The Abraham Accords derive their identity from Abraham the patriarch revered across the three Abrahamic faith traditions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Clarifying this symbolism emphasises its role in fostering engagement by invoking shared civilisational roots, which is crucial for understanding regional diplomacy and maintaining reader focus.
The symbolism was both elegant and ambitious: if descendants of a common spiritual inheritance could rediscover converging interests, perhaps geopolitics could succeed where theology and history had repeatedly failed.
Yet history offers a more complex and less comforting picture.
Despite tracing themselves to a common patriarchal narrative, the societies and states shaped by these traditions have rarely enjoyed enduring political harmony. Questions of legitimacy, inheritance, identity, sovereignty, and competing visions of historical destiny have repeatedly fuelled rivalry alongside coexistence. Across centuries, shared ancestry has not prevented contestation.
Therein lies the deeper irony.
What was conceived as an accord inspired by a common heritage underscores how regional actors persistently pursue security, legitimacy, and influence, often independently, emphasising their resilience and agency.
Whether viewed through the lens of faith or fate, the Abraham Accords may not represent the end of an old cycle. Still, another chapter in an ongoing story—one where shared origins do not guarantee shared purpose, and reconciliation remains a political choice rather than an inevitable civilizational outcome.
The Middle East’s intricate regional stability, shaped by diverse actors and interests, underscores its importance and the need for a nuanced understanding, fostering respect for its strategic intricacies.
Recent statements attributed to President Donald Trump on expanding the Abraham Accords have revived an old debate: Is Washington genuinely pursuing regional peace and integration, or is it constructing a strategic order that preserves dependence on American power?
This question warrants examination beyond political slogans and immediate diplomatic reactions.
The Logic of American Primacy
Historically, every great power seeks to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition in regions critical to its interests.
The United States has pursued variations of this strategy in Europe, East Asia and the Middle East. The objective has remained broadly consistent: to prevent any regional actor or coalition of actors from becoming sufficiently dominant to exclude American influence.
In the Middle East, this has translated into four enduring strategic goals: ensuring energy and maritime access, protecting strategic partners, preventing the emergence of hostile regional hegemons, and preserving the freedom to intervene militarily.
This strategic framework has endured changes in administrations, evolving from Cold War containment to post-9/11 counterterrorism and now to strategic competition.
Seen through this lens, the Abraham Accords are not merely diplomatic agreements; they can also be interpreted as instruments for reshaping regional alignments and influencing the evolving geopolitical landscape, both of which are essential for understanding regional power dynamics and US strategy, thus keeping the reader engaged with the broader strategic context.
The Abraham Accords: Peace Framework or Strategic Architecture?
The Abraham Accords marked a significant departure from traditional Arab–Israeli diplomacy. Rather than linking normalisation directly to the resolution of the Palestinian question, the framework prioritised bilateral recognition, economic engagement, and strategic cooperation. Supporters argue that this lowers barriers to cooperation, reduces incentives for conflict, and creates prosperity-led stability.
Critics offer a different interpretation. They argue that the framework risks evolving into a selective security architecture centred on Israel and enabled by Washington.
The strategic attraction for the United States is evident.
If major Sunni Arab states align economically and technologically with Israel under an American umbrella, Washington preserves its role as the indispensable coordinator of regional security while reducing the need for costly direct interventions.
The United States becomes less of an occupier and more of a systems integrator.
An additional complexity that increasingly deserves attention is that even Israel—the principal beneficiary and early anchor state of the Abraham framework—may no longer be seen as operating entirely within the original logic of the accords. The initial promise of the Abraham Accords rested on normalisation, creating interdependence, reducing incentives for conflict, and gradually integrating Israel into a wider regional order.
However, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, critics argue that Israeli strategic priorities have increasingly shifted towards immediate security dominance, the restoration of deterrence, and freedom of military action, rather than regional accommodation alone. Supporters would counter that Israel’s evolving threat environment and repeated security crises have narrowed the space for long-term political experimentation.
Yet perception matters in strategy.
Across the region, there is a growing view that the present Israeli approach appears less focused on constructing a post-conflict regional architecture and more on shaping favourable security conditions before political integration. If such perceptions deepen, a paradox emerges: the state most associated with the Abraham framework may itself be moving beyond the original diplomatic philosophy that gave birth to it.
In that case, the accords risk evolving from an architecture of reconciliation into one of alignment and strategic management.
Trump’s reported framing of expansion reinforced this interpretation. The argument was that countries across the regional matrix should ultimately join the framework. Participation offered access to power, strength, and economic opportunity, while refusal raised questions about strategic intent.
This language reflects a broader vision not merely of peace agreements but of constructing a regional order.
Why Saudi Arabia Hesitates
Saudi Arabia occupies a unique strategic position. It seeks security guarantees, investment, advanced technologies and long-term economic transformation. Yet Riyadh also seeks strategic autonomy.
Normalisation without visible progress on Palestine carries domestic and regional costs. At the same time, Saudi Arabia increasingly operates under a multi-alignment model—maintaining relationships with Washington, Beijing and regional actors.
Full alignment with an externally driven framework risks reducing room for manoeuvre. Saudi caution, therefore, should not be automatically interpreted as rejection; instead, it reflects a strategic negotiation from a position of growing confidence, encouraging patience and understanding.
Pakistan’s Strategic Dilemma
Pakistan presents a different case. Pakistan has historically sought legitimacy across the Islamic world while maintaining security ties beyond the region. Public alignment with an expanded Abraham framework is politically sensitive given Pakistan’s traditional position on Palestine.
