Jordanian strikes in rural Daraa, which Amman said targeted Daesh sites, have triggered a serious crisis between Jordan and Syria, amid accounts from residents and eyewitnesses of civilian casualties, including women and children. The victims’ families have every right to be angry and to demand truth and justice. They cannot be expected to put political calculations ahead of their grief, nor should the strength of bilateral relations be invoked to sidestep the painful questions the incident has raised.

 

That grief has placed the Syrian government under intense domestic pressure, amid accusations that it has not done enough to defend national sovereignty and protect its citizens. Alongside the summoning of the Jordanian ambassador and the delivery of a formal protest, a joint statement by the two foreign ministers offered a way to contain the crisis. It expressed Jordan’s regret over the civilian casualties and confirmed an agreement on a joint security committee to establish the circumstances and improve coordination.

 

This process matters because the independent information currently available is insufficient to establish precisely what happened during the operation or what caused the tragedy. Targeting Daesh was Jordan’s stated objective, while explaining the civilian casualties remains the responsibility of the investigation. That investigation offers a path to a credible account that respects the families’ right to know, translating Jordan’s stated commitment to Syrians’ safety into clear answers about what happened and safeguards against a recurrence.

 

This commitment is consistent with the core of Jordan’s policy towards the new Syria. Since the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, Jordan has been among the leading supporters of the new authorities. It has hosted Arab and international meetings to support the transition, welcomed President Ahmed al-Sharaa, and opened up prospects for cooperation with Damascus. These steps reflect a clear interest in a unified, stable Syrian state capable of exercising sovereignty throughout its territory. The continuing threats of terrorism and drug smuggling do not alter that interest; they underline the need for cooperation and for giving state institutions the opportunity to regain their capacity. This understanding has been reflected in the growing rapport between Foreign Ministers Ayman Safadi and Asaad al-Shaibani, culminating in their discussion, just days before the incident, of developing relations into a strategic partnership.

 

The danger to this partnership begins when the tragedy is exploited to settle scores with Syria’s new government. We must distinguish between Daraa’s legitimate anger and its use for political ends. In my view, the broader aim of some of the increasingly strident rhetoric against Jordan may be to embarrass Damascus and constrain its options. The interests of supporters of the former regime and hardliners opposed to the new leadership’s policies may converge here, alongside those of Jordanian voices that have never reconciled themselves to the change in Syria.

 

Such a convergence, even without coordination, threatens to turn a tragic incident into hostility between two states and their peoples. Others then join the exchanges of insults, whether in good faith or in the heat of the moment, supplying those who advocate a rupture with the anger they need. The debate gradually drifts away from the truth and the victims’ rights towards mutual accusations and abuse.

 

The relationship threatened by these exchanges is rooted in kinship, intermarriage, social and tribal ties, and shared memory. On both sides of the border are households that share joys and sorrows, and people who know one another by face and name. Jordan welcomed hundreds of thousands of Syrians during their ordeal and, with international support, provided access to education, healthcare and employment opportunities. This deepened a bond of brotherhood that people experienced in their homes and neighbourhoods, making it part of their personal and family memories. We owe it to that bond to protect it from the battles waged on social media.

 

Protecting this relationship is also a strategic imperative, because tensions between Amman and Damascus give Israel further opportunities to advance its policies in southern Syria. In his address to the United Nations, His Majesty King Abdullah linked Israeli expansion there to threats to Jordan’s national security. Weakening coordination between the two countries therefore helps Israel impose facts on the ground and undermines their shared interest in protecting Syria’s sovereignty and preventing its fragmentation.

 

What is needed now is to accelerate the committee’s work, be candid with the public about its findings, support the victims’ families, and turn commitments into coordination that prevents another tragedy. Alongside this, people-to-people diplomacy must be strengthened, with space for trusted community and civic figures to repair the damage caused by these exchanges. The two foreign ministers have a central role in translating their shared understanding into concrete initiatives that people can see and feel, while countering incitement and accusations of betrayal. Moving beyond the tensions begins with justice for those harmed and the rebuilding of trust. The ties of blood, kinship and affection that unite Jordanians and Syrians are too strong to be left hostage to those who seek to deepen the wound.