Why the Abraham Accords endure despite the Gaza war
The Gaza war tested Arab-Israeli normalization, yet strategic regional interests are prevailing under the umbrella of the Abraham Accords.
In a nutshell
- Structural flexibility allows signatories to compartmentalize ties with Israel
- Gaza war created stresses prompting recalibration without rupture
- Security, economic and anti-Iran factors anchor normalization
- For comprehensive insights, tune into our AI-powered podcast here
The war in Gaza, with its deaths, destruction and the uncertainty surrounding the creation of a Palestinian state, has not undone the Abraham Accords. Against all odds, these normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab and Muslim-majority states have persisted through one of the most violent episodes ever experienced by Israelis and Palestinian factions. This endurance highlights the structural transformation underway in the regional order, since, at the start of hostilities in October 2023, few analysts believed that the normalization framework between Israel and the Arab world would survive. Yet none of the Arab signatories − Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates or Morocco − has severed diplomatic ties with Israel.
The resilience of this normalization process with Israel, initiated by the first administration of United States President Donald Trump in 2020, lies in the intrinsic nature of the agreements. From the outset, the signatory states drew a clear distinction between their bilateral relations with Israel and the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This distinction, unprecedented among Arab nations, allowed them to navigate successive crises with the strategic flexibility needed to preserve the agreements and the advantages they bring.
The Abraham Accords are rooted in a differentiated legal framework. The treaty between Israel and the UAE is legally binding, whereas the agreements with Bahrain and Morocco rely on more flexible provisions, giving each signatory greater strategic discretion in periods of heightened tension. This structural flexibility explains the divergence in national responses to the Gaza war.
From the outset, the signatory states drew a clear distinction between their bilateral relations with Israel and the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Bahrain froze several economic projects and recalled its ambassador to Israel, while the UAE opted for a cautious stance focused on preserving institutional cooperation. Morocco, for its part, maintained a discreet posture – avoiding any break in relations while calling for the protection of Palestinian civilians. These nuances underscore the adaptive design embedded in the accords, allowing them to absorb tensions without political rupture.
The utility of the Abraham Accords has gradually expanded. In November 2025, Kazakhstan, which has had diplomatic relations with Israel since 1992, agreed to join, deepening mutual relations and marking an expansion of the agreements into Central Asia. Then, in December, Somaliland said it would join the accords, following Israel’s recognition of its statehood. Sudan agreed to join in 2021 primarily to improve its standing with the U.S., including its removal from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list and the unlocking of international financing. However, due to ongoing domestic conflict, Sudan has yet to ratify the agreement.
Security and economic interdependence
The Abraham Accords’ foremost strength lies in their ability to move beyond symbolism to anchor cooperation in tangible, measurable mechanisms: arms transfers, technological partnerships, free-trade agreements, joint renewable and energy-security initiatives, and integrated defense coordination.
In 2021, Washington placed Israel under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), a strategic realignment that formally integrated Israel into CENTCOM’s operational architecture, linking it to the Gulf’s defense networks and enabling participation in joint exercises with Emirati, Bahraini and Saudi forces. Soon after, Israel supplied the UAE with advanced missile-defense batteries deployed to intercept drone strikes launched by Yemen’s Houthi rebels.
In Morocco’s case, the November 2021 defense agreement allowed Rabat to acquire Israeli defense systems and drones worth approximately $2 billion. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), 11 percent of Morocco’s defense imports now originate from Israel. These developments reflect a growing strategic interdependence among signatories, where defense cooperation and economic integration have become mutually reinforcing pillars of stability sustaining the Abraham Accords.
The free trade agreement between Israel and the UAE, enacted in April 2023, exponentially increased bilateral trade volumes from $200 million in 2020 to over $3 billion by 2024. Even amid the Gaza war, trade flows remained resilient.
For Bahrain and Morocco, engaging with Israel has served as a catalyst for diversification and technological upgrading. Israel, for its part, reached a record $14.8 billion in global defense exports in 2024. Interdependence has also taken root in unexpected domains, such as energy security. The Water for Electricity initiative linking Israel, Jordan and the UAE exemplifies this logic: Israel supplies Jordan with 200 million cubic meters of water annually in exchange for solar-generated electricity financed by the UAE.
