I've been running from thing to thing this morning and haven't had time to fully look at the coverage, or even to fully process it. But just some quick thoughts.
The claim of responsibility came from Zarqawi, not from "al-Qaeda." That's not because bin Laden or Zawahiri have any soft spot for Jordan. Al-Qaeda Central has named Jordan as a primary target for jihad several times. For example, on February 11, 2003, bin Laden included Jordan in his list of "the areas most in need of liberation." And on December 14 2004, bin Laden included a lengthy rant against Jordan's Hashemite rulers in his indictment of the Saudi royal family. So Jordan has clearly been on al-Qaeda Central's hit list.
But calling it an "al-Qaeda attack" is misleading - you have to look at it, I'd say, as a Zarqawi operation aimed both at his Iraqi strategy and at his escalating intra-Islamist strategy. The timing and nature of this attack suggest that it may have more to do with Iraq and with Zarqawi's two-level games than with bin Laden's grand plan.
First off, Zarqawi has a personal animus towards his home country which needs little elaboration. He's tried to carry off spectular attacks in Jordan before, and failed, but it's obviously a place where he has a network (opportunity) and motive. And just two days ago Zarqawi warned that if the US did not call off its massive operations along the Syrian border in 24 hours "After that they will only see from us the worst and something that's going to make the earth tremble under their feet."
The nature of the attack - especially the sheer evil brutality of attacking a wedding celebration - once again throws dirt in the face of Ayman al-Zawahiri, who (assuming the authenticity of that letter) urged Zarqawi to stop doing things which would alienate Arab public opinion. That the traditional Jordanian opposition - including the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated professional associations - led an angry protest against Zarqawi speaks volumes. Jordanian public opinion (certainly the organized political opposition) has been more generally supportive of the insurgency than in most other places... to hear them shouting "death to Zarqawi" shows how thoroughly his methods alienate even potential supporters. (see my earlier commentary on Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, and London for background...)
What, if anything, does this say about Jordanian politics specifically? Generically speaking, of course it is blowback for Abdullah's pro-American policies - that's nothing new. Abdullah's increasingly vocal role as a self-proclaimed spokesman for "moderate Islam" - including sponsoring that Amman Declaration of moderate Islamists a few months ago - probably made his country that much more tempting a target. The role of Jordan's mukhabarat in "processing" terrorism suspects should probably be mentioned too. Amman's increasingly central role as a basing point for American and international agencies in Iraq, as well as for Iraqi politicians and citizens, makes it both a tempting target, and a security nightmare - it's harder for the mukhabarat to keep track of everyone when you've just got so many people passing through. Last but not least, the tense political atmosphere might have created a more permissive environment, helping the plotters succeed, although that would be hard to prove. Unfortunately, it's hard to see the National Agenda getting much traction, or attention, for a while now... attention will be elsewhere, and external pressure for liberal reforms will be rather low on the agenda.
More later.
Random observations from the Arab press:
Al-Arabiya leads with "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi declares 'open war' on Jordan... because of his intense hatred for the Jordanian mukhabarat (intelligence)." The story quotes a 'former Jordanian minister' saying that Zarqawi hit Jordan because "he wants to destroy the Jordanian regime which he considers to be a follower of Washington and because its relations with the US and Israel.. [and] because of its assistance in fighting terrorist groups." Another former Jordanian official says that Zarqawi was especially upset about Jordan's arresting and killing people trying to cross into Iraq to participate in the jihad there.
The Jordanian papers all emphasize national unity, and Jordanians coming together despite their differences to condemn Zarqawi and terrorism. Most of the Arab papers had already gone to bed before the attacks and have little on it; al-Sharq al-Awsat and al-Quds al-Arabi have stories mainly taken from the wires, al-Hayat has nothing.
