Europe Archives - CrossFireArarbia

Jordan’s Fight Against Displacement

CrossFireArabia
February 19, 2025

With the conclusion of the first meeting between President Donald Trump and His Majesty King Abdullah, Jordan finds itself facing a real political test. The strategy of buying time with an administration that has been in office for only a few weeks may not offer much room for maneuvering, making it increasingly difficult to navigate the direction of US policy. Jordan has sought to carve out a space for itself by engaging with the American president and promoting an alternative that has broader Arab support. However, this approach requires swift action and the presentation of practical alternatives that could gradually shape Trump’s perspective.

Jordan now needs to build strong alliances to manage the next phase and counter the looming threat of forced displacement of Gaza’s population—a proposal that Trump has openly suggested as the only solution. Regionally, Jordan finds itself alongside Egypt as both countries face direct pressure from the US displacement plan. This shared challenge has reinforced their cooperation on various regional issues over the years, yet expanding the Arab alliance has now become an urgent necessity. The multiple forms of US pressure on Egypt make it crucial to establish a stronger, more resilient Arab coalition, with Saudi Arabia playing a central role.

Trump views Saudi Arabia as a gateway to regional peace and a key economic partner, not only for the United States, but also for a major strategic project aimed at linking India to Europe through the Arabian Peninsula, the Mediterranean, and Italy. This highlights the importance of Saudi Arabia’s role in Trump’s vision. At the same time, Jordan’s southern geography is closely tied to Saudi Arabia within this ambitious economic corridor, which strengthens shared economic interests between the two countries. This growing economic partnership could lay the groundwork for deeper political coordination, including a potential Jordanian-Saudi understanding regarding the proposed displacement policy.

On the international level, Jordan can work to rally support for its political stance, which enjoys broad consensus among key global actors. However, at this stage, prioritising Arab alliances and maintaining effective communication channels with the US administration is far more critical than merely seeking international backing.

Domestically, Jordan’s internal front remains the most crucial. The current climate presents an opportunity for the state to reinforce national unity, as growing regional instability has heightened public awareness of external threats. This requires decisive steps to foster genuine political participation and address long-standing grievances of exclusion and marginalization. A shift in political discourse, engagement strategies, and governance methods is necessary to strengthen national cohesion. Uniting Jordanians under an inclusive and representative state framework will be vital in shaping a new phase in the country’s history.

What remains striking is how Jordan was suddenly thrust into the equation of resolving the Gaza crisis. From the outset of the war, discussions primarily centered around Egypt due to its direct geographical connection to Gaza. However, Trump’s unexpected move to involve Jordan has now exposed the country to two major risks: the potential displacement of Gaza’s population and, more alarmingly, the forced displacement of West Bank residents. The push to make Jordan part of the US plan for Gaza raises concerns that this could lead to an imposed reality in which Jordan is expected to absorb West Bank residents as well.

Categorically rejecting forced displacement must be Jordan’s top priority. However, achieving this requires a high level of political agility and the ability to engage in direct negotiations with all relevant stakeholders. This approach would strengthen Jordan’s regional role at a time when further Israeli escalation across multiple fronts, including Gaza and the West Bank, seems increasingly likely. Such an escalation could be used by the Israeli government to block political maneuvering and impose new realities on the ground. A military confrontation could shift the issue of displacement from a political debate to an unavoidable reality, forcing all parties to confront its consequences.

The author is an academic writing for The Jordan Times.

News

First in EU: Brussels Calls For Sanctions Against Israel

CrossFireArabia
February 17, 2025

The Brussels-Capital Region Parliament made history as the first in Belgium and Europe to pass a resolution calling for sanctions on the Israeli occupation, according to the BDS movement. The resolution urges the Brussels government to withhold weapon licenses to Israel, stop supporting companies linked to its military, and sever cooperation with firms listed in the UN database.

Opinion

Is America Abandoning Europe?

CrossFireArabia
February 17, 2025

In 2007, Russia’s President Putin gave a now-infamous speech at the Munich Security Conference (MSC), announcing Russia’s new posture of hostility towards the US and Europe. In 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine, many looked back at Putin’s 2007 Munich speech as a revealing moment of his intentions.

