TEHRAN - An Iraqi analyst says that the Jordanian kingdom is entrusted by the U.S. with securing the Zionist regime. 

“The existence of Jordan is to protect the Zionist regime and secure its eastern borders, as it is a small monarchy that subsists on American aid and oil provided by Iraq under American direction, whether during the time of Saddam Hussein or today. It is a reward to Jordan for its support to Israel,” Ali Fahim tells the Tehran Times.

In an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, the Jordanian king struck a note of warning about a range of alleged Iranian hostile activities in the region and hoped that these activities be addressed in the current nuclear talks in Vienna between Iran and its negotiating partners.

“There are legitimate concerns in our part of the world on a lot of portfolios that the Americans are hopefully going to be able to discuss with the Iranians,” King Abdullah said. 

The Jordanian king went so far as to claim that his country has been targeted by Iranian-made drones, a bizarre claim that was made for the first time by Abdullah.

In this regard, Ali Fahim notes that “King Abdullah II plays exactly the role entrusted to Jordan as a monarchy. In fact, the reason for its existence in this part of the Arab body is to protect the eastern front of the Zionist regime since its establishment by King Abdullah bin Sharif Hussein.”

“The Jordanian authorities consider providing the Palestinian resistance with weapons as a crime and deal with any support to the resistance as a violation of Jordanian sovereignty and a betrayal of the state,” Fahim argues.

Following is the text of the interview:

Q: During an interview with CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria aired some two weeks ago, Jordan’s King Abdullah II claimed Iranian drones have attacked Jordan. Why does once in a while the Jordanian king remembers to talk about the Shias or the Iranian missiles and drones?

A: Of course, the last remarks of the Jordanian monarch with the American network CNN reminds us of his statement in 2004 with the Washington Post newspaper on his visit to the United States of America when he warned of what he called the emergence of an ideological Shia Crescent from Beirut to the (Persian) Gulf and he meant that Iranian support would reach the front lines with the Zionist regime through Iraq and Syria to complete the line of the resistance axis.

Here, King Abdullah II plays exactly the role entrusted to Jordan as a monarchy. In fact, the reason for its existence in this part of the Arab body is to protect the eastern front of the Zionist regime since its establishment by King Abdullah bin Sharif Hussein, who was assassinated on charges of betraying the Palestinian cause and his relationship with Golda Meir (the fourth prime minister of Israel) and Britain to serve the Zionists.

He made every effort to annex the West Bank to Jordan and then the division of Palestine.

The existence of Jordan is to protect the Zionist regime and secure its eastern borders, as it is a small monarchy that subsists on American aid and oil provided by Iraq under American direction, whether during the time of Saddam Hussein or today. It is a reward to Jordan for its support to Israel.

Therefore, the Jordanian authorities consider providing the Palestinian resistance with weapons as a crime and deal with any support to the resistance as a violation of Jordanian sovereignty and a betrayal of the state.

King Abdullah II’s statement coincides with two important and inseparable developments:

The first is the transfer of American bases from the Al-Sailiya region in Qatar to Jordan, and the second is the establishment of what is known as the new Levant, which means establishing a cooperation zone between Iraq, Jordan and Egypt.

  The U.S. military announced in a statement the closure of the main Al-Sailiya army base, along with the southern Al-Sailiya base, and an ammunition supply point called “Falcon”, which was serving as a forward staging area for American supplies in the Middle East (West Asia), as it contained 27 depots for storing tanks and armored personnel carriers and a variety of equipment.

Thus, these bases would be safe from Iranian missiles in the event of any possible war, instead of being easy prey under the Iranian range of fire. On the other hand, this move can protect them from the strikes that affect the logistical support lines coming from the (Persian) Gulf, passing through the central and southern Iraqi provinces to the Ain al-Assad base, which is located close to the Jordanian border in western Iraq.

It also allows the U.S. to devote all its energy to contain the Chinese dragon in East Asia.

The presence of American bases and warehouses on Jordanian territory brings them within the range of Iranian missiles and also protest marches towards these bases.

This statement may be seen by Jordan as a preemptive blow and reaction to this possibility, albeit on a media or political level.

On the other hand, the new Sham (Levant) project links Iraq with Israel through Jordan and Egypt and pushes it out of the Chinese Silk Road project in an attempt to tighten the siege on the Islamic Republic of Iran to satisfy the United States.

America gives privileges to Jordan at the expense of the Iraqi interest that it does not deserve, especially exempting Jordanian goods from customs tariffs.

 In fact, they are Israeli goods whose packaging is changed only. Thus, Israel takes over the reins of the Iraqi markets with facilities and exceptions that do not serve the Iraqi industry, but rather affect it. 

All of these roles are played by Jordan in the service of American regional projects, so we are not surprised by a statement that reveals the aforementioned goals and plays the roles entrusted to it.

Q: How do you evaluate Jordan's relations with Israel and the role that the Jordanian government plays in security coordination with Israel?

A: As I mentioned to you, Jordan's ties with Israel is essential to protect the Zionist regime, and this relationship is inexhaustible as an organic link.

