Iran’s missile strike on US base in Jordan exposes systemic proxy warfare and regional power vacuums

Indigenous Bedouin communities in Jordan’s eastern deserts have long resisted state and foreign military encroachment on their ancestral lands, framing such presence as a violation of ‘ard al-nas’ (land of the people). Their oral histories document how Ottoman, British, and now US forces have disrupted seasonal migration routes and water sources, treating the land as a resource to be controlled rather than a living entity. Their knowledge of arid-land resilience offers alternatives to militarized security, but is systematically excluded from policy debates. The absence of their voices in this narrative reflects a broader erasure of indigenous stewardship in favor of state-centric security paradigms.

The US military presence in Jordan dates to the 1991 Gulf War, but its roots trace to Cold War interventions that treated the Middle East as a chessboard for superpower rivalry. The 1953 CIA-backed coup in Iran and subsequent sanctions created the conditions for the Islamic Republic’s rise, while US support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980s fueled the very regime Iran now confronts. The 2003 Iraq War shattered regional stability, leaving a vacuum filled by militias and foreign fighters—a pattern repeating in Syria and now Jordan. This strike is a symptom of a 70-year cycle of intervention, retaliation, and state failure.

In West African traditions, conflicts like this are often framed as ‘the elephant’s dance’—where powerful outsiders clash while local communities suffer the stampede. The Hadhramaut region of Yemen, historically a crossroads of Persian and Arab cultures, has long resisted being a battleground for external powers; its poetry and oral traditions warn of ‘the guest who overstays his welcome.’ In South Asia, the concept of ‘dharma’ in Hindu and Buddhist thought would critique this cycle as a violation of moral duty, where violence begets violence without addressing root causes. These perspectives highlight the absurdity of treating military bases as solutions rather than symptoms of deeper fractures.

Research on proxy warfare (e.g., Byman 2018) shows that external military presence often increases local grievances and insurgency recruitment, contradicting the assumption that bases deter aggression. Data from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program indicates that US military bases in the Middle East correlate with higher rates of asymmetric attacks, including drone strikes and militia operations. The ‘security dilemma’ framework explains how actions taken to enhance safety (e.g., deploying missiles) can provoke counter-escalation, creating a feedback loop of violence. This strike aligns with historical patterns where third-party interventions escalate rather than resolve conflicts.

Persian miniature art often depicts battles as cyclical and futile, with figures trapped in repetitive violence—a visual metaphor for the ‘wheel of samsara’ in Buddhist thought, where conflict is a karmic trap. The poetry of Hafez and Rumi frames earthly power struggles as distractions from divine unity, while Sufi dervishes historically mediated between warring factions in Anatolia and the Levant. In Jordan, the ancient Nabatean tradition of ‘diyafa’ (hospitality) contrasts with the militarization of borders, suggesting that security lies in shared humanity rather than armed deterrence. These artistic traditions offer a counter-narrative to the glorification of military force.

Scenario modeling by the RAND Corporation suggests that continued US military presence in Jordan could lead to a 30% increase in militia attacks by 2027, with spillover effects into Syria and Iraq. Alternative models, such as the ‘regional security complex’ theory (Buzan & Waever 2003), predict that de-escalation requires phased withdrawal of foreign forces, investment in Jordan’s renewable energy sector to reduce reliance on US aid, and a revived Arab Peace Initiative. The ‘no-first-use’ nuclear doctrine, adapted for conventional forces, could reduce miscalculation risks. Without structural changes, the region faces a future of chronic instability and environmental degradation.

Jordanian civil society groups like the ‘Jordanian Anti-Normalization Campaign’ and Bedouin activists in the Wadi Rum region have long opposed foreign military presence, framing it as a violation of sovereignty and a drain on resources. Iraqi and Syrian refugees in Jordan, numbering over 1.3 million, face heightened securitization and economic marginalization due to the perceived threat of ‘spillover’ violence. Women’s organizations, such as the ‘Jordanian Women’s Union,’ argue that militarization diverts funds from education and healthcare, exacerbating gender inequalities. These voices are systematically excluded from geopolitical analyses that prioritize state security over human security.

The trickster figure of Coyote, central to Native American cosmology, would laugh at the absurdity of two empires (US and Iran) treating Jordan as their backyard, while Jordanians pay the price. Erasmus’ ‘Praise of Folly’ mocks the solemnity of war planners who claim their violence is ‘necessary,’ revealing how militarism disguises itself as duty. Hermes, the Greek messenger god, embodies the duality of this conflict: a trickster who thrives in ambiguity but also facilitates communication—suggesting that diplomacy, not missiles, is the true path. The solemnity of statecraft conceals its own folly, and the trickster’s laughter exposes the emperor’s new clothes.