This year’s MSC could be a similar watershed. This time, the warning bells ring from across the Atlantic. US Vice President JD Vance delivered one of the most hostile speeches by a US official to Europe in decades. Rather than addressing the Russian or Chinese threats, Vance argued that Europe faced a “threat from within,” accusing the EU and national governments of censorship and ignoring popular demands on issues like illegal migration.

Meanwhile, away from Munich, US President Donald Trump held a phone call with Putin, setting the stage for negotiations between the US and Russia for a peace agreement in Ukraine – without involving European counterparts in the discussions. The day before, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth announced some of the US expectations from this deal: Ukraine should drop its NATO membership bid, European countries would need to provide the forces to enforce the agreement, and these forces would not be covered by NATO’s Article 5 guarantees.

The transatlantic picture in which the MSC took place was even bleaker. Since Trump’s inauguration one month ago, the new president had promised (and now imposed) tariffs against countries across the world, including Europe. He has threatened to annex the territory of allies like Canada and Denmark.

Normally, the MSC is an opportunity for the United States to reaffirm its commitment to Europe and the Atlantic alliance. This year, it could be remembered as the time when the US started the process of abandoning Europe – or even going aggressively after it.

An attack on Europe

Vance’s speech and the reactions to it have dominated the discussions at the MSC. Although the conference theme was “multilateralization”, the real topic on everyone’s mind was: how would Trump’s second administration approach Europe?

As the pre-conference report argued: “Donald Trump’s presidential victory has buried the US post–Cold War foreign policy consensus that a grand strategy of liberal internationalism would best serve US interests.” That this consensus was gone was clearly visible in the conference. Despite perfunctory references to shared values, Vance’s speech did not talk about the alliance between Europe and North America, nor about the common threats and how to face them.

And he has voiced support for anti-EU parties. Vance pronounced his speech in Germany, just weeks before federal elections, and argued that there should not be “firewalls” in government – a clear reference to the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) which has so far been kept out of governing coalitions. After the speech, Vance met with the AfD leader.

Additionally, Vance criticized Romania for canceling its 2024 elections and accused the EU of censoring free speech. But Vance failed to acknowledge that the very election that brought Trump and him to power in November was the subject of major foreign interference by Russia, China, and Iran. Rather than sitting idly by, US agencies took active measures to counter these malign actions and prevent disruptions – like raising awareness, coordinating with the media, and keeping politics out of the fight. With his speech, Vance seems to be arguing for the exact opposite approach.

All these issues did not touch on security and defense, the core of the MSC’s discussions. But they did lure in the background of Vance’s speech. A few months ago, Vance argued that the EU should not regulate tech companies owned by Elon Musk. If the Europeans did so, he argued, the US should reduce its security commitments to NATO. Hence, American assurances could become bargaining chips to resolve other issues.

How will the EU respond?

Vance’s Munich speech marks a new era in US relations with Europe. While the themes are not new – Trump has never been a fan of NATO, and enjoys courting Europe’s far-right – the extent of the rhetorical change cannot be understated. Ukraine’s President Zelensky, speaking in Munich the day after Vance, spelled out the challenge in clear terms: “We can’t rule out the possibility that America might say ‘no’ to Europe on issues that threaten it.”

The reaction from European leaders has been strong so far. EU Commission President Von der Leyen called for an emergency clause in the EU treaties to allow member states to boost defense spending [8]. French President Macron called for a summit of European leaders in Paris on Monday, February 17 – to sketch out a common position on the upcoming negotiations over Ukraine, and on making up for US security guarantees from Europe.

The greatest challenge, however, will be transforming outrage into meaningful action. Europeans have long ignored calls to take charge of their own security. Domestic constraints over spending, divisions and the continued belief that Uncle Sam will have their back have stood in the way of ambitious choices. Will this time be different?

This opinion was written by Giuseppe Spatafora for the Anadolu news website.

Opinion

How Will Hawkish Trump Deal With Iran?

CrossFireArabia
February 15, 2025

Ata Şahit

Immediately upon his return to the White House for a second stint, a hawkish Donald Trump has put Iran on notice.

In the first week of February, the US President signed a presidential decree reinstating the maximum pressure policy on Iran, saying that though he was not pleased with the decision, he had no choice but to adopt a firm stance.

A few days later, Trump claimed that a very “frightened” Iran was ready for a deal with the US over the Shia-majority nation’s nuclear programme.

