Today’s random Middle Eastern borders are suboptimal for all parties involved.
However, an opportunity has emerged for a voluntary, mutually beneficial border realignment due to a confluence of circumstances: the end of the 1920-2024 Syrian packaging, the leadership of US President Donald Trump, and an imminent existential threat to Arab regimes percolating from the east and north.
This is most pressing to Jordan, a staunch US ally whose survival is paramount to Israeli and Western interests.
Jordan’s indefensible borders
Jordan was born from the 1920 French obliteration of the short-lived Arab Kingdom of Syria. France wanted Syria for itself, so it invaded the kingdom and deposed its Hashemite ruler.
Consequently, the British carved out the east bank of the Jordan River from the Jewish homeland it was ushering and gave it, along with territories further east, to the expelled Hashemites.
During the 20th century, the threat to the nascent kingdom of Jordan came from Israel to the west, with which it fought two brutal wars in 1948 and 1967. This occurred while Jordan’s eastern and northern fronts were contained.
Today, the situation is exactly the reverse: Jerusalem is now Amman’s strategic ally, while the existential threat to Jordan is coming from the east and north: Iran, Sunni extremism, Turkey, and other rising forces in the east.
Consequently, Jordan is better off being in southern Syria (now to the north of Jordan) than it is on the slopes of the Jordan Valley (now in western Jordan).
Moreover, in recent months, Jordan has witnessed three alarming developments. It saw the Assad regime, in power for half a century, collapse within days; it noticed just how quickly forces can advance through the desert; and it observed the return of Turkey to the regional stage.
After all, it was today’s Jordanian ruling family who, along with Lawrence of Arabia, humiliated the Turks during World War I, kicking them out of territory they held for centuries, including today’s Syria and Jordan.
However, Turkey’s proxies are not the only ones now hovering by Jordan’s northern border. ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraqi Shi’ite militias, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other groups that threaten the Jordanian regime are right there, too.
It seems clear that to defend its kingdom, Jordan now needs a powerful buffer force in southern Syria, be it Israel, Western coalition forces, or its own military.
Trading the militarily insignificant western edge of the Kingdom of Jordan for much-needed southern Syria would not only reposition Jordan to defend itself better but would also significantly increase its territory, unleash tremendous economic opportunities, and restore its status as a regional leader for Arabs throughout the Middle East, including being the protectorate of a Druze autonomy.
Indeed, such a swap would evoke Jordan’s glory days, connecting today’s Hashemite kingdom to its southern Syrian roots.
While the east bank of the Jordan River is no longer as crucial to Jordan’s security, it has become paramount for Israel’s survival.
Israel’s indefensible borders
October 7 and the fall of Syria led to an inevitable conclusion: The Jordan River may not be a defensible border for Israel.
If the walled, tech-savvy border with Gaza was not sufficient to stop an invasion from a poorly-armed militia, then certainly, the long, easily-crossable border with Jordan is not sufficient to stop an invasion from a well-armed, organized military force, be it Iran or Islamic extremists.
Moreover, Hamas needed to go through 40-60 km. of populated Jewish areas to join its allied Palestinian population in the West Bank in its attempt to defeat Israel. Thank God, it failed.
However, an invading force from the Jordan River would have no such Jewish buffer; it would reach the West Bank immediately and, with the help of the local population, could proceed to Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, the Mediterranean Sea, and the obliteration of Israel.
Those factors, no doubt, are duly noted by Israel’s enemies, putting a big bullseye on Jordan, which is what now stands in the way between Iran and a weak-bordered Israel.
One does not need to be a military expert to conclude that Israel’s defense line must move eastward. Just look east from the parks of Jerusalem, the American embassy, or hundreds of Jerusalem apartments at those beautiful eastern slopes, and envision an invading force coming down toward you. The Jordan River forms no barrier.
This is not a new discovery. It is a recurring theme of 3,000 years of regional military history dating back to biblical wars.
While moving Israel’s defense line to the east bank does not necessarily need to be done through a border realignment – in theory, Israeli soldiers in southern Syria could defend Jordan, and Jordanian soldiers in western Jordan could reposition 180 degrees and defend Israel – the most efficient, strategically sound, and rational way is indeed through a mutually-beneficial border realignment.
Additionally, the presence of IDF closer to Amman could deter those trying to invade Jordan and overthrow the regime.
Peace through strength
Moreover, such a realignment could economically transform Jordan and the entire region, leading to further stability. As discussed in last week’s article, it would enable the historic blooming of the Syrian desert, the building of “the California of the Middle East,” and the opportunity for the condensed Middle Eastern population to migrate eastward.
This, along with the construction of an eastern wall by the Iraqi border spanning from Syria to Saudi Arabia, is uniquely actionable in 2025 due to the anomalous availability of labor, Gazan refugees, and funding – an international commitment to a Middle East “Marshall plan.”
With the Jordanian army in southern Syria, Israel on the east bank of the Jordan River, and the blooming of the “Wild East” desert, invaders would recognize their chances are abysmal, and the bullseye over Jordan would be removed.
Moreover, even if Syria remains under its current leadership and enters the Abraham Accords, it would be better off without the troubled southern Syria. It would benefit from stability there as it attempts to consolidate power in parts of Syria under its governance. Similarly, Turkey could benefit from the tremendous economic opportunities, as could Europe from removing the threat of southern Syria becoming a launchpad for terrorism in the West, akin to 1990s Afghanistan.
The Jordanian land swap could be executed rapidly since no population moves or switches citizenship. Syrians and Jordanians would stay where they are and only benefit from the swap. Such separation of geographic and conceptual home, discussed in a recent article, already exists in the Jews’ relationship to the Jewish state, Catholics to the Vatican, and Druze to a potential Druze autonomy.
Furthermore, while the proposed border realignment is not about the Palestinian issue, pro-Palestinian advocates should embrace it: With its defense line shifting to the east bank of the Jordan River, Israel would have a buffer that spans both slopes of the valley. This would reduce the security-based opposition to a Palestinian entity on the West Bank mountains, be it a state, state-minus, autonomy, or decentralized municipalities.
However, other reasons to oppose it remain. As discussed in my book, The Assault on Judaism, the cultivation of neo-Palestinian ideologies in the West is a rising threat to US national security and global stability.
Right leadership
Let’s be clear: Grand ideas like land swaps should not be deliberated in newspaper articles. This one is meant merely to give a top-level flavor. Such negotiations can only be successful if conducted in closed rooms by powerful leaders who respect one another and have the power to get things done.
We have exactly this leadership today. Trump has the support and trust of Arab leaders, as is evident from his recent Middle East trip. He has a unique opportunity to not only counter an imminent threat to America’s Arab allies, Israel, and the West, but also to transform the Middle East, get rid of the legacy of “divide the baby” frameworks that perpetuate conflict, and deploy new creative “win-win” thinking that could usher in sustainable peace.
The writer is the author of a new book, The Assault on Judaism: The Existential Threat Is Coming from the West. His Jerusalem Post column applies the ideas in his book to today’s policy decisions and geopolitical developments. He is also the chairman of the Judaism 3.0 think tank and author of Judaism 3.0: Judaism’s Transformation to Zionism (Judaism-Zionism.com).