥淛ordanian criticism of Iran remains tempered by a reluctance to absolve Washington and Israel.鈥� The FDD also portrays Jordan as paying the price for an American-Israeli war and has faulted Washington for exposing its Arab partners to retaliation.

According to聽The , 鈥滷or Iran, Jordan represents a state closely integrated into the American-led regional security system and linked to Israel through a peace treaty鈥�. This integration makes Jordan a legitimate target in Tehran鈥檚 strategic calculus.

The air defense dilemma

Perhaps the most critical vulnerability lies in Jordan鈥檚 air defense architecture.聽The National听丑补蝉 that Iranian missiles aimed at Jordan are part of a plan to 鈥渃lear path for attacks on Israel.鈥� Megan Sutcliffe of the intelligence company Sibylline that the offensive could 鈥渕arginally increase Iran’s capacity to send munitions into Israeli airspace鈥� by affecting Jordanian air defenses.

In , during Iran鈥檚 first direct large-scale attack on Israel, the Jordanian Air Force intercepted and destroyed Iranian drones and missiles passing through its airspace towards Israel. This act of solidarity 鈥� defending Israeli airspace at the risk of Iranian retaliation 鈥� made Jordan a target. Tehran has not forgotten.

At present, Iranian strategists calculate that by degrading Jordanian air defenses, they can create a corridor for future strikes on Israel. This is the Kissingerian logic of indirect approach: Strike the ally to weaken the adversary; attack the shield to pierce the sword.

The economic trap: the price of alliance

Jordan depends heavily on the United States, both militarily and economically. Under a seven-year Memorandum of Understanding in 2022, Washington provides $1.45 billion in annual economic and military assistance 鈥� increased to $1.65 billion in 2025, triple the amount from 2010. Approximately US troops are currently deployed in the kingdom.

This is the of alliance: 鈥淗e who is the cause of another becoming powerful is ruined.鈥� Jordan鈥檚 alliance with Washington has made it powerful enough to survive, yet vulnerable enough to be targeted. Iran understands this dialectic with chilling precision. By striking Jordan, Tehran sends a message to every American ally in the region: Your partnership with Washington makes you a target. Your security guarantee is a liability. Your sovereignty is an illusion.

The public dissatisfaction

A by the Arab Barometer found that only 12% of Jordanians held a positive view of US President Donald Trump鈥檚 policies. 鈥淒espite Jordan鈥檚 efforts to remain neutral in this war, existing alliances, such as the one with the United States, not only affect the country鈥檚 already fragile security situation but also fuel public dissatisfaction,鈥� Kelly Petillo of the European Council on Foreign Relations.

The King must balance the demands of his American ally against the sentiments of his own people. He must protect his kingdom from external threats while managing internal discontent. He must project strength while navigating weakness.

Punishing the host: the campaign of attrition and the new phase of conflict

The IRGC has been methodical in its approach. According to the FDD, Jordan was by 166 ballistic missiles and 125 drones launched by Iran and its proxy militias in Iraq in response to the combined US鈥揑sraeli strikes. The attack reflects Iran鈥檚 strategy of 鈥減unishing regional states that host American military forces, with the goal of driving the United States out of the region.鈥� The IRGC has released footage of what it calls a 鈥溾�� on US military bases in Jordan, accompanied by a stark warning to Washington: As long as attacks on Iran continue, American forces 鈥渨ill not be secure.鈥�

Analysts believe these strikes 鈥漚 significant turning point in the ongoing conflict.鈥� According to聽Alhurra, 鈥淭ehran might be keen to harm USA military assets in Jordan to reduce the interception of Iranian missiles on their way to Israel.鈥� Officials expect 鈥漚 new phase of the conflict marked by intensified U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian military and infrastructure targets.鈥� This is the escalatory spiral that former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger warned against 鈥� a conflict that feeds upon itself, each retaliation justifying the next, until the entire region is consumed by fire.

King Abdullah鈥檚 gambit

As Iranian missiles rained down on Jordanian territory, King Abdullah II sat in London, meeting with executives from the automotive, mining, energy, engineering, chemical and pharmaceutical sectors. He 鈥渢he importance of the long-standing partnership between Jordan and the UK, and the commitment of both countries to strengthening economic and trade relations鈥�. This is not a retreat from crisis. It is a diplomatic offensive of the highest order.