The moot point of his assertion was that he would also prefer a deal rather than Israel carrying its threat of attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. “I’d much rather do a deal that’s not going to hurt them.”

Since Trump assumed office, Iranian officials have consistently voiced their support for dialogue and expressed a willingness to engage in negotiations with the new administration.

On January 14, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian reaffirmed this position in an interview with NBC, emphasising Iran’s openness to talks.

However, any potential for a dialogue appeared to have been decisively shut down following a February 7 statement by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei.

Addressing members of the Iranian military, Khamenei declared that engaging in negotiations with the US was neither a prudent nor an honourable course of action, unequivocally rejecting the prospect of talks between the two countries.

Some analysts have interpreted Trump’s January approval of the sale of 4,700 additional MK-84 bunker-buster bombs to Israel as part of a broader Iran strategy.

This begs the question: How would Iran-US relations evolve under Trump, and how significant is the threat posed by Iran’s potential nuclear capabilities?

Israel likely to attack Iran nuclear facilities by midyear — report

Trump’s first term and Iran

Trump’s re-election marks a critical turning point for Iran. Even during his first presidency, Trump’s policy of maximum pressure had led to significant economic, political, and military challenges for Tehran.

It was during the first Trump administration that some seismic events – such as the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal, the re-imposition of economic sanctions, and the assassination of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani—intensified the pressure on Iran.

With Trump’s re-election, the Iranian leadership is concerned about the prospect of further escalation of previous policies.

Recent developments in the region indicate that Iran’s deterrence capabilities have reached a critical low.

An analysis of Iran’s national security and defence doctrine reveals that it rests on three principal strategic pillars: the establishment of a forward defence line via non-state actors under the Quds Force, an extensive missile programme, and efforts to achieve nuclear threshold status.

However, Israel’s attacks in 2023 and 2024 have significantly weakened these pillars. Indeed, the elimination of Hezbollah leaders, the destruction of its command structures, and successful Israeli airstrikes against Iranian territory have complicated Iran’s ability to leverage these elements as an effective deterrent.

Moreover, although Iran’s missile programme is still impressive in terms of variety and quantity, its effectiveness was found to be limited during the April and October 2024 attacks. The majority of Iran’s missiles either missed their targets or proved ineffective.

The Israeli strikes on October 26 severely damaged Iran’s missile engine production facilities and solid fuel production capabilities.

In particular, the strikes on the Shahroud missile complex have significantly constrained Iran’s ability to develop long-range missiles. As a result of these strikes, Iran’s most advanced air defence systems (S-300 PMU2) were rendered inoperable.

The remaining systems are limited both in range and capability, thereby increasing Iran’s vulnerability to external attacks. These vulnerabilities have prompted Tehran to reconsider the option of developing nuclear weapons.

While Iran has the capability to produce weapons-grade uranium within a week, integrating a nuclear warhead into a missile system is regarded as a time-consuming process.

Iran’s nuclear programme and rising concerns

Trump’s threats and the continuing tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme represent a critical juncture for the country.

Rather than initiating the production of nuclear weapons, Tehran could adopt the more cautious yet effective step of announcing its intention to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Such a move would underscore Iran’s seriousness while seeking to extract more concessions at the negotiating table.

A notable example is North Korea, which in 1993 employed a similar strategy by announcing its intention to withdraw from the treaty, subsequently suspending its decision before ultimately carrying it out.

Iran’s threat to withdraw from the NPT could be perceived by the international community as a shift toward nuclear weapons production. This, in turn, could escalate regional tensions and potentially encourage Israel to deploy US-made bunker-buster bombs against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Iran’s clandestine nuclear weapons programme, known as the Amad Plan, sought to produce five nuclear weapons between 1999 and 2003.

Under this plan, four warheads for Shahab-3 ballistic missiles and one bomb for an underground test were developed.

According to the Iranian nuclear archive captured by Israel in 2018, Iran has made significant advances in critical technologies, including nuclear warhead design, neutron initiators, and detonation focusing systems. This information is regarded as a contributing factor to Iran’s increased capacity to produce nuclear weapons.

Significant similarities exist between China’s first nuclear bomb (codenamed 596) and Iran’s early designs. The findings indicate that Iran is approaching the status of a nuclear threshold state.