Al-Jazeera sidebars Jordan's denials of a rumour that its security forces warned Israelis at the targetted hotels hours before the explosions. The rumours, according to al-Jazeera, stem from a story on Ha'aretz that Jordanian security took a number of Israelis out of the Radisson before the explosions (Haaretz currently reports that these rumours were false; I don't know if there was an earlier report that said otherwise). Someone watching al-Jazeera yesterday noted in comments that the anchors seemed rather obsessed with the question of whether any Israelis were killed, while the very effective Amman anchor Yasir Abu Hilala kept saying no, it was mainly Jordanians. Frankly, given the regular composition of guests and visitors at those hotels, it's astonishing that there were (as far as we currently know) so few Western casualties.
UPDATE: Zarqawi's organization actually felt the need to argue back publicly against the furious Jordanian response. This isn't so unusual - when Maqdassi critized him, Zarqawi hit back forcefully for example. But still interesting to see this public argument play out.... another example of such public arguments for my al-Qaeda review essay, I think.
Syrian filmmaker Mustafa Al Akkad was wounded by the blast at the Radisson SAS in Amman. Tragically, he lost his daughter, Rima, in the explosion which struck the Philadelphia ballroom during the wedding reception for Ashraf Mohamed Al-Akhras and bride Nadia Al-Alami. They were both wounded and lost both sets of parents.
One wonders why King Abdallah is at war both the Muslim Brotherhood while playing a prominent and vocal role in the "War on Terror." (The MB even extended an olive branch, saying that they'd keep the radicals out of the mosques and keep an eye on them). At the same time, the King is hell-bent on making fast-paced neo-liberal reforms, normalizing relations with Israel and is willing to be tapped as US Ambassador extraordinaire. That is one big plate for a young monarch sitting on what I suspect is a tinderbox. He must play his cards carefully with Jordanian conservatives and MB to preserve his flank, no?
Western Iraq is in flames, Lebanon is roiled and moreover being provoked into hastily cracking down on Hezbollah and the Palestinian camps, Rumsfeld threatening Syria with military action, Pentagon teams in Lebanon seeking military cooperation--whew, and Jordan caught in the middle of it all!
Posted by: Nur al-Cubicle | November 10, 2005 at 12:17 PM
Lebanon is being provoked or rather bullied by Syria and its palestinian proxies as well as Hizbullah, not by the US as you imply, Mr Al-cubicle. Just listen to Assad's latest speech, where he lambasted Lebanon and called Sanioura a slave. I quote: "Lebanon has become a passageway, a factory and a financier of these conspiracies", and He slammed Siniora as a "slave of his masters" and "The truth is those people, or most of them, are blood merchants. They created a market out of Hariri's blood and this market makes money and creates positions. Everything has a price, every position has a price and every television hour has a price." Those people are the current lebanese political leadership. So when the shit hits the fan in Syria and Lebanon, please do not blame the US, France or the Lebanese, put the blame where it belongs at the feet of this mafioso regime in Damascus, a regime that is going to drag the poor syrian populace down with it.Of course happenings in Lebanon don't rate on Abu Aardvack's blog unless they are lebanese pop stars! To borrow a quote from Daniel Webster " it is a small country but there are those who love it"
Posted by: hummbumm | November 10, 2005 at 12:38 PM
The reforms are not "neo Liberal" - they are liberal economics plain and simple, although rather watered down by Jordanian penchant for statism and dirigism.
Posted by: collounsbury | November 10, 2005 at 01:11 PM
To presume that what happened could have been avoided by appeasement is certainly the beginning of a slippery slope. I am reading and hearing a lot on this line. Frankly, it is driving me nuts. Certainly, in the short term they might not bother with us, but if the (God forbid) succeed in Iraq, don't expect that they will limit their ambitions there. Allowing further deterioration in Iraq is a very bad idea, and quite short sighted. Like it or not, we are stuck with dealing with Bush's disaster in Iraq in a way that will minimize the damage.
Posted by: Khalaf | November 10, 2005 at 02:59 PM
Marc, what are the chances that Zarqawi timed the attacks to fall on the first anniversary of the "Amman Message?"
See here.
Posted by: Robert Stevens | November 10, 2005 at 06:22 PM
Robert - Interesting catch, I hadn't noticed that, or heard anyone else (in Arabic sites either) talking about it.
Posted by: the aardvark | November 10, 2005 at 07:37 PM