By: Nedal Zubeidi
Jordan Daily - Jordan’s airstrikes targeting Daesh positions and drug-trafficking networks in southern Syria reflect a shift in the kingdom’s approach to security threats emanating from its northern border. When repeated warnings about extremist activity fail to produce effective measures to contain the risks, a state has both the right and the responsibility to reassess the tools available to protect its citizens and safeguard its national security.
Operation “Jordanian Deterrence - Hmoud,” which the Jordanian Armed Forces conducted in coordination with the Syrian government, followed the attack on mourners attending a church funeral in Karak. According to Jordanian authorities, evidence linked the cell involved in the attack to extremist networks operating in southern Syria. These findings reinforced Jordan’s assessment that the threat was no longer confined to Syrian territory but had direct implications for the kingdom’s security and the safety of its citizens.
In my view, Jordan cannot be expected to exercise restraint indefinitely while threats to its national security persist. Nor can diplomacy become a substitute for practical action when the protection of human life is at stake.
Jordan has repeatedly warned the Syrian side about the dangers posed by extremist groups operating in southern Syria. Yet, the response has fallen short of what is required. This raises a fundamental question: what options remain for a state facing persistent cross- border threats after repeated warnings and diplomatic efforts have failed to deliver sufficient results?
The issue is not a desire for escalation, but the need to prevent a security threat from becoming a permanent reality. From this perspective, the airstrikes can be understood as a clear deterrent message: Jordan will not treat threats to its national security as matters that can be indefinitely postponed or ignored.
The threat posed by drug-trafficking networks is no less significant. Their continued activity in southern Syria points to broader security challenges that armed groups and criminal organisations can exploit amid weak enforcement and security vacuums. Addressing these threats requires a comprehensive approach that disrupts trafficking routes, dismantles criminal networks and prevents extremist groups from exploiting illicit activities to sustain their operations.
Coordination with Damascus represents an opportunity that should be built upon, not a justification for settling for political understandings without tangible results. What is needed is sustained security cooperation, intelligence- sharing, effective border control and concrete action against extremist cells and trafficking networks.
The Syrian government also has a responsibility to demonstrate its ability to prevent its territory from being used as a launching ground for threats against neighbouring states.
In my assessment, the real test lies not in public statements but in results on the ground. Coordination that does not translate into measurable action will have limited impact, while addressing the threats requires a serious and sustained security partnership.
Ultimately, the Jordanian airstrikes should not be viewed as an isolated military operation, but as an indication of the kingdom’s growing concern over persistent threats originating in southern Syria and the need to move beyond warnings towards practical measures to contain them.
Jordan’s national security cannot be indefinitely deferred, and protecting its citizens is not a political option but a fundamental sovereign responsibility. The objective should not be escalation for its own sake, but effective Syrian cooperation that translates commitments into tangible results, alongside a security strategy that prevents extremist groups and trafficking networks from exploiting security vacuums to threaten Jordan and the wider region.
Stability in southern Syria is not separate from Jordan’s national interests, it is an integral part of the kingdom’s security.
