Airstrikes reveal fragile Jordan-Syria security partnership

Apparent gap

The strikes exposed an apparent gap between improving political relations between Damascus and Amman and their ability to cooperate effectively on security matters. Since Assad's fall, the two governments have expanded diplomatic engagement and cooperation to levels unseen in years. Yet this progress has not necessarily produced the mutual trust or operational arrangements needed to address threats along their shared border.

The issue is not whether the two governments are willing to cooperate. Their public statements suggest they are. The more important question is whether their existing arrangements can turn that political commitment into effective action when security threats emerge.

For Jordan, this means having confidence that intelligence shared with Damascus will be investigated and acted upon promptly. That requires capable Syrian security institutions, reliable communication channels and clear procedures for responding to urgent threats. Syria's sovereignty will also be better protected if neighbouring countries trust its institutions to address their security concerns.

Jordan, in turn, must help build that confidence by working through Syrian institutions to address threats originating on Syrian territory. Even when its security concerns are legitimate, bypassing Damascus risks weakening the credibility of the institutions Amman needs as dependable partners. The challenge is therefore to move beyond political assurances and establish practical security arrangements that both governments can rely on when threats emerge.

From rapprochement to cooperation

The newly agreed joint committee offers an opportunity to address this gap. Rather than focusing solely on investigating the latest strikes, it should establish practical arrangements that reduce the risk of similar incidents.

These should include clear procedures for sharing urgent intelligence, jointly assessing threats and determining which authorities are responsible for responding. Both governments also need to agree on how to handle cross-border threats, including in situations in which Syrian forces may lack the capacity to act or cannot respond within the available time.

Reliable intelligence should be central to these arrangements. Reports of militant activity do not automatically establish the identity of everyone at a targeted location or the imminence of an attack. Joint assessments, supported by local intelligence, could improve the quality of operational decisions and reduce risks to civilians.

Accountability for the civilian deaths must also form part of repairing the relationship. The affected families deserve credible explanations of how targets were selected, what precautions were taken and whether mistakes occurred. The findings should be made public where possible, accompanied by appropriate redress and accountability for any established failures.

The two governments have shown that they can contain a diplomatic crisis. They must now demonstrate that their security institutions can prevent another one. The test of their rapprochement will be whether the next credible threat produces a coordinated response that protects people on both sides of the border.