The Abraham Accords must be championed

Good relations between US, UK the signatories of the Accords are vital to maintaining regional stability

Since its founding in 1948, the State of Israel has had a difficult relationship with its neighbours. Those eighty years of history reflect a region beset by rivalry, distrust, and deep religious division. It has often been a toxic mix that has led to open conflict. 
In fact, the day after Israel declared its independence, a coalition of neighbouring states – Egypt, Transjordan and Syria – launched an invasion. Egypt remained in a declared state of war with Israel until normalisation in 1977, an intervening period which saw conflict in 1967 and on Yom Kippur in 1973. In 1994, Jordan followed Egypt to become the second Arab state to recognise the Jewish state.  
Yet elsewhere in the Arab world the scars of conflict remained unhealed. Land belonging to Israel was not demarcated in textbooks and the homeland of the Jews was not referred to by its proper name, but as the “Zionist entity”.  
Then, four years ago this month, a breakthrough occurred. The Abraham Accords, signed at the White House, brought about the diplomatic recognition of Israel from the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco. Since September 2020, trade between the signatories has grown markedly, and cultural ties and exchanges have flourished, bringing people into contact with each other in recognition of their shared humanity.  
Yet, beyond economic and cultural connections in the region itself, there lies a deeper strategic significance to the Accords that positively supports the security of the US and UK.  
A new generation of leaders in the Gulf stepped into the roles held by their fathers and grandfathers. To these new rulers, Israel does not pose the existential threat to their nations or their regimes that their antecedents thought it did. Instead, as the leaders in the capitals of Bahrain, UAE, Morocco and elsewhere surveyed their strategic environment, the clearest threat came from across the Persian Gulf.  
The Iranian regime’s malignancy is matched only by its revolutionary zeal. The cruelty of the regime domestically was exposed to a large international audience by the protests that followed the murder of Mahsa Amini. Yet, as the government suppressed those protests, it continued to cause chaos in the region with the goal of exporting the revolution. 
A network of proxy groups employed to carry out Iran’s forward defence strategy are the primary instigators of regional destabilisation. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis have threatened and barbarised the state of Israel, and their actions are antithetical to Western interests. The concerns of Abraham Accords signatories regarding Iran’s aggressive behavior are shared by the United Kingdom.  
In the recent election, British policy in the Middle East was undoubtedly a concern for many voters, with pictures on our screens of the terrorist attack by Hamas on Israeli citizens and the bloody aftermath in Gaza. Yet, the focus ought to have been how to effectively contain Iran, rather than an unproductive appeasement of anti-Israel zealots. 
The best path to peace is represented by the ideals of the Abraham Accords – that shared economic and commercial endeavours build trust between peoples; that co-existence is preferable to conflict; and that shared cultural experiences facilitate understanding between previously warring states. These precepts will not bring peace in themselves, but they can lay the foundations for it in the future.
The Abraham Accords also represent the best framework for dealing with the Iran challenge. The Accords envisaged how a defence and security architecture could operate in the region, led by the United States through Centcom, but with an increasing regional input as the US focuses more of its resources and energy on competition with China in the Indo-Pacific.
The missile attack from Iran in April saw a nascent version of this vision. Over 1200 missiles aimed for Israel were intercepted by the armed forces of neighbouring states, such as Jordan and the UAE.  
Many thought that Hamas’ barbarous attack on Israeli civilians and Israel’s subsequent military action in Gaza spelled the end of the Abraham Accords. Commentators argued that existing normalisation agreements would collapse, and that business between the countries would cease. Any further normalisation deals, such as with Saudi Arabia, were now presumed to be off the table. This was almost certainly the strategic aim of Hamas and their benefactors in Tehran.
These gloomy forecasts ultimately proved to be false, however. For that, we can thank the visionary leadership in Abu Dhabi, Rabat, and Manama. To these governments, the Abraham Accords were an enormous strategic decision. They were, and are, unpopular amongst sections of their domestic populations. They further advance Israeli integration into the region and recognise the necessity of Israeli security. Neither proposition enjoys widespread popular support. 
Following October 7, the signatories remained strong in their commitment to the Abraham Accords and condemned both Hamas’ attack and Israel’s military response. For example, the Crown Prince and Prime Minister of Bahrain, Prince Salman bin Hamad Al-Khalifa, called for the release of hostages and unequivocally condemned Hamas at the Manama Dialogue.  
The UAE continues to provide vital and courageous regional leadership. Abu Dhabi have leveraged their diplomatic relations with Israel to provide $34mn of aid to Gaza, construct hospitals, and evacuate children for medical treatment. The UAE also constructed desalination facilities to prevent water shortages in Gaza.  
The continued benefits of the Abraham Accords are clear from recent trade figures. To take just one example, trade between Morocco and Israel has increased by 64 per cent from this point last year, despite the war in Gaza.
The relationship between the United States, Saudi Arabia and other Abraham Accords countries will be a key factor in the peace and prosperity in the Middle East. A positive relationship could see President Biden’s goal of a normalisation deal realised. This will help Israel and Saudi Arabia co-operate to balance against the threat of Iran, which will also be in the interests of the US and UK. 
Whoever wins the US election in November must continue to build on and expand the Abraham Accords, not just support them. There remain reasons to be hopeful. As a senator, Kamala Harris supported the Accords and continued to support good relations with Bahrain and the UAE as vice president, and former President Trump remembers the Accords fondly as his administration’s primary diplomatic achievement.  
The Accords provided a vision for peace, prosperity and security, for co-existence over conflict. They sought to release countries with shared strategic interests from the shackles of decades of mistrust and suspicion. For those in Whitehall and Washington, it is imperative that the Accords remain central to policy in the Middle East.