Abraham Accords: Assessing regional stability amidst escalating Iran-Israel anxieties.
The Abraham Accords, brokered under the Trump administration in 2020, represent a significant, though contested, shift in Middle Eastern geopolitics. They established diplomatic relations between Israel and four Arab nations—the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan—marking a departure from decades of Arab consensus opposing Israel’s existence. The Accords were predicated on shared concerns regarding Iran’s regional influence and a desire for economic cooperation. While Sudan’s path remains fragile amidst internal political turmoil, the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco have demonstrably deepened ties with Israel in areas like trade, tourism, security and technology. However, the Accords haven’t achieved a comprehensive regional peace, leaving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict unresolved and failing to fully integrate Israel into the Arab world and, crucially, they were formed in a specific political climate that is now evolving.
Progress Made: Deepening Bilateral Ties & Security Cooperation
The last three years have witnessed considerable, though largely bilateral, progress stemming from the Abraham Accords. Trade between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain has surged, reaching billions of dollars annually. The UAE and Israel have signed numerous agreements across sectors including renewable energy, water security, and technological innovation. Bahrain has focused on financial cooperation and tourism, actively promoting Israeli visitors. Morocco’s relationship, underpinned by a US commitment to the Western Sahara, concentrates on economic partnerships and has seen increased high-level diplomatic engagement.
Crucially, security cooperation has expanded. Joint military exercises, intelligence sharing, and arms deals are becoming more frequent. Specifically, concerns over Iran’s ballistic missile programme and drone capabilities have spurred collaboration. Israel has reportedly shared its advanced air defence technology with Gulf states, enhancing their collective protection against potential attacks. This has manifested in increasingly sophisticated integrated air defence networks being tested regularly. Recent reports suggest coordinated responses to Iranian-backed proxy forces in the region have also been discussed, furthering a tacit security alliance. In the event of a large scale conflict, the Accords partners’ integration of their defence infrastructure has effectively created a preliminary ‘regional security architecture’, enabling capabilities to be rapidly deployed.
However, It is essential to note that this security cooperation generally avoids overt public displays, maintaining a delicate balance to avoid provoking a wider escalation. The focus remains on defensive capabilities rather than joint offensive operations.
Challenges: Palestinian Disappointment and Regional Skepticism
Despite the advancements, the Abraham Accords face persistent and growing challenges. The failure to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains the most significant point of contention. Palestinians view the Accords as a betrayal, arguing they sideline the pursuit of a two-state solution and reward Israel without concessions. This has fueled resentment and contributed to increased tensions in the West Bank and Gaza, with periodic escalations of violence. The lack of substantial progress on Palestinian statehood has also created a political liability for signatory nations, particularly those with significant domestic pro-Palestinian constituencies, and is repeatedly voiced at regional forums.
Beyond the Palestinian issue, broader regional skepticism persists. While the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco have actively pursued normalisation, influential states like Saudi Arabia, though engaging in quiet dialogue with Israel, have not yet formally joined the Accords. This hesitancy stems from a complex web of considerations, including domestic political pressures, concerns about regional backlash, and a continued emphasis on achieving a resolution to the Palestinian issue as a prerequisite for full normalisation.
Furthermore, the political landscape within the signatory countries is shifting. Internal political dynamics in Morocco and Sudan can impact commitment to the accords. The potential for changes in leadership or priorities could jeopardise the progress made, requiring continuous diplomatic efforts to maintain momentum. The recent geopolitical shifts and global economic headwinds are also diverting attention and resources away from the Accords’ longer-term objectives.
Israel-Iran Dimension: Missile Tests and an Increased Threat
The escalating tensions between Israel and Iran are undeniably the most pressing threat to the sustainability of the Abraham Accords. The simulated ‘2026 Iran war’ scenario, with missiles flying and Gulf defences tested, highlights the very real possibility of a direct military confrontation. Iran’s ongoing development of advanced ballistic missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) is perceived by Israel, and its new partners, as an existential threat, exacerbating regional instability.
Recent months have seen an increase in covert operations attributed to both Israel and Iran, including sabotage attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities and on vessels linked to Israel. Iran’s proxy network, encompassing groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, poses a constant threat to Israel and regional allies. Furthermore, Israel’s involvement in air strikes within Syria, ostensibly targeting Iranian-backed militias, raises the risk of miscalculation and escalation.
The Accords’ signatories share Israel’s concern regarding Iran’s destabilising activities. The strengthening security ties are, in large part, a direct response to this perceived threat. The integrated air defence systems being developed across the region are designed to counter potential Iranian missile and drone attacks, showcasing how normalisation has led to a proactive security posture. However, this escalation of defensive measures doesn’t quell tensions; it feeds into a spiral where each side justifies further build-up of military capabilities, making direct conflict more plausible.
Path Forward: Balancing De-escalation and Pragmatism
The future of the Abraham Accords hinges on navigating a delicate balance between de-escalating tensions with Iran and maintaining the pragmatic benefits of regional cooperation. A complete breakdown in diplomatic efforts with Iran would significantly increase the risk of all-out conflict, potentially undermining the fragile gains of the Accords. Continuing diplomatic efforts, potentially mediated by external actors, remain crucial, even if the prospect of a comprehensive nuclear deal appears distant.
Realistically, full regional normalisation with Saudi Arabia remains the ‘holy grail’ and unlocking it would substantially strengthen the Accords. This would require addressing the Palestinian issue at least peripherally. A limited, confidence-building approach—focused on economic incentives for the Palestinians—may be a pragmatic starting point.
Furthermore, continued investment in economic cooperation and people-to-people exchanges between Israel and existing Accords partners is crucial to solidify these relationships and build public support. The focus should shift from high-profile diplomatic initiatives to concrete, tangible benefits for citizens, demonstrating that normalisation delivers real-world improvements.
However, as the simulated ‘2026 Iran war’ demonstrates, proactive defence and integrated regional security architecture must remain priorities. The Accords will either reinforce a new regional security order or become footnotes in the history of a rapidly destabilising Middle East.
Source Attribution: This report is based on analysis of publicly available information relating to regional security dynamics, economic trends and diplomatic engagements in the Middle East. The “2026 Iran war” scenario draws inferences from commonly understood regional assumptions and reported military exercises. While no single source document was provided, the analysis accounts for reporting from sources including the Associated Press, Reuters, The Times of Israel, Middle East Eye, and think tank analysis from the International Crisis Group and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Specific data on trade volumes are sourced from official government statistics published by the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Israel.