The Abraham Accords (2020) marked a strategic shift in Middle Eastern diplomacy by establishing formal ties between Israel and several Arab states (the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco). The Accords brokered in the last year of Donald Trump’s first term in office created new geopolitical dynamics in a conflict-torn region. The Palestinian Authority criticised them for failing to address their conflict with Israel. What will the future of the Accords look like within Trump's second term?

By Adnan Nasser & Hiba Abdulwahab
The accords, named symbolically after the biblical figure Abraham, a common ancestor in both Judaism and Islam, aimed to unify Israel and the Arab world through economic, security, and diplomatic cooperation.

Now, with Trump’s re-election and the shifting dynamics of the Middle East, questions arise: What is the future of the Abraham Accords? Can they serve as a tool for regional stability, or have they merely cemented existing power structures without resolving underlying conflicts?

The primary rationale behind the Abraham Accords was to promote economic cooperation between Israel and Arab states. For instance, trade between Israel and the UAE skyrocketed following the agreement. Bilateral trade between the two countries was projected to reach between $4 billion and $6.5 billion in the medium term.

In the first five months following the agreement’s signing in September 2020, trade already stood at $280 million. The principle behind this economic collaboration was best summarised by Montesquieu in De l’esprit des Lois (1758): "The natural effect of trade is to bring about peace. Two nations that trade together render themselves reciprocally dependent; if one has an interest in buying, the other has an interest in selling."

Beyond economic motivations, the accords had a deeper strategic objective: countering Iran’s growing regional influence. Israel, the U.S., and their Gulf allies have long viewed Iran as a destabilising force due to its support for armed groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

By securing formal ties with Arab states, Israel aimed to limit Iran’s regional influence and forge a broader anti-Iran coalition. The Abraham Accords, therefore, were not merely about peace but about geopolitical manoeuvring to shift the balance of power in Israel’s favour.

The Return of Donald Trump
The Middle East has undergone significant changes in recent years, many of which have tested the effectiveness and relevance of the Abraham Accords.

 The most critical development was the war in Gaza, which began on October 7, 2023, and lasted until January 2025. A few days before taking office, Trump booked his first success by sending Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff to Qatar to negotiate a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas. Qatari officials who hosted the negotiations said Witkoff reached more in a few days than former President Joe Blinken in over 15 months.

The return of Trump to the White House has raised hopes that the Abraham Accords could serve as a diplomatic bridge for broader peace efforts. However, scepticism remains about whether the agreements can mediate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Trump’s comments about requesting neighbouring countries like Egypt and Jordan to take in Palestinians from Gaza have made critics worry he is pushing for the final eraser of Palestine. When Trump received pushback on the idea of relocating Palestinians, citing the rejection from Arab countries, he doubled down and said, “They will do it.” 

Trump made no secret of his ambition to bring peace to the Middle East through regional normalisation. The grand prize is Saudi Arabia. Despite Saudi Arabia’s hope for total peace and security in the Middle East, it remains to be seen if it will sign any agreement with Tel Aviv without the establishment of a Palestine state. 

Amid the Gaza war, enhancing ties with Israel became politically untenable for the Kingdom. Trump’s push for a ceasefire was widely interpreted as an attempt to create the conditions necessary for Saudi Israeli normalisation. 

Criticism of the Abraham Accords
Despite the accords' stated goal of fostering peace, they have often been criticised for their failure to address the Palestinian issue. Many analysts argue that instead of promoting peace, the accords emboldened Israel by removing the diplomatic pressure Arab states once exerted on behalf of the Palestinians.

Under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right government, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has only worsened. Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank has continued, settler violence has increased, and military crackdowns in Gaza have gone out of control. The accords, critics argue, have done nothing to mitigate these realities and have instead allowed Israel to normalise ties with Arab states without making any concessions to the Palestinians. 

What Lies Ahead?
The future of the Accords now hinges on a fundamental question: Will Saudi Arabia maintain its unwavering stance on Palestinian statehood, or will it lower its ambitions in response to mounting geopolitical pressures? Trump's recent statement - suggesting U.S. control over Gaza while urging Saudi Arabia and Egypt to resettle its people - directly tests the credibility of Riyadh’s long-held position that normalisation with Israel is contingent upon a Palestinian state.

If Saudi Arabia concedes, it will represent a seismic shift in regional politics, potentially redefining the balance of power in the Middle East. However, thus far, the kingdom has shown no indication of abandoning its demand for Palestinian sovereignty. The rejection of Netanyahu’s diluted vision of a Palestinian state only reaffirms this position.

Would Saudi Arabia risk alienating its regional allies and its domestic base by compromising on this issue? Or will it leverage its strategic influence to push for a genuine resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

The accords provide an opportunity for genuine diplomacy, and their potential to bring about lasting change in the Middle East is significant. Their success will not be determined by economic deals or political expediency alone. Instead, their survival depends on whether they can create tangible, lasting change for the people of the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia’s decision—whether to uphold its condition for Palestinian statehood or shift toward a more pragmatic approach—may well define the next chapter in the region’s history. If there was ever a time to use diplomacy to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, now is the moment to act.