5 Years on, the Abraham Accords Risk Freezing Into ‘Cold Peace’
At a Tel Aviv conference marking five years since the historic agreements, Israeli security chiefs, diplomats and Gulf experts weighed resilience, risks of “cold peace,” and the elusive Saudi breakthrough
Five years after the signing of the Abraham Accords, the bold experiment in Arab-Israeli normalization faces its most difficult test. Two years of war in Gaza and direct confrontation with Iran have reshaped the Middle East, raising doubts over whether the agreements can still deliver the prosperity and regional stability once promised.
At a conference in Tel Aviv, officials and analysts offered conflicting answers: Some saw resilience; others warned of stagnation.
Speaking with The Media Line, Hadas Lorber, head of the US-Israel project at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) and a former senior director at the US National Security Council, emphasized that Washington still views the accords as a cornerstone.
“Of course, it is an achievement because it was Trump’s initiative,” she said. “Decision-makers in Washington are the same ones who actually brought this thing together. Obviously, they think it’s a strategic accomplishment and they want to deepen and enlarge the circle of countries.”
What Trump wants is a Nobel Prize
Asked about Trump’s personal motivation, she was blunt: “What Trump wants is a Nobel Prize.”
Lorber stressed that the White House continues to see Riyadh as the ultimate prize.
“They want to, and they look forward to seeing Saudi Arabia enter the Abraham Accords. I think that’s something that Trump always wants. But things are difficult now in the neighborhood because of the Palestinian issues. It’s more complicated, but obviously this is what people would love to see happening.”
She dismissed the idea that support for the accords could collapse along partisan lines.
Everyone wants to see the Middle East, at least the US allies in the Middle East, come together and create partnerships and collaborations
“I think that it’s a bipartisan issue to have the Abraham Accords flourishing and deepening,” she said. “There is a caucus in Congress composed of both Democrats and Republicans. Everyone wants to see the Middle East, at least the US allies in the Middle East, come together and create partnerships and collaborations.”
The war in Gaza, however, has altered the equation.
“The war has definitely made a different dynamic in the Middle East,” Lorber acknowledged. “It has created the hostility in the Arab streets. Not so much the leaderships, because the UAE and the Bahraini leadership still collaborate with Israel, but obviously, hostility and the sensitive situation influence the way the leaderships can speak out positively. It doesn’t change in Washington the willingness to keep striving for a more positive, stable, collaborative, prosperous Middle East. But it’s a difficult time. There is always the day after, and to prepare for the day after, you need to work now.”
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
She also argued that Iran’s recent show of force had backfired.
They know that the bridge to America is through Israel
“They saw Israeli strength. And when they saw the power projection from America, and the fact that they came and assisted Israel in the attack against Iran, I think that actually contributes to the fact that countries want to come closer to Israel because of America. They know that the bridge to America is through Israel.”
On the future role of Washington, Lorber was clear:
Israel wants normalization with Saudi Arabia, Saudi wants a nuclear facility and F-35s, and the US wants investments that bring money and jobs back to America
“A facilitator. It should also bring to the table also their own interests, like US interests, when it comes to the Abraham Accords, because they want to bring countries closer to the US, such as Saudi Arabia, when it comes vis-à-vis China. Everyone has their own interest when they come to the table. Israel wants normalization with Saudi Arabia, Saudi wants a nuclear facility and F-35s, and the US wants investments that bring money and jobs back to America. It’s a collective of interests, and let’s hope each one gets as much as they want.”
Others at the conference echoed that mix of resilience and fragility. Former National Security Adviser Eyal Hulata emphasized that Bahrain and the Emirates chose not to cut ties with Israel, something unprecedented in past crises.
The Emiratis and Bahrainis decided not to break relations despite everything. That is unprecedented compared to the Second Intifada.
“The Emiratis and Bahrainis decided not to break relations despite everything,” he said. “That is unprecedented compared to the Second Intifada.”
Yoel Guzansky of INSS warned that public opposition to normalization in Gulf societies now runs as high as 90% to 95%.
“If this continues, we risk ending up with a cold peace like Egypt or Jordan,” he cautioned.
Still, he highlighted that security cooperation has only deepened, with Israeli defense exports to the region reaching nearly $2 billion in 2024.
With the Emirates, there is no reverse gear
“With the Emirates, there is no reverse gear,” he insisted.
“Ten years ago, there were no direct flights, no phone calls,” recalled Gulf business specialist Tally Zingher. “Today, there are daily flights to Dubai. That is night and day.” But she warned that goodwill is not enough to sustain the relationship.
“They can buy technology from anywhere — China included. Israeli companies need to prove they are serious about being part of the region, not just taking the money and running.”
Aliza Bin-Noun, former political director at the Foreign Ministry, noted that “there was criticism, but diplomatic relations held. Officials came here discreetly, including from the Gulf and Morocco. These ties were tested, and they stood.”
Ofir Winter of INSS added that the Abrahamic narrative of interfaith fraternity — once central to the accords — is now under siege from radicals spreading conspiracy theories about a fabricated “Ibrahimiya” religion.
Saudi Arabia remained the central unknown. Eyal Tsir Cohen, a former senior intelligence official, argued that Riyadh has already made the strategic decision to normalize with Israel eventually.
“The question is not if, but when,” he said.
Yet historian Elie Podeh strongly disagreed, pointing to the kingdom’s increasingly vocal embrace of the Palestinian issue.
“They will need to show their people something on the Palestinian file before moving forward,” he warned.
As the conference drew to a close, the mood was neither celebratory nor despairing.
The Accords have not died. They matured.
“The Accords have not died. They matured,” Guzansky concluded.
The euphoria of 2020 has long since evaporated, replaced by cold pragmatism — and the uncertain hope that resilience will not harden into frost.
