Missile threats and the cultivation of hatred toward the Jordanian state

Jordan’s historical experience with illegal arms, security disorder, and politicized factions exploiting the Palestinian cause is neither new nor forgotten. These memories remain vivid within the country's leadership and sovereign institutions, shaping a firm stance against any group that threatens national unity and stability under the guise of ideological or revolutionary rhetoric.

The Kingdom has learned that slogans—whether religious, leftist, or right-wing—often mask more troubling agendas. While some movements may claim concern for Jordan’s security, their actions frequently tell a different story. Just as corruption in public administration can hide behind talk of reform and patriotism, so too can extremist elements disguise hostility to the state beneath nationalist language.

Expressions of loyalty lose meaning when accompanied by acts of provocation—be it through inflammatory protests, anti-state chants, or the display of foreign militia flags. Allegiance cannot be credible when individuals pledge loyalty to non-Jordanian figures, effectively rejecting national institutions and claiming alternative authorities.

Furthermore, disdain for Jordan’s institutions—its army, its martyrs, and its security apparatus—exposes a deeper alienation. For some, even acknowledging the country during national celebrations such as Independence Day becomes an act of political discomfort. This disconnect is not merely symbolic; it manifests in dangerous and organized efforts.

The discovery of missile manufacturing and weapons storage facilities cannot be dismissed as isolated incidents. These developments reflect long-term ideological conditioning and deliberate coordination with external actors. Such activities are not spontaneous nor the result of youthful recklessness—they are the product of institutionalized strategies that aim to alienate members from Jordanian identity and loyalty.

The case of "Abu Ahmad," mentioned in connection with a recently uncovered sabotage cell, exemplifies this threat. Those supporting him were once critical of earlier militant experiences with Jordan, yet now walk the same path they once condemned. Their shift underscores a broader pattern: ideological betrayal and a return to destabilizing behaviour.

Jordan, however, has a long memory. Its response is not based on rhetoric, but on tangible actions. The state remains resolute in confronting any entity—regardless of its political orientation—that seeks to undermine its sovereignty or disrupt public order.