Jordanian Columnists Address War Expansion, Economy, and Civil Liberties Amid Regional Escalation

Jordanian columnists have recently addressed the repercussions of regional escalation on the political, economic, and rights landscape in Jordan and the broader Middle East, approaching the subject from strategic, economic, and constitutional angles.

Maher Abu Tair: War on the Threshold of Globalization

Columnist Maher Abu Tair warned that the current situation is rapidly approaching a world war, citing the intertwining of economic and military consequences. He stated that "the repercussions of the current war have become global at the economic level, in terms of their impact on oil and gas prices, the flow of trade and goods, production costs, and shipping," noting that these effects have reached Arab countries, Europe, China, Russia, and the rest of the world.

Abu Tair argued that influential and affected nations now face two unavoidable choices: either pressing for "an end to the war through a political settlement, or resorting to attempting partnership in the war with the aim of resolving it militarily quickly and stopping the economic hemorrhage."

In analyzing Washington's objectives, he suggested that the American strategy revolves around "dragging Europe, China, and the Arabs into this war by prolonging it and pressuring these countries," thereby achieving Washington's goal of distributing the costs of confrontation and weakening states it targets in its undeclared plans.

Abu Tair concluded with a somber assessment, stating that "the current war has already become global economically, and is on the verge of becoming global militarily — something no one wishes for and no one can bear."

Salama Al-Dar'awi: The Jordanian Economy Faces a Compound Shock

Economic columnist Salama Al-Dar'awi examined the direct economic consequences for Jordan, drawing on a prospective study published by the Association of Banks in Jordan. He highlighted that "every $10 rise in the price of a barrel of oil increases the energy bill by approximately 200 to 300 million dinars annually, pushes inflation up by 0.3 to 0.5 percentage points, and pressures growth by 0.2 to 0.3 points."

Al-Dar'awi revealed that the growing reliance on natural gas for electricity generation has created a new vulnerability: any disruption to gas supplies would force the system to shift toward more expensive liquid fuels, potentially costing the National Electric Power Company "an additional 5 million dinars per day — a figure capable of exerting direct pressure on public finances and driving up debt levels."

The columnist emphasized that it is not too late to act, calling for "a comprehensive proactive approach to risk management based on enhancing energy security and diversifying its sources, managing the financial impact of the electricity sector, and improving fiscal and monetary policy tools to absorb shocks." He cautioned that "the real danger lies in the prolonged duration of the shock, as it transforms from a temporary situation into a structural imbalance."

Musa Al-Saket: Energy Independence Is a Strategic Imperative, Not a Luxury

Columnist Musa Al-Saket called for seizing this crisis as an opportunity to accelerate Jordan's transition toward energy independence, invoking the scale of the country's historical dependence, as the Kingdom has traditionally relied on "importing around 90% of its energy needs."

Al-Saket noted that Jordan has made tangible progress, with "the contribution of renewable energy to electricity generation rising to approximately 25–30%, supported by solar and wind energy projects, benefiting from more than 300 sunny days per year." He also pointed to the gradual development of the Risha gas field, which is now approaching "production of nearly 60 million cubic feet per day, with plans for further increases."

He concluded that "Jordan possesses the genuine foundations to become a regional model in energy security, provided it continues its strategic planning approach and investment in its domestic resources."

Hamada Fra'neh: Iran Fell Into the Israeli Trap

Columnist Hamada Fra'neh offered a sharp political reading of the situation, arguing that the American-Israeli alliance has succeeded in achieving two major objectives: "destroying Iran's capabilities and infrastructure, and dragging the Arabs — against their will — into being a party to the war and confrontation against Iran."

Fra'neh contended that Iran "fell into the trap and committed a political blunder by choosing to launch military strikes against Gulf Arab countries," citing the Jordanian-Emirati joint statement, which affirmed that Arab states "were not a party to the war and did not start it, but rather sought to contain the crisis and prevent the region from sliding into conflict."

The columnist identified three Israeli objectives behind the war, most notably diverting attention from what occurred in Gaza — described as "massacres, killings, ethnic cleansing, and genocide" — completing Israeli hegemony over the region, and punishing Iran for its support of the Palestinian cause.

Laith Kamal Nasrawin: Constitutional Rights in Times of Exception

From a constitutional law perspective, Professor Laith Nasrawin examined the issue of the right to protest under the current security conditions, drawing on principles of comparative constitutional jurisprudence.

He clarified that constitutional rights "are not absolute rights exercised in isolation from society and its circumstances, and that their regulation broadens in scope whenever the state faces genuine dangers or exceptional conditions," citing the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which has affirmed that the exercise of freedoms "may be subject to restrictions imposed by the necessity of protecting national security and public safety."

In the specific Jordanian context, Nasrawin argued that diverting law enforcement resources to "managing and controlling protesters" at this stage would distract them from their primary mission of "protecting the home front from any external threats or infiltrations." He maintained that "regulating the exercise of the right to protest and prioritizing national security considerations does not constitute an infringement on the essence of this right, but rather represents the sound application of an established constitutional principle."