The Abraham Accords
This backgrounder provides an overview of how the Abraham Accords came about, the US interests involved, their economic and strategic consequences, and the prospects for further enlargement going forward.
This backgrounder provides an overview of how the Abraham Accords came about, the US interests involved, their economic and strategic consequences, and the prospects for further enlargement going forward.
The United States plans to submit a resolution on Gaza to the United Nations Security Council by the end of November. Reportedly, the latest draft endorses President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan, recognizes the Board of Peace as a “transitional governance administration,” and authorizes the BoP to establish an International Stabilization Force. In a new MEI Policy Memo, Lucy Kurtzer-Ellenbogen breaks down why it matters for the US and the relevant policy considerations.
The United States plans to submit a resolution on Gaza to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) by the end of November. Reportedly, the latest draft endorses President Donald Trump’s 20-point plan, recognizes the Board of Peace (BoP) as a “transitional governance administration,” and authorizes the BoP to establish an International Stabilization Force (ISF). The UN resolution is a first step to achieving buy-in from potential ISF contributors. In turn, a viable ISF will be one key to moving beyond the cease-fire to securing the 20-point plan’s envisioned Hamas disarmament, further Israeli military withdrawal, and a path to Palestinian governance. The US faces several dilemmas as it seeks to transition from cease-fire to stabilization and beyond.
For years, Israeli populist politicians have chipped away at the country’s democratic guardrails. But the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023 accelerated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s drive to consolidate power. The kind of societal pushback that once blocked his efforts to expand executive authority is now under severe strain. Israel’s multi-front conflict with Iran, Hamas, and other Iranian proxies has blunted protest movements and sidelined those who once filled the streets in defense of democracy. Defending checks and balances has been eclipsed by wartime priorities.
Seizing Lebanon’s once-in-a-generation opportunity hinges on its ability to resolve its core dysfunction: reclaiming the state’s monopoly on force and its exclusive authority to determine matters of war and peace. Beirut, backed by deepening US support, must focus on achieving tangible milestones and strategic victories that momentum, making Hizballah’s disarmament unstoppable and the state’s reassertion of authority irreversible.
Seizing Lebanon’s once-in-a-generation opportunity hinges on its ability to resolve its core dysfunction: reclaiming the state’s monopoly on force and its exclusive authority to determine matters of war and peace. Beirut, backed by deepening US support, must focus on achieving tangible milestones and strategic victories that momentum, making Hizballah’s disarmament unstoppable and the state’s reassertion of authority irreversible.
The central challenge facing Lebanon today is whether the country will graduate to functional statehood or continue struggling to survive. Yet with Lebanese officials now insisting that the state “monopolize arms” and become the decisive arbiter on matters of war and peace, a relevant question arises: Where, territorially, does Lebanon begin and end?
The October 2025 cease-fire and hostage-release deal that ended the Israel-Hamas conflict marks the beginning of a complicated post-war phase. The agreement has created important opportunities to advance stability in the Middle East and build a lasting and sustainable peace marked by enhanced regional security and integration, but there are considerable risks to manage. Achieving these goals will require coordinated international action along multiple lines of effort: security, rule of law, recovery and reconstruction, responsive governance, and steady and focused diplomacy to build confidence among key parties.
The Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement (SMDA) between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, signed in Riyadh on September 17, is far more than a bilateral pledge. It represents a profound reordering of alignments in the Gulf and South Asia, reflecting and reinforcing the broader erosion of US preeminence in the Eurasian security architecture. While much of the initial commentary centered on the striking commitment of a wealthy Gulf monarchy to the defense of a nuclear-armed South Asian state, as well as the question of whether Pakistan had in fact extended its nuclear umbrella to Saudi Arabia, the deeper story is arguably China’s potential advance.
After two terrible years — beginning on the horrific morning of October 7, 2023 — there is now a chance the Gaza war could end. This chance exists not because the 20-point proposal released by the United States on September 29, 2025, is a model of diplomatic detail or nuance. It exists because its patron, President Donald Trump, appears determined not to take “no” for an answer.
The European Union has announced plans to sanction Israel over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. If adopted, the move would mark a historic shift in EU-Israel relations. MEI’s Iulia Joja unpacks the proposal’s background, what the sanctions would entail, and their potential impact on the EU’s position in the Middle East.
On the fifth anniversary of the Abraham Accords, MEI’s Brian Katulis reflects on their durability and future: “These Abraham Accords will not be broken. They’ll be bent, but I think they’ll stay in place. But they won’t expand in any way until there’s progress on the Palestinian question.” He unpacks the origins of the agreements, their strengths and limitations, and the key challenges that must be addressed for them to grow stronger.
The coming weeks may prove decisive in Europe’s long struggle to manage Iran’s nuclear ambitions. On Aug. 28, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany announced they will trigger the “snapback” sanctions mechanism. Whether Europe’s gamble succeeds will determine both the future of non-proliferation and the credibility of Europe as a strategic actor.
The most striking thing about Donald Trump’s foreign policy at the seven-month mark of his second administration is how it has failed to improve America’s overall strategic position in the world. It is still early days, but the Trump team’s frenetic flurry of actions, coupled with attention-seeking and often incendiary rhetoric, has served to obscure a poor record of scoring significant international wins for America.
All eyes this week are on Alaska, where US President Donald Trump will hold a pivotal meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss ending the Ukraine war. But the United States remains consumed by several domestic issues, including continued strains over policing, immigration, and checks and balances inside America’s system of government. All of this comes at a time when Trump’s domestic political standing continues to slip lower, including among members of his own party.