After the weapons plot: Rethinking Jordan’s national project

The unprecedented revelation last week of the dismantling of a clandestine network of Jordanian citizens manufacturing and stockpiling non-conventional weapons, with operational ties to regional groups, has profoundly disrupted Jordan’s domestic landscape. This event marks a clear divide between the period before and after its disclosure. While the incident demands a robust security response, its deep political and societal implications require a broader approach. The consequences, both locally and regionally, will unfold in the coming days, necessitating a comprehensive reassessment of Jordan’s national strategy.

Notably, the network’s operational reach extends beyond Jordan, with a logistical node in Lebanon. This connection underscores that the issue of non-state weapons is not merely a local concern but part of a complex, interconnected regional reality. As Lebanon grapples with reclaiming statehood, Jordan’s revelations highlight the persistent challenge of armed factions operating outside state control—a pressing issue also in Syria. The existence of such groups and their arsenals threatens the sovereignty and stability of states across the region, demanding urgent attention.

The magnitude of this issue cannot be overstated. Some voices have attempted to frame the operation as “resistance,” as if this legitimizes weapons caches in a country like Jordan, where institutions, not militias, uphold the rule of law. This argument fundamentally undermines the principles of statehood and sovereignty. The right to bear arms belongs exclusively to the state; there is no legal, political, or moral justification for individuals to arm themselves, train, or prepare for combat on Jordanian soil. Such flawed logic extends beyond those directly involved, permeating regional discourse. For instance, an Iranian guest on a televised interview claimed Iran does not target Jordan, arguing that transferring and storing weapons in the country does not constitute an attack since the intent was to smuggle them across the border, not use them against Jordanian interests. This justification, cloaked in strategic neutrality, reveals a troubling disregard for national sovereignty.

These developments demand a candid review of past shortcomings, particularly the failure to engage broad sectors of Jordanian society. For years, official policy ignored ground realities, allowing ideological movements to fill the resulting vacuum. Emboldened by government inaction—and occasionally alignment—these movements positioned themselves as the sole cultural and political arbiters, dictating societal norms. This oversight has contributed to the current crisis, highlighting the need for a proactive state-led response.

The question now is: what must Jordan do? This incident is not a fleeting event but a critical juncture with far-reaching political and social consequences. It offers an opportunity to initiate a new phase where the state reclaims its central role. A comprehensive national project, rooted in inclusive values and a robust legal framework, is urgently needed to rebuild social cohesion and counter ideological narratives. This requires a new national discourse centered on citizenship, belonging, and the rule of law—a long-term endeavor that must begin immediately.

There is no place for identities that transcend borders or ideologies that exploit societies for political gain. A strong state, underpinned by resilient institutions, demands a clear narrative and robust cultural foundations. In a region plagued by sectarian fragmentation, institutional thinking remains the only reliable path to stability. Jordan must embrace this national project as its core mission, moving forward with determination to secure a unified, stable future. Winning public trust will hinge on clarity in both vision and execution. By addressing this foundational challenge head-on, Jordan can transform this crisis into a catalyst for enduring national renewal.