Abraham Accords: How the Illusions of Normalization Led to the Engineering of New Middle East Wars

Washington's Message

Said Arikat – 10/5/2026

News Analysis

The Abraham Accords, signed at the White House on September 15, 2020, under the patronage of US President Donald Trump (in his first term), marked a major turning point in the structure of regional alliances in the Middle East, after being marketed as a "gateway to peace" between Israel and the Arab world. However, an analytical article published by Matt Duss and Zuri Linetsky in Foreign Policy magazine last Thursday presented a completely opposite picture, arguing that the agreements did not establish lasting peace, but rather contributed to producing a more violent and turbulent phase in the region, and provided political and military cover for expanding Israeli wars against Palestinians and Iran.

The authors believe that the Trump administration, and later the Biden administration, treated the agreements as a strategic achievement capable of bypassing the Palestinian issue by building a security and economic alliance between Israel and the Gulf states. However, what actually happened, according to the article, was a shift in the center of gravity from "peace for political solution" to "peace for military alliance," a transformation that deepened regional polarization instead of alleviating it.

The Abraham Accords were not merely a diplomatic normalization process between Israel and some Arab countries, but a complete redefinition of the region's priorities according to a shared American-Israeli vision. The Palestinian issue was treated as a burden that could be bypassed through security and economic alliances, rather than as the core of the conflict in the Middle East. This shift opened the door for Israel to expand its settlement and military policies without fear of genuine Arab isolation. It also reinforced the belief within the Israeli establishment that normalization with Arab regimes was more important than any settlement with the Palestinians, which later led to a wider explosion of violence and instability throughout the region.

The article indicates that the agreements were linked from the outset to a clear strategic goal of building a regional axis against Iran, which was later embodied in the laws passed by the US Congress to enhance defense cooperation between Israel and the Gulf states, especially in the areas of air and missile defense. The transfer of Israel to the US Central Command's area of responsibility also facilitated military and intelligence coordination with the UAE, Bahrain, and other countries.

According to the authors, this new military structure was not limited to defense, but also contributed to making long-range Israeli military operations easier, whether through Gulf airspace or through monitoring systems and security cooperation. Israeli arms exports to the signatory countries of the agreements also increased unprecedentedly, transforming the new relations into an integrated military partnership that goes beyond the traditional diplomatic nature.

Experience reveals that military alliances built on ignoring the roots of conflict do not produce long-term stability, but rather lay the groundwork for larger explosions later. Instead of using normalization to pressure Israel to end the occupation, the new relations turned into a political and military protection network for it. This reality encouraged successive Israeli governments to escalate their policies in the West Bank and Gaza, because they felt that their Arab relations were no longer tied to any political cost towards the Palestinians. With the absence of international accountability, Israeli military power became an open tool for redrawing regional balances by force, rather than through political and diplomatic settlements.

The article emphasizes that Palestinians were the biggest losers from the Abraham Accords, as their issue was marginalized in favor of regional security priorities. Despite promises that normalization would later lead to improved conditions for Palestinians, the West Bank witnessed a significant escalation in settler attacks, expansion, and settlement violence after the agreements were signed. Gulf aid to UNRWA also declined, a clear indication of the diminishing centrality of the Palestinian issue in official Arab calculations.

The authors point out that Hamas viewed the normalization path as a direct strategic threat to the Palestinian cause, which explains, according to Israeli documents cited in the article, one of the motives for the October 7, 2023 attack, which sought to disrupt the normalization process and prevent Saudi Arabia from joining it before any political progress for Palestinians was achieved.

With the outbreak of the war of annihilation in Gaza, and then the expansion of the confrontation between Israel and Iran, the results of the new alliances became clearer. The Gulf states that forged advanced security relations with Israel participated, to varying degrees, in information exchange and aerial monitoring during missile confrontations with Iran, while Washington continued to strengthen the joint military structure established after the Abraham Accords.

The fundamental paradox is that the agreements, presented as a peace project, gradually transformed into a platform for managing wars. Instead of reducing tension, Israel was integrated into a regional security system that gave it a sense of permanent strategic superiority, and supported the tendency for military decisive action within the Israeli political establishment. In contrast, Iran and its axis of allies felt that they were facing an alliance that targeted their existence, pushing the region into a continuous escalation race. Thus, the region became less stable and more militarized, while the Palestinian issue, which is supposed to be the core of the conflict, remained without any real solution or viable political horizon.

The Abraham Accords did not achieve a "new Middle East" as Trump promised, but rather contributed to producing a more dangerous reality, based on military alliances, arms deals, and the marginalization of Palestinian rights. According to the article, ignoring the roots of the real conflict made the agreements incapable of achieving peace, because lasting stability cannot be based on force alone, but on addressing the Palestinian issue as the primary entry point for any sustainable regional settlement.

The accumulated facts since the signing of the Abraham Accords reveal that one of their goals was to redefine the Palestinian issue as a humanitarian and administrative matter, not a matter of national liberation and ending occupation. Maps, economic projects, and trade corridors were promoted as alternatives to Palestinian political rights, in an attempt to divert attention from settlement and the gradual annexation of occupied territories. At the same time, Israel continued to entrench the reality of isolated and besieged Palestinian enclaves in the West Bank and Gaza, preventing the establishment of a geographically contiguous and viable Palestinian state. Thus, normalization practically transformed into a tool to grant the occupation long-term regional legitimacy and liquidate the essence of the Palestinian issue politically and historically.