Pragmatism has prevailed. Arab capitals concluded that the strategic and material gains of maintaining normalization outweighed the political costs of rupture. U.S. diplomacy quietly underpinned this stability, pursuing two complementary goals: consolidating America’s regional foothold without direct military involvement, and supporting a durable coalition of stability vis-a-vis Iran. For Arab signatories, the accords simultaneously strengthened ties with Washington and expanded their strategic autonomy beyond it.
Anti-Iran convergence
Beyond the economic logic, a shared perception of threats has consolidated the accords into a regional security platform. A central factor behind their endurance is the shared perception of Iran as a threat, a convergence that continues to shape the regional security architecture.
The Gulf monarchies, Israel, Morocco and the U.S. share a common strategic understanding of Iran as a revolutionary, anti-monarchical regime, militarized, expansionist and ideologically committed to destabilizing neighboring states and exporting its influence across the Middle East and North Africa. The accords have institutionalized defense coordination under the strategic umbrella of the U.S., transforming what was once a tacit alignment into an operational framework for joint military exercises, intelligence cooperation and integrated early-warning systems across the Gulf and North Africa.
For the signatories, Iran represents not only a military threat but an ideological actor seeking to reshape the regional order along sectarian fault lines. Recent history has shown that Tehran’s proxies (Hezbollah, the Houthis and Hamas) operate under its influence, projecting instability and revolutionary governance across the Arab world. Reflecting this concern, Article 13 of the accords calls for promoting interfaith dialogue and countering radicalization. The parties established a Regional Security Construct, and to address Iran’s influence, particularly in the digital sphere, agreed to establish a joint Information Fusion Center by 2026, enabling real-time intelligence sharing among Gulf and Israeli cybersecurity teams. The initiative aims to create a unified front against hybrid threats and digital subversion in the region.
The alignment forged by the Abraham Accords transcends the military sphere. Iran is viewed not only as a security threat but also as a strategic competitor across multiple fronts – energy transit, maritime trade and influence over global oil markets. Through a growing web of trade and logistics agreements, the signatories have sought to establish a new strategic architecture capable of limiting Tehran’s reach.
The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) project, supported by the U.S., fits within this broader design. The project connects India to Europe through the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel, forming a strategic corridor that deliberately bypasses Iran. By linking Emirati ports with Israeli and Mediterranean infrastructures, the IMEC institutionalizes economic coordination and bolsters the region’s collective autonomy to counter Tehran.
Measured but significant responses to the Gaza war
The Gaza war served as the most critical stress test for the Abraham Accords, exposing their structural resilience under extreme geopolitical and moral strain. The massive bombardments, civilian losses and ensuing humanitarian crises reignited ideological divides over the Palestinian question and placed the signatory governments under dual pressure from domestic public opinion, largely sympathetic to the Palestinians, and from the strategic, economic and security commitments embedded in the accords.
Although the war prompted tactical recalibrations, it did not precipitate a breakdown. The UAE suspended its participation in multilateral platforms such as the Negev Forum yet refrained from withdrawing from the process. Bahrain recalled its ambassador from Tel Aviv as a symbolic protest but maintained diplomatic channels. Morocco adopted a position of equilibrium, expressing solidarity with the Palestinians while calling on Hamas and Israel for a ceasefire. Even Jordan, despite temporarily suspending its participation in the Water for Electricity initiative, kept the project’s financing and technical infrastructure intact, illustrating that the economic mechanisms stemming from the accords have evolved into regional frameworks that transcend bilateral relations.
Read more by Middle East and Arab affairs expert Pierre Boussel
- Iran works to spread its revolutionary message
- Middle East intelligence as an instrument of war and peace
- Algerian military buildup diverts eyes from economic frustrations
The crisis, though far from ending, revealed that the signatory states now perceive normalization as an expression of strategic autonomy rather than ideological alignment with external causes. Economic interdependence continues to serve as a stabilizing force.
The Gaza war underscored the persistent tension between statecraft and public sentiment across the Arab world. Public demonstrations of solidarity with Gaza reached unprecedented levels in Casablanca, Rabat, Manama and Dubai, compelling governments to adjust their rhetoric and adopt a more critical tone toward Israel. To mitigate popular outrage, authorities resorted to humanitarian diplomacy, delivering aid convoys, calling for de-escalation and participating in reconstruction conferences. Morocco dispatched several humanitarian shipments through Egypt, while the UAE built a field hospital in Rafah and financed relief programs. These gestures reaffirmed a sense of Arab solidarity without undermining the principle of normalization. This calibrated approach, at once humanitarian and strategic, illustrates the signatories’ ability to compartmentalize emotion from long-term commitments.
