Jordan → United States
This score represents Jordan's relationship toward United States. The reverse direction is calculated separately and shown alongside it.
SIX-COMPONENT MODEL
Current component scores
Component values run from −100 to +100 and are combined with the published weights.
2 documented factors produce the +40 security assessment.
Why this score?
- +25Deployed U.S. forces and long-running military assistanceBaseline rule · 2015
At Jordan's request, roughly 2,000 U.S. personnel, aircraft, artillery, air defense and command systems supported Jordanian security and regional stability.
- +15Joint Military Commission advances modernization and interoperabilityActive event · 2022
The 42nd commission expanded work on security assistance, F-16 modernization, border security and shared regional threats.
4 documented factors produce the +75 diplomacy assessment.
Why this score?
- +20King's visit produced a multi-year assistance commitmentBaseline rule · 2015
The leader visit resulted in a memorandum extending substantial annual security assistance through 2017.
- +10Long-running senior security coordinationBaseline rule · 2015
The governments maintained repeated leader, ministerial and military coordination around a multi-year assistance framework.
- +35Long-running strategic partnershipBaseline rule · 2015
The official record characterizes the security relationship and assistance commitment as substantial and long-running.
- +10Joint Military Commission advances modernization and interoperabilityActive event · 2022
The 42nd commission expanded work on security assistance, F-16 modernization, border security and shared regional threats.
1 documented factor produce the +35 economic assessment.
Why this score?
- +35Annual methodology 1.1 recalculationAnnual recalculation · 2026
The current component replaces the 2015 quantitative threshold or time-bounded structural package with the evidence applicable in the selected year.
Coverage gap: 2015 reporter-side trade remained below the frozen threshold and no qualifying economic dialogue was evidenced.
3 documented factors produce the +25 alignment assessment.
Why this score?
- +50Shared counterterrorism and regional-stability prioritiesBaseline rule · 2015
Jordan hosted U.S. capabilities and participated in coordinated action supporting counter-ISIL operations and regional stability.
- -30United Nations voting alignmentBaseline rule · 2015
A rolling three-year comparison of UN General Assembly votes activates the alignment threshold.
- +5Joint Military Commission advances modernization and interoperabilityActive event · 2022
The 42nd commission expanded work on security assistance, F-16 modernization, border security and shared regional threats.
1 documented factor produce the +15 disputes assessment.
Why this score?
- +15Durable cooperative bilateral orderBaseline rule · 2015
The partnership operated through stable institutions and multi-year commitments without an active bilateral territorial claim.
No reviewed evidence met this component’s scoring threshold.
Why this score?
The model starts every component at zero. No documented condition or active event currently changes this one.
Coverage gap: The reviewed record does not establish a national-scale exchange meeting the frozen societal threshold.
+27 in 2015 → +40 in 2026
The change is generated from sourced events and frozen scoring rules, not retrospective editorial adjustment.
5 points
Jordan → United States and United States → Jordan remain independent assessments.
View the reverse direction →ACTIVE EVIDENCE
Events affecting the current score
Joint Military Commission advances modernization and interoperability
The 42nd commission expanded work on security assistance, F-16 modernization, border security and shared regional threats.
This analytical score is not an objective fact, endorsement or prediction. Confidence reflects evidence coverage, while incomplete or unavailable observations remain explicit. Differences below 5 points are treated as practical ties rather than a meaningful ranking.
Explore the full timeline and sources in the atlas →