Therefore, Trump’s nuclear policy toward Iran is a critical issue, both in terms of differing perspectives within his administration and the broader international context.

Where can the process evolve?

Iran’s nuclear programme remains a priority concern for both Europe and the US.

With the expiration of the UN Security Council (UNSC) snapback sanctions in October 2025, the US-led West risks losing one of its most powerful tools of diplomatic leverage.

In this context, Europe plans to leverage Iran’s vulnerabilities and time constraints to initiate an effective nuclear diplomacy process.

Indeed, a statement by the E3 – France, Germany and the UK – that it is prepared to utilise all diplomatic tools against Iran indicates that patience is waning.

Simultaneously, Iran’s statements suggesting it may reassess its technical capabilities and political intentions have raised concerns within the international community.

The US might intensify pressure by tightening the enforcement of secondary sanctions on the Iranian economy.

As an initial measure, Trump imposed sanctions on a key international network involved in the sale of Iranian oil, delivering a significant blow to Iran’s oil exports.

Expanding sanctions to target major purchasers of Iranian oil, particularly China, could exacerbate Iran’s economic vulnerabilities.

In other words, the US and Europe may capitalise on this window of opportunity by intensifying pressure on Iran while simultaneously presenting clear diplomatic solutions.

In Iran, contrary to Khamenei’s rhetoric, there are indications that a large section of the leadership and population are generally supportive of negotiations with the US.

Recently, the Center for Islamic World Studies, aligned with Supreme Leader Khamenei, conducted a survey on Iran-US negotiations as part of its advisory role in foreign policy.

The study surveyed 119 academics, senior executives, and current and former officials. The results revealed that 86.5 percent of respondents supported direct negotiations between Iran and the Trump administration, while just 5.8 percent opposed the proposal. A further 7.5 percent of respondents indicated that negotiations would be conditional.

Against the backdrop of Trump’s belligerence against Iran, the risk of Israel attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities has gone up manifold.

How Tehran decides to navigate the choppy waters of uncertainty will determine the future of US-Iran relations. And, perhaps, of the volatile region too.

Ata Şahit

Ata Şahit is an executive producer for TRT.

Opinion

A World Without America?

Dr Khairi Janbek
February 4, 2025

By Dr Khairi Janbek

Away from the condom politics which seems to be just an obsession of a Washington administration suffering from erectile dysfunction, on thought it would be intriguing to imagine a world without America, which means deep cultural, economic as well as political implications. It’s a thought experiment which forces one to imagine how the world would look like without the specific influence, history and power dynamics that the USA has shaped.

On the geopolitical and global power level, other nations would have to step in into the void, vying for influence. Europe, China, Russia and India would probably play a central role on global politics, in addition, the Security Council of the UN will start looking very different, Europe would become the dominant force strengthening its collective military and political capabilities.

In terms of culture and society, American has played a central role in shaping global pop culture, Hollywood, music, fashion and hi-tech, indeed other nations would have come in, in Asia South Korea, Japan and India would take a central role in shaping global culture, with Europe asserting itself in the arts and literature.

In technology and innovation, the US has produced Silicon Valley and leading corporations in software, hardware and AI, however without, China and Europe would fill the hitech leadership role which probably would accelerate their breakthroughs.

As for the economy, without America, the world economy would be real different, the US dollar would not be the world reserve currency, with the Euro and the Yuan, being the global standard. Trade dynamics would be rearranged and institutions like the World Bank and the IMF would have other substitutes.

Regarding military and defense, American power is unmatched , without it global security dynamics would shift drastically, NATO might not exist, while regions powers like Russia, China and India, would become more aggressive in asserting their influence.

In terms of the environment and social movements, the US has been at the forefront of global debates on climate change, social Justice and human rights; taking note of course, with mixed results, but without it, certainly others would take the lead, for a start, Europe has been a leader in pushing for climate action , and in social action, countries like Brazil, South Africa, would fill in the gap with most probably leading to different outcomes. But , the USA has been a major donor for global and humanitarian aid, and their contribution would have to be substituted by other coalitions, which one assumes would be limited only to crisis.

Essentially, a world system without America, the international system would be less centered around one dominant great power, as power would be more diffuse with multiple centers of influence and more regional power struggles, but at the end of the day, the purpose for the use of condoms would be much clearer.

Dr Janbek is an opinion writer based in Paris