Nearly three years have passed since the war began on October 7, 2023. Despite all the painful and horrific scenes witnessed across the region, the most alarming event for Jordan was the targeting of Aqaba just two days ago.
اضافة اعلان
Aqaba is no ordinary city, It enjoys a special administrative status, serves as a flagship investment model for Jordan, and is a major tourism and commercial hub.
It is also Jordan’s only seaport, through which essential imports including wheat, medicine, and oil enter the country. In addition, the city is home to chemical industries and has a socially diverse population.
Today, the government, together with the Aqaba Special Economic Zone Authority and other stakeholders, should move quickly to restore the city's appeal.
While it has not lost its attractiveness, it has undoubtedly come under threat.
If Iran claims it is striking targets across the region because of the presence of U.S. forces, then why target a city that has nothing to do with the war?
Those who decided to strike Aqaba in Tehran overlooked two important facts. First, Eilat, located only a short distance away, would have been the more obvious target if the objective were Israel rather than a Jordanian city.
Second, by targeting Aqaba, Iran ignored the many Jordanians who had previously expressed support when it launched strikes against Israel.
The message they received was that the priority was no longer Israel, but rather a Jordanian city that represents a cornerstone of the country's investment, tourism, and trade and a vital lifeline for its economy.
What if Iranian missiles had struck a ship in Aqaba's port, caused an explosion at a chemical facility, hit a hotel full of tourists, or landed in a residential neighborhood? The questions are endless.
What additional insurance costs will shipping companies now demand before sailing to Aqaba? How will Jordan reassure tourists that the city remains a safe destination? These concerns require clear and credible answers.
Some argue that Jordan's support for U.S. operations against Iran makes it a legitimate target.
Yet that argument falls apart when applied to Aqaba. The city is not a military installation; it is a civilian Jordanian city.
No reasonable person can accept it being threatened, even if the intention is to pressure Jordan.
Such logic suggests that civilian infrastructure could become a legitimate target in a war that increasingly fails to distinguish between military and civilian objectives.
This is a blind war that shows little regard for either its targets or its consequences.
We must distinguish between different contexts rather than blur them together. Iran's attacks on Israel do not give it legitimacy to strike a Jordanian city neighboring an Israeli one.
By targeting Aqaba, Iran risks losing part of the public sympathy it once enjoyed in Jordan when its attacks were directed at Israel.
Those who argue that Jordan has brought these attacks upon itself should think carefully. Iran's regional project has long been openly declared, yet its actions now appear to be spilling into civilian areas across the Arab world instead of focusing on Israel, which remains at the heart of the conflict and is, at least for now, being avoided.
Rather than engaging in endless political disputes, attention should be focused on the cost of targeting Aqaba.
The government, the Aqaba Special Economic Zone Authority, and the private and tourism sectors should respond appropriately.
Even if some dismiss such action as an overreaction, the time has come to move beyond endless debate, stubbornness, and political point-scoring.
