Abraham Accords: A Framework for Regional Normalisation, Facing Complexities
The Abraham Accords, brokered in 2020, represent a significant shift in Middle Eastern geopolitics. Beginning with the normalisation of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, followed swiftly by Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan, the agreements aim to foster cooperation in areas like trade, tourism, and security. While not a comprehensive peace treaty resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Accords represent a pragmatic approach to regional stability, built on shared interests and a re-evaluation of traditional political alignments. Today, the Accords exist as a dynamic – and sometimes fragile – framework with ongoing efforts to broaden participation and deepen existing ties.
Progress Made
The past few years have seen tangible advancements stemming from the Abraham Accords. Trade between Israel and signatory states has increased substantially, with projections exceeding $3 billion annually. The UAE and Israel, in particular, have forged strong economic links, collaborating on projects in renewable energy, technology, and healthcare. Tourism has also flourished; direct flights between Tel Aviv and several Arab capitals have seen increased passenger numbers.
Beyond bilateral relations, there’s been growing regional cooperation. Kazakhstan signaled potential intent to join the framework in early 2026, reflecting a wider interest in engaging with Israel. Security cooperation, though largely undisclosed, is understood to be expanding, addressing shared concerns regarding Iran and regional stability. Furthermore, the agreements have encouraged diplomatic dialogue and fostered a sense of optimism – however tentative – in a region historically characterised by conflict. The reconfiguration of regional alliances, as observed in recent analyses, suggests a lasting impact, even amidst ongoing challenges. [1, 2, 3]
Challenges
Despite these positive developments, the Abraham Accords face significant hurdles. The absence of a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a major point of contention. Many Arab states still condition full normalisation on substantial progress towards a two-state solution, a prospect seemingly distant given current political realities. Public opinion in some signatory states remains critical of closer ties with Israel, limiting the scope of potential cooperation.
Sudan’s involvement has been particularly fragile, with the ongoing civil war severely hindering implementation of the accords. Political instability and internal conflicts within signatory nations pose a constant threat to the sustainability of the agreements. Concerns about the long-term commitment of the original signatories also linger, especially amidst shifting geopolitical landscapes and evolving regional priorities. [3, 4] The agreements are not universally accepted, and voices remain critical of what they perceive as a sidelining of Palestinian rights.
Israel-Iran Dimension
The role of Iran looms large over the Abraham Accords. The agreements are widely viewed, in part, as a strategic response to Iran’s growing regional influence and nuclear ambitions. Several Arab states have drawn closer to Israel due to shared concerns about Iranian activities and a perception that the U.S. is less willing to guarantee their security.
This dynamic has led to increased intelligence sharing and potential security cooperation between Israel and its Arab partners, all directed towards countering Iran’s influence. However, it has also escalated tensions, with Iran vehemently condemning the Accords as a betrayal of the Palestinian cause and a threat to regional stability. Some analysts suggest a more unified front against Iran has emerged, bolstered by a shared interest in de-escalation, alongside aspirations for a democratic Iran [5, 6]. The potential for a nuclear-armed Iran continues to shape the calculus of regional actors vis-à-vis the Accords.
Path Forward
The future of the Abraham Accords hinges on navigating existing challenges and fostering broader regional inclusion. Expanding the framework to include Saudi Arabia would be a game-changer, though significant obstacles remain. Progress towards a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even if incremental, is crucial to address long-standing grievances and bolster the legitimacy of the Accords in the eyes of the wider Arab world.
Realistically, a rapid breakthrough on the Palestinian front is unlikely. A more pragmatic approach focuses on deepening economic ties, promoting people-to-people exchanges, and strengthening security cooperation between existing partners. Dialogue, even if indirect, with Iran may be necessary to de-escalate regional tensions and create a more stable environment conducive to further normalisation. Balancing these competing priorities will be critical in determining the long-term success of the Abraham Accords and their potential to reshape the Middle East.
Sources:
[1] Kazakhstan’s Entry Signals a New Phase for the Abraham Accords, Middle East Institute, January 2026: https://mei.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Abraham-Accords_Backgrounder_2025.pdf
[2] Abraham Accords, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Accords
[3] The Post-War Middle East: A Region Reshaped, Manara Magazine, February 2026: https://manaramagazine.org/2026/02/reconfiguration-of-the-abraham-accords/
[4] What are the Abraham Accords?, Reuters, September 15, 2025: https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/what-are-abraham-accords-2025-09-15/
[5] Diplomatic Analysis Insight 10, Atlas Institute: https://atlasinstitute.org/the-geopolitics-of-the-abraham-accords/
[6] Regional Voices Insight 30, Times of Israel Blogs: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/dawn-of-unity-a-vision-for-a-free-iran-and-israel/