The importance of the digital analytical study released by Politics and Society Institute (PSI) two days ago on Jordanian public opinion toward the US (Israeli)–Iranian war lies in the fact that it provides a precise quantitative indicator, encompassing a broad sample of trends within the Jordanian public regarding the war. The number of accounts included in the study reaches approximately 31,000, along with millions of Jordanian digital interactions with posts on social media platforms, which represents a very large sample compared to traditional samples and methods used in analyzing public opinion in general.

 

Inevitably, there are key constraints highlighted by the study, whether related to the Cybercrime Law and people’s fear of violating it, or to the general environment in the country, which has witnessed sharp polarization in opinions on social media. This has driven many users toward closed rooms or groups, particularly on Facebook, which is the most widely used platform in Jordan. Nevertheless, the “sample” in the study remains relatively large and represents the best available measure for understanding public opinion trends within these constraints.

 

There is a large volume of quantitative and qualitative data and findings that merit careful reading and review (the report is published on the Institute’s website). Perhaps the most prominent findings are that the majority of Jordanians oppose the war, and that 66 per cent of their posts are characterized by anger (in terms of emotions associated with the war). In addition, most Jordanians oppose Iranian strikes on the Gulf and oppose Hezbollah’s entry into the war. Only 2.3% of Jordanians view the US position on the current war positively, while the majority hold US President Donald Trump responsible for the continuation of the war.

 

The surprising result, from the perspective of the author, and the one most relevant for policymaking and government decision-making based on public opinion trends, is that the overwhelming majority did not take a position in favor of either side. In general, their stance can be described as neutral. Only a small percentage, not exceeding 7 per cent, adopted “positive positions” toward one side against the other. This indicates that a large proportion of Jordanians were closer to neutrality, contrary to what appears on social media, as if there were an intense digital war internally between supporters of Iran and its opponents. In reality, this confrontation was limited to a very small segment, but due to algorithms it appeared to many Jordanians, as well as to observers outside Jordan, as if it were a major battle dominating Jordanian public opinion, or as if the more extreme voices represented the public. In reality, moderation remains the defining characteristic that best describes the general trend, the mainstream, of Jordanian public opinion.

 

Digital tools for analysing social media have become an advanced and important methodology, while necessarily taking into account their various limitations, in understanding public opinion and its trends. Social media platforms have become the primary mirror reflecting public opinion and the most common space for expressing views and ideas. Moreover, they are increasingly playing a major role in redefining the public sphere and public opinion more broadly. Based on this assessment, such analytical tools and metrics have become an essential requirement in decision-making processes, in order to understand the necessary inputs related to the internal political environment, demands, and levels of support, as well as to assess feedback on government decisions and policies.