As the world undergoes a very fast and turbulent change in geopolitical issues between countries, Jordan and Egypt have worked together to create an even more unified way of doing diplomacy. Their message is that they aim to maintain peace by transforming the calm they have established into a new, stable, and long-lasting peace. As referenced in Ammon News, the high-ranking ministers from each of these affected countries discussed how they can build off the ceasefire between the United States and Iran and how they will reach a longer agreement that directly addresses the underlying issues through the adherence to the international law and the principle that nations have the right to control their own affairs. Both ministers emphasised the need to use diplomacy and dialogue as their primary methods to reach stability and prevent a confrontation from occurring again.
The ramifications from these discussions extend far beyond procedural diplomacy. The Middle East is at a nexus of global energy routes, strategic waterways, and competing security interests. When tensions between Washington and Tehran de-escalate, that will have an immediate effect on oil markets, shipping lanes, and regional alliances. Historically, even limited tensions in the Gulf have caused fluctuations in the price of crude oil worldwide; they have caused disruptions to the cost of maritime insurance; and they have created an increased state of military readiness across multiple countries.
Jordan and Egypt’s coordinated position reflects a regional security philosophy: collective action is the only way to achieve stability. Both nations maintain solid relations with multiple nations, acting in a diplomatic capacity, therefore providing an opportunity for both to act as modulating voices during higher collective uncertainty. Because both countries place an emphasis on addressing the “root causes” of a conflict rather than merely issuing a ceasefire (which does not adequately address the structural tensions), complex issues related to maritime security; proxy wars; and strategic deterrence will usually require a long-term negotiating framework.
The timing of this diplomatic effort has additional significance. Amidst a focus on weak de-escalation attempts, concerted Arab diplomatic efforts have the potential to help prevent the pattern of ceasefire-ceasefire-dissolution-aggression that has characterised regional crises time and again. By reinforcing dialogue rather than deterrence, Amman and Cairo seem to be attempting to lead the region towards an incremental shift away from reactive crisis management and towards proactive diplomacy.
The larger implications are obvious: volatility does not usually resolve itself through one agreement. Instead, peace is built via multiple layers of discussions and through the quiet coordination of working together with ongoing pressure on involved parties to exercise restraint. Amman’s and Cairo’s combined efforts suggest their belief that repeated and extended diplomatic activity can transform a state of short-lived calm into a long-term state of strategic stability, thus creating ripple effects beyond the Middle East and affecting the global economy and security.