The King understands what the IRGC understands: the war against Jordan is not a military war; it is an economic war, a diplomatic war, a war of attrition against the very fabric of the Jordanian state. By traveling to London, the King signals to Tehran and Washington alike: Jordan will not be broken. Jordan will not be isolated. Jordan will find partners beyond the battlefield.

The visit represents a Kissingerian recognition that survival in the new multipolar order requires diversified partnerships, not monolithic alliances. Jordan cannot afford to be solely an American client; it must be a British partner, a European interlocutor, an Arab bridge. The King鈥檚 presence in London is a declaration that Jordan鈥檚 sovereignty will not be defined by the missiles that fall upon it.

America鈥檚 dilemma and the cost of protection

The United States has spent trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in the Middle East over the past quarter-century. It has toppled regimes, destroyed nations and reshaped borders. And what has it achieved? A region more unstable than before. Adversaries more emboldened. Allies more skeptical.

The Iranian attacks on Jordan reveal the central contradiction of American grand strategy: The more the United States protects its allies, the more it exposes them to retaliation. Every American base is a target. Every American soldier is a hostage to fortune. Every American ally is a potential victim of the next Iranian missile.

The doublethink

English author George Orwell of a world in which 鈥渨ar is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.鈥� In the Middle East of 2026, the doublethink is this: America鈥檚 presence is supposed to guarantee stability, yet it produces instability. America鈥檚 alliances are supposed to deter aggression, yet they invite it. America鈥檚 military supremacy is supposed to be unchallengeable, yet it is challenged daily.

As the IRGC : 鈥滱s long as you continue undermining the security of the Iranian people, none of you will be safe.鈥� The threat is not just to American forces; it is to the entire architecture of American influence. Every ally is a hostage. Every base is a target. Every partnership is a liability.

The dual policy

Kissinger, in his at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Global Security Forum, articulated the only viable path forward for the United States in the Middle East: pursuing two contradictory policies simultaneously. On the one hand, the United States must stand by its Sunni allies and set limits on Iranian interventionism. On the other hand, it must be prepared to engage in dialogue with an Iran that pursues its policies as a nation-state.

This is the Kissingerian wisdom that American politics cannot yet absorb: Success in the Middle East requires the capacity to hold contradictory truths in the same mind 鈥� that Iran is both a threat and a potential partner, that Jordan is both a client and a sovereign, that American power is both indispensable and insufficient.

King Abdullah鈥檚 visit to London represents a Kissingerian opening 鈥� a recognition that the United States alone cannot manage the crisis; that Europe must play a role; that the old order of American supremacy is giving way to a new order of multipolar complexity. The UK鈥檚 condemnation of Iranian attacks and its expression of solidarity with Jordan are not mere diplomatic gestures. They are signals of a realignment.

The unresolved tragedy

Iran strikes Jordan because it can. Because Jordan is vulnerable. Because the alliance with America is as much a liability as a guarantee. Because in the new world disorder, the weak are punished for their associations, the strong are tested for their resolve and the innocent are sacrificed on the altar of great-power rivalry.

The IRGC has made its position clear: 鈥溾�� The question for Jordan, for America, for the entire Middle East, is not who wins but how to lose. The art of statecraft, in this new era, lies not in achieving total victory but in managing decline 鈥� in preserving what can be preserved, salvaging what can be salvaged and accepting that the world has changed in ways that no amount of bombing can reverse.

King Abdullah sits in London, meeting with businessmen, discussing economic cooperation, projecting normalcy in the face of chaos. He knows what the strategists know: that the war will not end with a single decisive battle; that the conflict will be long, grinding and attritional; that the path forward requires wisdom 鈥� the wisdom to recognize that power without purpose is mere violence, and that purpose without power is mere fantasy.

The blood of Feehan, Gonzales and Rampersad stains the sands of Jordan. The missiles of Iran continue to fly. The King of Jordan continues to govern. The United States continues to strike. And the tragedy, like the war itself, remains unresolved.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author鈥檚 own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜鈥檚 editorial policy.