THE US- propelled Idea– that Middle East stability hinges on the Abraham Accords –is a flawed assumption. While the Accords steered diplomatic relations between Israel and few Arab States, they do not address core regional conflicts—particularly Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories and Iran’s influence. Washington’s propensity to attach regional peace and stability with the Abraham Accords is by all means seems a false notion simply because it intrinsically overestimates the Accords’ impact by ignoring deeper political issues. True stability demands addressing Palestinian rights and regional power dynamics, not just symbolic normalization.
From a pragmatic and broader Middle East perspective, The US notion linking Middle East stability to the Abraham Accords is widely criticized as a fallacy because it attempts to build regional security upon a foundation of excluding Palestinians. By sidestepping core disputes and focusing on anti-Iran alliances, the Accords instead deepen structural fractures and provoke broader geopolitical conflict.
Objectively arguing, stability in the region depends on broader factors like Palestinian statehood, regional security and economic equity. Forcing more countries to recognize Israel as a condition for peace risks undermining sovereignty and legitimacy. The push to extend the Accords to other Arab States reflects geopolitical ambition over genuine diplomatic consensus. True stability requires inclusive dialogue, not symbolic recognition mandate.
President Trump’s notion that the Abraham Accords are the key to broader Middle East stability is widely criticized as a fallacy. This premise fundamentally ignores the core realities of the region’s conflicts, sidelining the Palestinian issue, miscalculating the threat from Iran and failing to secure genuine regional consensus. The main flaws in this approach include:
1-Sidelining the Palestinian issue: The Accords are based on the premise that Arab States could normalize ties with Israel while bypassing the Palestinian quest for statehood. This approach fails to address the root cause of decades of regional and generational unrest. 2-Misreading Iran: The strategy operates on the assumption that Gulf States universally share America and Israel’s rigid hostility toward Iran. However, regional powers—such as Saudi Arabia—have actively pursued direct diplomacy and de-escalation with Tehran. 3-Lack of widespread buy-in: Trump’s efforts to mandate that other Muslim-majority nations (such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia) join the Accords as a mandatory condition for US diplomacy are largely based on false perceptions. It is absolutely unthinkable for majority Muslim nations to normalize ties with Israel without the establishment of an independent Palestinian State, with its capital in Al-Quds.
4-No shield against conflict: The October 7 assault and the ensuing devastating conflicts definitively upended the assumption that Israeli integration equates to regional peace. Rather than stabilizing the region, critics argue the Accords have opened the door to Israeli belligerence without providing signatory Arab States any influence over these actions. Recently, UK Foreign Secretary ED Miliband has justifiably criticized that Israel security concerns cannot justify its actions in Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT).
Hence, the United States’ unconditional military and political backing of Israel, paired with its disinterest in Palestinian self-determination, deeply concerns Pakistani, Saudi, Turkish, Indonesian and Egyptian policymakers and they rightly assert that Israel bottlenecks Gaza peace plan. Islamabad repeatedly warns at the United Nations that Washington’s overwhelming security approach to Israel ignores regional realities, noting that the unresolved Palestinian issue remains the primary driver of instability.
Fairly arguing, the Abraham Accords reflect an illusionary US policy shortcut: substituting a bilateral normalization for multilateral resolution. This approach assumes that economic incentives can override political rights of the Palestinians protected under international law, upheld by the United Nations resolutions. And the truth is the region rejects that premise. From public opinion to armed resistance, the message is loud and clear: no durable order can be built by sidelining the Palestinians. In reality, the Accords produced biased and selective alignment, not stability.
Therefore, any expectation by Washington that the Muslim majority states like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would join the Abraham Accords is out of the question. Pakistan’s stance toward Israel will remain unchangeable until a sovereign Palestinian State, with its capital in Al-Quds is established. Through the chord of pragmatic crisis management, Pakistan’s diplomatic channels with Iran and Gulf States have allowed Islamabad to play a behind-the-scenes mediatory role between the US and Tehran. And yet, the recently signed MJDA between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey mulls a horizontal expansion trajectory attracting other Muslim States, transforming region’s geopolitical-cum-security paradigm.
Conclusively, removing or excluding the Abraham Accords stipulation from US-Iran negotiations is viewed by many experts as essential for stability in the Middle East, particularly given OIC’s staunch refusal to engage in normalization with Israel. Moreover, the US policy cover for the Abraham Accords risks being seen as coercive rather than cooperative diplomatic measure. Houthis’ centrifugal regional role must be discouraged by Washington. The ongoing US-Iran talks must be supported by the middle power mediatory role. Thus, any success of US-diplomacy and its credibility hinges on its independence from conditional frameworks like Abraham Accords.
The time has come that the US must adopt a reformed approach towards Middle East crisis beyond its past policies based on realpolitik. Pakistan is profoundly harnessing its role as a neutral mediator under a supervisory and visionary role of Field Marshal, CDF and COAS Syed Asim Munir, affirming Pakistan’s unwavering commitment for regional peace and stability.
—The writer is an independent IR & International Law analyst.
