Over the past year, several Arab nations, including the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco, signed peace agreements with Israel. The United States played a critical role in brokering and facilitating the development of these agreements. Indeed, these new agreements will change the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East, but some are skeptical, believing that it will spark an arms race. Shortly after Arab nations signed these deals, they approached the U.S. and Israel seeking to purchase advanced military equipment and obtain other benefits. This might suggest that some nations are more interested in getting their hands on A-grade military weapons, rather than for Middle East peace. Should future normalization efforts continue to emphasize military collaboration rather than economic and social collaboration, it could render the overall normalization effort ineffective.
In September, the UAE, Bahrain, and Israel signed the Abraham Accords, which normalized diplomatic relations between the trio. Later in the year, Sudan and Morocco followed suit. After the Abraham Accords were signed, the UAE approached the U.S., intending to purchase the country’s advanced F-35 fighter jets and long-range armed drones. Although both Israel and U.S. lawmakers expressed concerns about selling the military equipment to the UAE, outgoing U.S. President Donald Trump shared that he would be comfortable selling the jets to the Gulf nation. In late October, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finally consented to the sale of “certain” weapons. Bahrain has also made similar requests to purchase F-35 jets from the United States after signing the accords.
After normalizing ties with Israel, the U.S. removed Sudan from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. For many years, the U.S. referred to Sudan as a hub of the “axis of evil”. The move, therefore, marks a significant shift. The northeast African country had been on the U.S.’ blacklist for almost three decades. This change in designation was a major win for the country’s new civilian-backed government, as it hindered foreign investment and thus the economic development of the fragile country. Also, shortly after signing the deal, Morocco was next in line to buy advanced drones from the US.
Thus far, the “peace-through-bribes” approach has proven to be an effective way of bringing Israel and its foes to the negotiating table. But, this strategy could hold negative ramifications for overall normalization efforts if the U.S. or Israel decides to stop selling their military equipment or provide significant benefits to Arab nation signatories. Trump framed the negotiating process to suggest that access to advanced military technology is a benefit of such deals. If countries agree to sign these deals solely to advance their military interests, it could prove problematic. This would sideline economic and stability goals, which will directly impact the residents of these countries and the region.
In addition, as U.S. lawmakers outlined, selling advanced military technology and equipment to Arab nations could hurt Israel’s strategic position in the Middle East, and by extension, undermine the U.S.’ influence in the region. There is also a troubling likelihood that many of these military items could fall under the control of the U.S.’ enemies, such as Russia, China, Iran, or their proxies, subsequently fueling conflict in the Middle East.
Although the normalization agreements seem to encompass military sales so far, some of these deals were more organically established than others. For example, the agreement follows logically because both the UAE and Israel share similar geopolitical interests, including undermining Iran’s dangerous influence in the Middle East. Both countries are also widely perceived as positive role models for modernity and progress. The Abraham Accords have paved the way for the two countries to collaborate on everything from healthcare to technology. Because the agreement had clear roots in the country’s shared values, both Israel and the UAE agreed to normalize relations in all aspects. The deal is also viewed favorably among Emiratis and Israelis, expressing their interest in collaborating, investing, and traveling.
The deal signed between Morocco and Israel, on the other hand, was far less organic. Morocco is home to approximately 3,000 Jews. Despite this, the country remains wary of the Jewish State and has, therefore, only partially normalized relations with Israel. According to the Arab Opinion Index, 88% of surveyed Moroccans opposed diplomatic recognition of Israel, with 70% stating the Palestinian cause concerns all Arabs. But, Morocco has taken advantage of the U.S.-led normalization process to rack up some significant wins in the international arena. In early December, President Trump announced via Twitter that the U.S. would recognize Morocco’s sovereignty over the disputed Western Sahara territory, which was seen as a quid pro quo agreement for Morocco normalizing relations with Israel. In addition, within a day of the normalization announcement, the Trump administration notified U.S. Congress about a potential $1 billion arms sale to Morocco. In this way, Morocco has used the normalization process to its strategic advantage. It has not demonstrated further interest in developing relations with Israel yet.
As Biden and his administration inch closer to the impending inauguration, his team will have to tread lightly when it comes to normalization agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The incoming President must also consider whether these deals are genuinely furthering the goals of achieving peace and stability in the Middle East or whether they are simply just high-level quid pro quo business agreements. For these normalization deals to have a positive impact on the region, they must include provisions that emphasize economic and social collaboration, rather than just military aid. Without such stipulations, these deals are unlikely to foster long-term peace and stability in the Middle East.
