Egypt waged extensive operations in Sinai by a sovereign decision

Recent claims attributed to former Israeli intelligence chief Amos Yadlin—that the Egyptian and Jordanian armies “do not move without orders from Israel”—have resurfaced in regional discourse, sparking heated debate and controversy. While such statements circulate widely across social media platforms, an examination of the actual archives of Israeli press and think tanks reveals a more nuanced reality.

What Yadlin Really Said

A review of Hebrew-language outlets such as Israel Hayom, Yedioth Ahronoth, and Channel 12 shows no evidence of Yadlin—or any senior Israeli intelligence figure—making a literal statement that Egypt and Jordan operate solely under Israeli command. Instead, the record indicates that Israeli officials often speak about close coordination on border security, counterterrorism, and intelligence sharing, particularly following peace treaties signed in 1979 (with Egypt) and 1994 (with Jordan).

Coordination Does Not Mean Subordination

Documented facts confirm that there is coordination, not subordination. Both Egypt and Jordan have independent chains of command and pursue national security priorities shaped by their domestic contexts. For Egypt, securing Sinai against extremist threats and safeguarding sovereignty over the Suez Canal remain central. For Jordan, protecting its western border and preventing spillover from regional conflicts are critical.

Israeli analysts often interpret these security measures as indirectly serving Israel’s stability. However, this is not equivalent to “receiving orders.” To conflate coordination with submission oversimplifies a complex geopolitical reality and undermines the agency of Arab states.

The Strategic Context

It is no secret that U.S. mediation has played a significant role in institutionalizing coordination between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan. American military aid, joint training programs, and intelligence frameworks have reinforced a trilateral security understanding. But framing these arrangements as proof of “obedience” to Israel ignores the strategic calculations of Cairo and Amman, both of which balance domestic legitimacy with regional diplomacy.

Why the Narrative Persists

So why does the notion of Egyptian and Jordanian armies “taking orders” from Israel persist? Analysts point to two reasons:

1. Political Weaponization: Certain factions—both Arab and Israeli—exploit the narrative to delegitimize governments in Cairo and Amman by portraying them as compromised.

2. Public Distrust: In the Arab street, decades of frustration with the peace process and ongoing Palestinian suffering make it easy for conspiracy-laden interpretations to resonate.

Conclusion

The evidence is clear: coordination between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan exists, but it does not amount to subordination. Such myths obscure the real issues at stake—chiefly, how Arab states navigate the balance between domestic priorities, U.S. pressure, and a volatile regional landscape.

Attributing obedience to two of the region’s largest and most historically significant armies not only distorts reality but also underestimates the complexities of Middle Eastern security dynamics. If anything, the narrative serves more as a reflection of political agendas than a faithful account of military strategy.