 Without this relationship, Jordan cannot survive; given the composition its political system in which a royal family dominates people does not like it. It is a tribal composition, 70% of whom are Palestinians who have been displaced from their lands.

The Jordanian people reject this subservience and complicity in crimes committed by the Zionist regime, but they live under an iron security fist.

This is obvious in Jordan’s strange coldness in the interaction with the Arab countries and their causes, while it is in the middle of an area, to say the least it is inflamed in terms of security and stability due to the existence of an illegitimate regime.

Jordan is an exception in its Arab periphery i.e. Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Lebanon. Jordan has established a strong tie with Israel under an American umbrella that supports its Arab puppets in the region.
The Jordanian government today has linked its existence to the security of Israel, so it is natural that it cooperates to preserve Israel’s security.

King Abdullah is the best who can play this role after America gave him the throne when he seized it from his father’s crown prince, Prince Al-Hassan bin Talal, in the last days of former King Hussein bin Talal.

 That is why King Abdullah feels deeply indebted to the Americans for their help to ascend the throne and to preserve his position, so how can he disobey their orders and will?

Q: Why are some Arab countries such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia worried about the Iran nuclear agreement?

A: Some countries in the region have become deeply involved in the American project in a way they have lost all independence in terms of decision-making. Rather, they are racing to please their lord (America) and to prove their loyalty to her, so they adopt the views of America and Israel.

One of the U.S. projects in the region is to demonize the Islamic Republic of Iran by replacing hostility with the usurper Zionist regime with hostility with Iran by extremist propaganda.

 All the attitudes of these countries are in line with Israel’s interests, so it is not strange for them to be worried about the Iran nuclear program and are more concerned about the nuclear talks in Vienna because it can lead to an agreement that lifts part of the siege and unjust sanctions on the Islamic Republic and allows it a greater space for development and progress in various scientific fields.

This is what distinguishes Iran from the rest of the countries in the region that have turned into consumer countries that sell oil and consume Western products.

 On the other hand, Iran is emerging as a regional power that confronts arrogant hegemony and strengthens the axis of resistance, which these regimes are openly hostile to.
 

Q: In response to CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria, when asked about the role of Bin Salman in the failed coup attempt, the Jordanian monarch preferred to pass unnoticed when it comes to the Saudi role. King Abdullah said we do not want new crises and consider the failed coup an internal affair despite evidence of external involvement. Why did he turn a blind eye on the Saudi role in the coup attempt?

A: The Jordanian king could not deny the Saudi role, especially the role of bin Salman in the coup attempt. He confirmed it implicitly, but at the same time, he made every effort to distract attention from Saudi Arabia by trying to downplay Riyadh’s role as much as he could.

Imagine if another country had a role in a coup attempt in Jordan, how the reaction would have been indescribable. It is not a simple event at all; it is a conspiracy against a state and an attempt to overthrow a regime. How can the reaction be with this unusual and unjustified coldness?

If we follow the relationship between the two countries recently, we find that it has almost been a kind of political dependency on Saudi Arabia. The best example is the closure of the Jordanian embassy in Tehran after the Saudi embassy in Tehran was stormed (in protest of executions of human rights defenders).

In all Saudi positions on the Islamic Republic, the Syrian issue and the Palestinian cause, Jordan was largely in consensus and along the line with the Saudi approaches without question.

 But I think that this incident would affect greatly Saudi-Jordanian ties, even if it is not visible. The Hashemite Kingdom has lost a large amount of confidence in Bin Salman, even if he did not declare it. Despite pressure by the U.S. to bridge the rift and stop the aftershocks, it will affect the relationship between Amman and Riyadh in the future.
 

Q: How do you assess Jordan's role in terms of stability in West Asia and its surroundings?

A: Due to the geographical location of the Kingdom of Jordan, it can play a major role in establishing security in the region.

However, it has played a destructive role in its Arab surroundings; this is the case when it comes to the Syrian crisis when the armed conflict broke out in Daraa.

In a misreading of developments, the decision-makers in Jordan expected a different outcome in Syria while Bashar al Assad could restore stability to the country.

 Jordan supported the opposition and provided them with weapons, equipment and logistical support, but it was fraught with caution. And although the support was not public at first, it turned into public support to the Syrian opposition and hosting defectors from the Syrian government.

At the same time, Jordan tried to protect its borders from the spread of the Islamists so as to protect its cities from being infected where fundamentalist movements, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, were strengthened.

These movements were closely monitored because of their organizational links with Hamas in Gaza and the Kingdom's duty to protect the eastern occupied territories (Palestine) from any unrest or instability. 

Jordan also had another negative role after the American invasion of Iraq by deploying Salafist armed groups into the depth of Iraq, especially al-Qaeda and its Jordanian leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was very much in harmony with King Abdullah II’s concerns of the Shia movement.

Al-Zarqawi shifted the direction of the battle of al-Qaeda from confronting the Americans to fight the Shia (what they call Safavid) presence in the region.

Meanwhile, Jordan has its own goal, which is internal security; it tries to penetrate its neighbors exploiting flaws but stops if it faces strong resistance. All of Jordan’s measures are according to agendas that are planned by Americans.