On Thursday, September 17, 2026, King Abdullah II announced the signing of a defense cooperation agreement between Jordan and France following talks with French President Macron at Les Invalides in Paris. The agreement aims to deepen the defense partnership between the two states. However, the King’s post on X (formerly Twitter) did not disclose details regarding the agreement's specific terms or scope. Such omissions often occur when military agreements contain sensitive clauses—particularly those likely to trigger domestic public backlash or impact international rivals competing for influence and control in the region, especially given the proliferation of such defense agreements.

In addition to signing this agreement, the King of Jordan and the French President met with Lebanese Army Commander Joseph Aoun. During the meeting, they emphasized the importance of hosting a new round of the "Aqaba Process" initiative to discuss ways to support the Lebanese Army. This discussion also acknowledged a potential role for Jordan—backed by France—to serve as an alternative to the UNIFIL peacekeeping force should its mandate not be renewed.

Nevertheless, a joint official statement issued at the conclusion of the King’s visit outlined the official positions and broad parameters underpinning the agreement, which covers the fields of defense, security, and regional affairs. Key points included:

-   The importance of the defense and security partnership between France and Jordan, and France’s commitment to supporting Jordan’s security and stability.

-   The signing of a defense cooperation agreement reflecting both nations' commitment to further deepening their defense partnership.

-   Taking practical steps to realize an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, based on the two-state solution; rejecting any attempt to annex the West Bank or any (Israeli) attempts to displace the Palestinian people; and reiterating their condemnation of the illegal E1 settlement project.

-   Supporting Syria’s unity, security, stability, and sovereignty; emphasizing the need to halt “Israeli” attacks on Syria and to respect the 1974 Disengagement of Forces Agreement.

The Jordanian regime has recently been gripped by deep anxiety regarding political repercussions and challenges that have placed it at the center of a conflict arena—one that could threaten its very survival amidst regional settlements and confrontations. It has become entangled in these dynamics through its involvement in the escalating tensions between Iran, the United States, and the Jewish entity, as well as the hosting of U.S. military bases under the joint defense agreement between the United States and Jordan.

The regime also harbors concerns and feels threatened by the Jewish entity, despite historical ties and uninterrupted, mutual military and security protection. The King—along with President Macron—voiced apprehensions at the United Nations regarding the dwindling prospects for a two-state solution, the annexation of the West Bank, and the expansion of settlements; these developments fuel fears of forced displacement and the creation of an “alternative homeland.”

Amidst these profound military, security, and political risks, the Jordanian regime recognizes the need to bolster its military defense capabilities—specifically by upgrading air defense, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems—and to diversify its sources of advanced equipment and technology for unconventional warfare, such as drones and cybersecurity. It determined that it could strengthen its defenses by leveraging its geopolitical position to serve the ambitions and interests of certain European nations, regional powers, and China, in exchange for guarantees regarding its own survival and political stability.

To this end, the regime sought to restructure its military to keep pace with modern warfare tactics and to position the army as a vehicle for advancing these foreign powers’ interests; France, which has maintained military bases in Jordan for a decade, is one such partner. France’s move behind this agreement reflects a European desire to present itself as an alternative and more balanced partner for Arab nations—contrasting with America’s absolute bias toward certain parties in regional conflicts.

There is a long-standing convergence of interests between Paris and London in Ash-Sham (the Levant); at its geopolitical core, the Jordanian-French agreement carries a competitive and independent character aimed at salvaging what can be saved within a historic sphere of influence. This is driven by a French and British desire to protect vital interests, independent of the erratic nature of current US foreign policy and the preoccupation of US decision-makers with electoral battles.

Recently, Jordan has entered into a series of joint defense agreements: it signed a pact with the US in 2021, and—prior to this latest agreement with Paris, the fourth of its kind—it signed similar deals with Austria and the Netherlands. This follows the agreement signed with NATO last year in Brussels to open the alliance’s diplomatic liaison office in Amman, as well as recent discussions on enhancing military cooperation and coordination between Jordan and Britain.

The question raised by the public in Jordan is how these agreements serve the interests of Jordan and its people, or defend its security, resources—which are being plundered—its collapsing economy, and its astronomical debt. They also question how these deals address the threat posed by the “Jewish entity”—specifically regarding displacement—and the failure of the two-state solution diplomacy. The hypocrisy of democratic capitalist states is evident here; they remain silent while aligning and coordinating with a regime characterized by dictatorship, repression, the silencing of dissent, and cronyism—all in pursuit of interests achieved at the expense of its own people. For Jordan to rely on the “disbelieving, colonialist West’ is a losing gamble by the standards of capitalist politics—a politics driven by interests, benefits, and crisis management that shift wherever its own interests and hegemony dictate.

There are no true friends, alliances, or even permanent agents; once a ruler or a subordinate regime no longer serves its interests—or stands in their way—it swiftly removes them, along with their entire political establishment. If a regime does not base its survival and security on its own people, it will find no support or protection against its covetous enemies.

It is worth recalling here that France is not the “friend” portrayed by local official media—a narrative used to justify agreements and mislead Muslims. Since the Crusades, France has played a central role in attacking Islam and Muslims. One need only recall the words of General Henri Gouraud during the French occupation of the Levant (Ash-Sham) in 1917, spoken before the tomb of Salahudin in Damascus, “We have returned, O Saladin (Salahudin); arise now.” France’s occupation of Tunisia and Algeria—marked by the slaughter of Muslims, the killing of millions of Algerians, and the severing of thousands of heads, which were displayed in the Museum of Man in Paris—was a tangible manifestation of its Crusader-like animosity toward Islam and Muslims. Furthermore, President Macron has previously attacked Islam, claiming it is “in crisis all over the world.” All this hostility is driven by a wretched objective: to prevent the establishment of the Khilafah (Caliphate)—a state whose time has come to expose the intentions and ambitions of these colonialists, and to establish the justice and mercy that the world lacks today.