Saudi Arabia: The decisive variable
Before the Gaza war, several indicators suggested that Riyadh was seriously considering normalization with Israel. Talks initiated in 2022, under U.S. encouragement, sought to gradually bring the kingdom into the Abraham Accords framework. These discussions were structured around a tripartite balance: Israel would contribute its technological and defense expertise, the U.S. its strategic umbrella and Saudi Arabia its political and religious legitimacy. The outbreak of the Gaza conflict, however, effectively froze this process, underscoring the fragility of normalization efforts in periods of regional escalation.
As custodian of Islam’s holiest sites, the Saudis cannot afford to appear indifferent to the suffering of the Palestinians. Public opinion across the Arab world − particularly in Saudi Arabia’s major cities − remains deeply sympathetic to Gaza and opposed to normalization as long as the Palestinian question remains unresolved. Aware of these domestic dynamics, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has opted for tactical patience, recognizing that Saudi Arabia could become the implicit guarantor of the Abraham Accords’ long-term stability.
Paradoxically, the kingdom’s formal absence amplifies the accords’ importance by providing them with an implicit layer of political and religious legitimacy. No other Arab state wields a comparable capacity to confer such validation. Were Riyadh to formalize normalization, the move would represent the most consequential shift in Arab-Israeli relations since the 1978 Camp David Accords. Yet even without a formal signature, Saudi Arabia continues to shape the boundaries of what Arab states can or cannot do toward Israel, defining the scope and credibility of any future regional integration framework.
By maintaining indirect engagement, through multilateral forums and quiet coordination with Gulf partners, Riyadh signals both caution and control. Its balancing strategy enables the kingdom to preserve its regional leadership, sustain its partnership with Washington and ensure that any future normalization unfolds on its own terms, rather than under external pressure.
Scenarios
Less likely: Gaza conflict resumes and the Abraham Accords implode
A collapse of the Gaza truce triggers a renewed cycle of violence, reigniting public anger across the Arab world. In Rabat, Manama and Abu Dhabi, protests increasingly adopt an anti-normalization rhetoric, forcing regimes to choose between sustaining ties with Israel or preserving domestic stability. Bahrain moves to suspend diplomatic engagement, followed by the UAE freezing joint projects. Morocco announces a reassessment of its bilateral cooperation. Under mounting public pressure, disengagement becomes a political safety valve framed as solidarity with Gaza.
For Washington, such a shift marks a strategic setback: CENTCOM’s regional network begins to fragment, and the anti-Iran coalition weakens. The Abraham Accords era concludes not with open confrontation but through a gradual political retreat born of internal fragility. The rollback of normalization emerges less as a diplomatic rupture than as a mechanism of political survival, a concession to Arab public opinion achieved at the expense of regional integration. But as President Trump’s plan for Gaza is still progressing, this scenario is less likely.
Most likely: Abraham Accords endure, as do regional tensions
The U.S. is leveraging Gaza’s arduous reconstruction to recast the Abraham Accords as a broader framework for regional stability. Washington presents the normalization process as a cornerstone of a “comprehensive and balanced regional peace,” urging Arab governments to link economic recovery with political rapprochement. The initiative advances slowly but steadily: Pragmatic cooperation strengthens between Israel and its Arab partners, particularly in trade, technology and energy.
Yet normalization remains largely state-centric, with limited societal reconciliation or grassroots engagement. Despite these achievements, the process remains fragile. While the Abraham Accords have consolidated diplomatic and economic relations, they have produced only a superficial stability − one that avoids confronting the ideological roots of radicalization.
Frustrations over the Palestinian conundrum continue to fuel Islamist and fundamentalist narratives deeply ingrained in the Arab world’s collective psyche. Even as normalization expands across the Middle East, it has not yet resulted in lasting peace; it is structurally sound but socially brittle, constrained by persistent identity and religious fault lines that run beneath the surface of regional diplomacy.
Contact us today for tailored geopolitical insights and industry-specific advisory services.
Sign up for our newsletter
Receive insights from our experts every week in your inbox.
