Ayman Irshaid

For more than a quarter of a century, Jordan has stood at the center of one of the world’s most turbulent regions. It has endured wars, political and security upheavals, terrorism and extremism, massive refugee flows, global economic crises, a pandemic, and regional conflicts whose repercussions have reached Jordanian soil and airspace. And yet, Jordan endured. Its institutions continued to function. Its security remained stable. Its borders and alliances held. And its political influence consistently exceeded what its size and resources would suggest. Perhaps that is the most important statistic missing from the Foreign Policy debate: More than twenty-five years of storms—and Jordan is still standing. Luck may help a country survive one crisis. It cannot explain decades of resilience. Jordan has understood the limits of its power—and learned how to multiply the impact of the tools it possesses: geography, diplomacy, alliances, security cooperation and political credibility. This is one of the defining features of King Abdullah II’s leadership. Jordan has never tried to behave like a great power. It has learned how to be a consequential one. Which brings us back to the article of Foreign Policy. Perhaps we simply need to change the metric. The article counts the King’s days abroad. What if we counted the crises Jordan has navigated? It counts interviews. What if we counted the doors Jordan can open when it needs support, influence or diplomatic room to maneuver? It measures the Crown Prince’s growing visibility. What if we saw it instead as preparation for the responsibility of tomorrow? Leadership is not measured by how many hours a ruler spends inside his country. It is measured by what happens to the country under his leadership. And on that measure, Abdullah II needs no interview to make the case. Jordan itself. A small, resource-constrained country in one of the world’s most volatile regions has remained stable, relevant and politically influential through decades of extraordinary turbulence. That is not luck repeated for twenty-five years. It is statecraft.