In light of there being no end in sight to the war on Iran, and Jordan’s involvement in the tensions of this war throughout the region, comes the visit of King Abdullah to China, which lasted a week, during which he held meetings and gatherings, and agreements and memoranda of understanding were concluded, ending with a meeting and talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping on 24/8/2026. At the end of the visit, a joint statement was issued, as the countries of the Middle East region look to Beijing to obtain investments and technology.

In an interview with the Chinese Xinhua News Agency one day before the visit, King Abdullah appeared keen to emphasize the opportunities for economic cooperation, saying that “Jordan is also well positioned to serve as a regional manufacturing and export hub. Chinese manufacturing investments could leverage this position, benefiting from our natural resources, skilled workforce, stable business environment, strategic location and extensive network of trade agreements.” Thus, the first impression is that the interest of the Jordanian regime in its visit to China is what is called economic partnership, as the ongoing war has deepened the economic pressures on Jordan, increasing the need to attract investments in the economic, investment, industrial, and technological fields, as it seeks to entrench its geographical position in order to link the Kingdom’s economic future to supply chains and alternative corridors to the Strait of Hormuz that may arise from the current war.

This visit of Abdullah to China and the economic and political opening were not without the calculations and restrictions of American dominance and pressure, as America had previously curbed China’s investments in Jordan, such as the exclusion of Chinese fifth generation (G5), and the restructuring of the file of the Attarat Energy Project, in adherence to the limits of America’s military, security, and economic umbrella. This suggests implicit American approval, or an American shift in dealing with the economic file with China, as long as this opening does not affect the joint defense and security agreements with Jordan. The American administration may find an interest in finding other financial sources from China to ease the economic burdens in order to maintain Jordan’s stability as an ally. It is also not unlikely, in this capacity, that it may form an indirect channel of communication to explore Chinese positions regarding thorny files, such as the security of water corridors and reducing the intensity of regional escalation.

As for China, it finds in investment and partnership with Jordan political and geopolitical gains that strengthen its position in the struggle of the major powers, through quiet technological and economic penetration, which creates a kind of long-term structural dependence on Beijing in maintenance and development, leaving the cost of the region’s security to America. China has also obtained a position from King Abdullah through his affirmation of the One-China policy and that Taiwan is an inseparable part of Chinese territory, and through considering its economic partnership a preventive investment in the Belt and Road corridors. Likewise, what is related to the processing industry of raw materials within Jordan, such as bromine, and exporting them as a final product bearing Jordanian origin, allows Chinese goods to enter the American and European markets duty-free through Jordan’s free-trade agreements, and to circumvent the direct sanctions imposed by Washington on Beijing. Thus, a great benefit is achieved for it jointly with America, the equal partner with Jordan Bromine Company, while what remains of the crumbs goes to the people of Jordan through forced labour.

As for Europe’s position, and Britain in particular, given the long-standing political dependence of the Jordanian regime, it is to reduce risks with China rather than boycott it. Britain views Abdullah’s visit to China as a move that is in line with the European vision of bringing Chinese financing into Jordanian productive projects, which is considered an indirect European security interest for preserving the stability of a country it regards as a safety valve to prevent waves of large-scale asylum and migration. This visit therefore gives Britain and Europe an indirect window to explore China’s intentions and the effect of its influence on other regional powers, such as Iran, without Europe having to make direct political concessions.

It is clear that what are called economic partnerships or military-security partnerships are nothing but the harnessing of Jordan’s geostrategy for the benefit of the major colonial powers in their struggle for material and political gains, and that the regime in Jordan enters into these partnerships or alliances with the pragmatism of preserving its survival in power at any price, when it achieves the interests of these utilitarian colonial powers at the expense of the people of Jordan, who have suffered and continue to suffer from the policy of dependence and submission.

Indeed, China is an enemy of Islam and the Muslims, and its crimes bear witness to that, just like America, Britain, and the Jewish entity. For it, as a capitalist state—even though it is ruled by the Communist Party—shares with the West in the greedy exploitation of the natural resources of peoples. The Jordanian regime realizes this when it objected and resorted internationally regarding the exorbitant electricity prices that it agreed upon, whether out of ignorance or collusion, with China in the Attarat Project. China is also waging a violent and aggressive campaign against oil-rich East Turkestan, which it occupied by force and has continued to persecute its people, the Uyghur Muslims. It demolished their mosques, restricted them, and prevented them from performing the rituals of Islam for nearly a century.

Indeed, what the regime in Jordan is doing by granting forbidden privileges to the major colonial powers, whether American, European, or Chinese, is enabling them to plunder the riches of this Ummah and dominate Jordan’s geostrategic location. Its alternative, certainly, is for Jordan to return as part of its Islamic surroundings within a Khilafah (Caliphate) State, great in its Aqeedah (doctrine), its system, its great resources, and its leadership. This is the natural path and the Islamic duty that the people of Jordan and all Muslims must follow in their endeavour to free themselves from the dominance of the kuffar (disbelieving) colonialists. In the Khilafah state and its greatness, they have a lesson, one that China knows well through the defeat of its army in the Battle of Talas by the army of the Khilafah Al-Abbasiyyah, and later, when it sought the protection of the Khilafah State.

[يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِن دُونِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَتُرِيدُونَ أَن تَجْعَلُوا لِلَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ سُلْطَانًا مُّبِينًا]

“O you who have believed, do not take the disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do you wish to give Allah against yourselves a clear case?” [An-Nisa:144]