On the bright side, Israelis and Jordanians have a common worry:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has secretly met Jordan's King Abdullah in Amman to discuss the risk of Syria's chemical weapons falling into the hands of Islamist militants, Israeli media reports said on Wednesday.
I wonder if this cooperation would involve Israel getting Jordan to simply stay out of the way and limit their role to controlling their border with Syria; or if the Israelis would want the political cover of moving into Syria with Jordanian troops participating?
We can all be sad at such a decision to militarize the conflict, of course.
Jordan has a decent mechanized force with a tradition of being competent troops. Although it has been nearly half a century since they fought in a conventional war.
UPDATE: Whatever they talked about, it isn't something they will be doing openly together:
Jordan says it is prepared to deal with any potential chemical weapon threat posed by the ongoing violence in neighboring Syria, but adds it will not enter "any alliance" to protect itself.
But Jordan does express confidence that they can handle the WMD threat--which I assume means proliferation threats rather than chemical attack on Jordan. Diplomatically, it would be better for Jordan to send troops into Syria while Israel provides quiet support. But militarily, Israel could do a better job.
On the other hand, the Jordanians won't have to face much in the way of conventional armed resistance if they move in to secure WMD sites within reach.
I wonder if the Israelis are as content with whatever was discussed?
