By : Nedal Zubeidi
Jordan Daily – In international relations, as in life, there are always two distances: the distance of words and the distance of understanding. One can say much in the first, yet the second is measured in slow steps and small gestures that often pass unnoticed. In this sense, the behavior of a diplomat becomes part of an unwritten language – one understood by those accustomed to reading between the lines.
The relationship between Jordan and the United States is neither new nor accidental. It spans decades in which administrations changed, priorities shifted, and yet certain constants remained. It has weathered moments of caution and seasons of cooperation, bound together by a mutual understanding: Jordan’s internal balance is delicate but steady, and its ability to navigate between regional pressures is a skill not many possess.
It is within this broader context that the active presence of the U.S. Ambassador in Amman, Jim Holtsnider becomes a small chapter in a much longer story. The ambassador visits ministries, steps into homes during moments of joy and sorrow, and walks the streets with a familiarity that diplomats elsewhere might avoid. Such gestures may not change the course policy, but they remind us that diplomacy can carry a social face before it becomes a political statement.
Yet, in Jordan, every movement has an echo. A society shaped by geography and history watches details as carefully as it watches grand events. It asks, quietly but insistently: Why now? And why with such frequency? These are not questions of suspicion or rejection, but part of a longstanding Jordanian instinct to interpret change through subtle signals.
Still, it would be naïve to think that the broader relationship depends on visits alone. The United States, regardless of the style of its envoys, remains a major partner for Jordan – in security, development, and regional stability. And Jordan, carrying the weight of its neighborhood, understands that relations with great powers are built over years, not over passing courtesies.
The ambassador may succeed in earning the public’s warmth through his closeness, or he may provoke debate through his visibility. But what endures is what both nations ultimately choose within their own interests: Jordan with its steady, quiet diplomacy, and the United States with the shifting priorities of a global power.
Perhaps the most reassuring element in all of this is the Jordanian public’s intuitive sense of proportion. People here know that a diplomat is a guest, that policy is a long game, and that stability is not crafted on sidewalks but in rooms where decisions are shaped.
So the visits – whatever noise surrounds them – remain only mirrors reflecting parts of a larger relationship. The relationship itself is bigger than one person and broader than any single moment. It is a narrative that continues between two countries that have learned to cooperate when necessary and disagree to the degree that does not break the friendship.
