Abraham Accords: A fragile network of diplomatic ties faces new tests and potential expansion.
The Abraham Accords, brokered by the United States in 2020, represent a series of normalisation agreements between Israel and several Arab nations – initially the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, later joined by Morocco and Sudan. These agreements signified a shift in long-standing regional dynamics, moving beyond decades of animosity and opening avenues for cooperation in areas like trade, tourism, and security. While the initial momentum was considerable, the process has plateaued, and its future remains uncertain. Sudan’s trajectory has been particularly troubled, with normalisation agreements effectively stalled following the outbreak of conflict there in April 2023. Morocco’s relationship has continued to evolve, though questions remain about the full extent of implementation. The UAE and Bahrain remain the strongest partners, with steadily increasing economic and security ties with Israel. The recent conflict in Gaza, initiated by Hamas’s attack on 7 October 2023, has put the Accords under further strain, raising concerns about their long-term viability.
Progress Made: Washington’s Push for Broader Regional Integration
The US administration is actively pursuing an expansion of the Abraham Accords framework, viewing it as a crucial component of its broader regional strategy for stability. While direct normalisation talks with Saudi Arabia – a primary target – were advanced before the October 2023 conflict, they are now on hold. However, Washington’s vision extends beyond Riyadh. Recent diplomatic efforts, according to sources, focus on bringing Syria and Lebanon into a wider web of engagement, alongside a renewed push for a comprehensive Saudi-Israel deal.
This approach doesn’t necessarily equate to full normalisation with Damascus and Beirut in the immediate term, given the complex political landscape and existing sanctions. Instead, the current strategy focuses on incremental steps such as increased economic cooperation, particularly in energy infrastructure and regional projects. For Syria, despite the Assad regime’s pariah status, US officials are reportedly exploring channels for limited interactions, primarily predicated on security concerns relating to Iran’s regional influence and countering ISIS. Similarly, discussions with Lebanon revolve around bolstering its stability through economic assistance and facilitating discussions over its maritime border dispute with Israel – a key obstacle to energy exploration.
A key element of this broadened approach is leveraging Saudi Arabia’s potential role as a facilitator. Riyadh, even without a full normalisation agreement in place, has significant influence over both Syria and Lebanon. US officials believe that unlocking further Saudi-Israeli normalisation could incentivise Riyadh to exert that influence constructively, encouraging greater regional cooperation and potentially paving the way for similar engagements with other regional actors. The administration is also emphasising potential economic benefits for all parties involved, highlighting opportunities for investment and trade.
Challenges: Deep-Rooted Obstacles and Regional Tensions
Despite Washington’s ambitions, substantial challenges remain. The ongoing conflict in Gaza presents the most immediate obstacle. The scale of human suffering and the deeply polarised regional responses have complicated efforts to build trust and momentum for further normalisation. Arab public opinion, largely sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, is strongly opposed to strengthening ties with Israel while the conflict persists. Any perception of prioritising normalisation over a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict risks inflaming tensions and undermining regional stability.
Syria also presents formidable hurdles. The Assad regime’s human rights record, its continued alignment with Iran, and the presence of various non-state actors within its borders make full normalisation a politically sensitive and legally complex undertaking. Significant sections of the Syrian opposition and the international community, including the US, remain opposed to any rehabilitation of the Assad regime.
Lebanon, similarly, is grappling with a deep economic crisis, political instability, and the powerful influence of Hezbollah, an Iran-backed group designated as a terrorist organisation by numerous countries. Any meaningful engagement with Lebanon requires navigating the complex dynamics between Hezbollah’s interests and the country’s fragile institutions. Furthermore, the existing border disputes and ongoing Israeli security concerns related to Hezbollah’s military capabilities pose significant barriers to progress.
Finally, the stalled normalisation process with Sudan underscores the inherent fragility of these agreements. The ongoing civil war has effectively frozen any further integration, highlighting the importance of internal stability within Arab states for the Accords to flourish.
Israel-Iran Dimension: A Core Driver of the Expansion Strategy
The central driver behind Washington’s push for a wider circle of engagement is arguably contained within the regional contest with Iran. The US views Iran’s increasing influence in Syria, Lebanon, and broader regional strategic depth as a significant threat. Expanding the Abraham Accords framework, and thereby solidifying ties between Israel and Arab states, is considered a key element in countering Iranian expansionism.
Normalisation serves to strengthen the security architecture in the region, building a coalition of countries aligned against Iranian interests. Increased security cooperation between Israel and Arab nations provides a collective counterbalance to Iran’s military and political activities.
Specifically, bringing Syria and Lebanon into this broader framework – even at a limited level – is seen as a way to potentially undercut Iranian influence within those countries. By offering economic assistance and promoting regional integration, Washington hopes to provide alternatives to Iranian support and create incentives for Damascus and Beirut to moderate their relationships with Tehran. This strategy aligns with a broader US policy objective of containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its destabilising regional activities. The potential for a Saudi-Israel pact, with security guarantees from the US, has always been considered a key pillar of this strategy.
Path Forward: Incremental Steps and Pragmatic Engagement
Realistically, full normalisation with Syria and Lebanon in the near term appears unlikely. The path forward necessitates a pragmatic and incremental approach. Washington is expected to continue focusing on fostering limited economic cooperation, particularly in areas like energy and infrastructure, while maintaining robust channels of communication with all parties. Successfully delineating Lebanon’s maritime border with Israel and securing concessions from Hezbollah regarding cross-border activity would represent significant breakthroughs.
The conflict in Gaza remains a critical factor. A lasting ceasefire and a credible pathway towards a two-state solution are essential for rebuilding trust and creating a conducive environment for further normalisation. Without addressing the root causes of the conflict, any progress on the Abraham Accords framework is likely to be fragile and unsustainable.
Regarding Saudi Arabia, the US will likely continue to pursue negotiations towards a comprehensive agreement incorporating security guarantees and economic incentives. However, the timeline for such an agreement remains highly uncertain and will depend greatly on developments in Gaza and the broader regional political landscape.
Ultimately, the success of Washington’s expanded vision for the Abraham Accords hinges on its ability to balance competing interests, navigate complex regional dynamics, and address the fundamental grievances that fuel instability in the Middle East.
Source: Information for this report is based on briefings from US State Department officials and diplomatic sources familiar with the ongoing discussions, accessing information under conditions of anonymity. Reporting also draws on analysis from the Middle East Institute and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.