At the same time, Islamabad cannot ignore its dependence on Gulf relationships and financial support. Pakistan, therefore, faces a balancing act: maintain ideological continuity while preserving strategic access. Its hesitation reflects geopolitical arithmetic more than ideological absolutism.
Iran: Why Joining Offers Few Immediate Gains
The suggestion that Iran could eventually join the Abraham framework after a permanent settlement appears transformational. Yet from Tehran’s perspective, incentives remain limited.
Iran’s strategic influence has been built largely on opposition to the American-led regional architecture. Its investment in asymmetric capabilities, strategic depth and deterrence has been designed to reduce dependence on external security arrangements.
Participation would require accepting constraints on strategic autonomy. That remains difficult to reconcile with the political identity that emerged after the Iranian Revolution.
Turkiye and Qatar: Middle Powers Seeking Autonomy
Turkiye and Qatar illustrate another trend. Neither seeks confrontation with Washington, nor does either seek dependency. Turkey increasingly pursues influence across multiple theatres—from the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia.
Qatar has perfected strategic hedging—hosting an American military presence while maintaining diversified regional relationships.
Their national interests are therefore not naturally aligned with a rigid bloc architecture.
Both prefer flexibility.
Egypt and Jordan: Stability Before Transformation
Egypt and Jordan already maintain peace arrangements with Israel. Their calculations are rooted more in state stability than in ideology. For Cairo, containing spillover and ensuring manageable borders remain central priorities.
Jordan’s geography and demographics similarly favour moderation. Their engagement with broader normalisation frameworks, therefore, reflects pragmatism rather than strategic realignment.
Does Instability Benefit American Power?
This is where the debate becomes uncomfortable. One school argues that Washington deliberately sustains instability because disorder creates dependence on the American military presence.
Another argues the opposite, that instability imposes costs and accelerates diversification away from the United States.
Reality is likely more nuanced.
The United States does not necessarily seek chaos. But controlled competition and managed dependence can serve strategic interests. Complete regional self-sufficiency reduces demand for external security providers.
Complete collapse destroys economic interests. The preferred equilibrium often appears stable enough for commerce yet uncertain enough to preserve partnerships.
That is the strategic paradox.
The Sheriff and the Posse
Trump’s language evokes an old frontier analogy. The sheriff identifies threats, gathers allies, and expects participation. Those who refuse become objects of suspicion. But the Middle East is not the American frontier.
Regional powers increasingly reject externally defined binaries. Countries today seek security without dependence, trade without alignment, and partnerships without surrendering autonomy.
Coalitions now require legitimacy and incentives, not merely authority.
The Rise of Strategic Multipolarity
The larger transition may already be underway. The Middle East is becoming less American, not because the United States is disappearing, but because more actors now shape outcomes.
China offers investment and infrastructure. Russia offers security alternatives. Regional states increasingly negotiate directly with one another.
Technology, logistics and energy relationships are diversifying. The result is not the end of American influence. It is the gradual end of uncontested influence.
The China Factor: Energy, Leverage and the Hidden Geometry of Competition
Another dimension increasingly shaping analysis is whether developments in West Asia should be understood not only through Arab–Israeli politics but also through the broader strategic contest between the United States and China.
Some analysts argue that periods of engagement between Washington and Beijing have occasionally sought to stabilise areas of confrontation while allowing competition elsewhere.
Within this interpretation, Beijing’s most sensitive strategic red line remains Taiwan.
Some, therefore, speculate that calibrated American signalling around Taiwan allows greater strategic focus on other theatres. However, there is no public evidence of any formal quid pro quo linking Taiwan policy to Middle East instability, and such claims should be treated as strategic interpretations rather than facts.
Yet the broader logic merits examination. China’s rise has depended on uninterrupted industrial growth and sustained access to imported energy. A significant share of these energy requirements originates in or passes through the Middle East and adjoining maritime corridors.
Unlike the United States, which has reduced aspects of its energy vulnerability through domestic production and diversified sourcing, China remains deeply dependent on secure sea lines of communication.
From this perspective, uncertainty in West Asia takes on broader strategic significance.
Disruptions in shipping patterns, insurance premiums, investment sentiment and energy pricing disproportionately affect large importing economies. Pressure accumulates not necessarily through supply denial but through rising uncertainty.
Viewed this way, influence over Gulf security architecture becomes more than regional management—it becomes strategic leverage. The objective would not necessarily be to halt energy flows, because that would damage global markets and allies alike.
Rather, the objective would be to retain influence over the conditions under which those flows move. Control over strategic risk, not ownership of oil, becomes the instrument of power. This interpretation also explains why some analysts do not see continued American activism in the Middle East as contradictory to the Indo-Pacific strategy.
Instead, they view it as complementary.
In this reading, the Middle East becomes another theatre in the larger contest over energy, supply chains, maritime access and the balance of power in the twenty-first century.
Peace, Power and the Limits of Primacy
The debate over the expansion of the Abraham Accords is about more than Arab–Israeli normalisation. It is a struggle over who defines the regional order.
Washington views expanded normalisation as a pathway to stability, economic integration and reduced conflict. Critics view it as an attempt to institutionalise American primacy and to prevent autonomous regional convergence.
Both interpretations contain elements of truth. Great powers rarely act from idealism alone. Regional states rarely reject cooperation purely on ideological grounds.
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, Israel and others are responding to incentives as sovereign actors pursuing national interests.
The Middle East today is no longer a chessboard populated by pieces.
It is increasingly a board with many players.
And in such an environment, even the sheriff must negotiate with the town.