Why It Matters
The House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa held a hearing July 22 examining the future of the Abraham Accords as the Trump administration makes the agreements a centerpiece of its Middle East policy. The administration is tying a new U.S.-Saudi civilian nuclear cooperation deal to Saudi normalization with Israel while pushing several regional governments to join the accords simultaneously.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman told lawmakers that the accords represent “a victory of the moderates over the extremists” in the region.
The Setup: Why Congress Is Looking at This Now
Nearly six years after the first Abraham Accords were signed, the Trump administration is seeking a significant expansion. In May, President Donald Trump called on Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt and Jordan to join the accords simultaneously as part of an agreement with Iran. Pakistan rejected the proposal, and the other countries did not immediately agree.
A day after the hearing, Trump announced that the U.S.-Saudi nuclear cooperation agreement is “totally subject” to Saudi Arabia joining the accords. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt later said the deal would be off if Saudi Arabia did not normalize relations with Israel.
Saudi Arabia has publicly and repeatedly conditioned normalization with Israel on the establishment of a pathway toward Palestinian statehood.
The hearing, titled “Building a New Regional Security Architecture: The Next Phase of the Abraham Accords,” examined opportunities to strengthen security and economic cooperation among existing and prospective partners.
The Witnesses
Three witnesses testified before the subcommittee, including David Friedman, former U.S. ambassador to Israel and a central architect of the original accords; Daniel Shapiro, former U.S. ambassador to Israel and a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative; and Asher Fredman, executive director of the Misgav Institute for National Security and a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
Friedman argued that the accords should not be viewed as a finished project. Responding to Democratic criticism of the administration’s Iran policy, he said, “I don’t think there’s a single present or potential party to the Abraham Accords that agrees” with characterizations of the Iran war as a strategic blunder.
Shapiro took a more cautious approach, warning that Saudi normalization “cannot be divorced from the U.S.-Saudi relationship, nor from other U.S. interests that we must protect.” He emphasized the importance of progress between Israel and the Palestinians as part of any effort to bring Saudi Arabia into the accords.
Friedman described the accords as the basis for a broader U.S.-aligned regional architecture focused on defense cooperation, technology and economic integration rather than bilateral normalization agreements alone.
The Confrontation
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), the subcommittee’s ranking member, raised concerns about the nuclear cooperation agreement. He said that the United Arab Emirates agreed to forgo uranium enrichment and reprocessing and accepted an additional protocol permitting enhanced inspections, similar requirements to what Iran agreed to under the JCPOA. In contrast, Sherman said the Saudi agreement “doesn’t even have an additional protocol" and "doesn’t even have inspections at that level.” Sherman also noted that the administration had signed a memorandum of understanding committing the United States to terminate sanctions against Iran and waive restrictions on Iranian crude oil exports.
Sherman highlighted the central obstacle to expanding the accords. “The most important part of an Abraham Accords success would be relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia,” he said, adding that Saudi officials “have made it clear that there needs to be progress toward a Palestinian state for them to move forward.”
Friedman rejected Palestinian statehood as a prerequisite for further normalization. He said “the experiment has already been tried and failed in Gaza” and warned that establishing a Palestinian state “will consume the region with even more conflict and violence.”
Subcommittee Chair Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) steered the hearing toward opportunities for expanding the accords, asking how Congress could “deepen security cooperation, accelerate trade and investment, expand cooperation in artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, energy, infrastructure and emerging technologies.”
Political Stakes: Trump's Legacy and Bipartisan Ambitions
The administration’s effort to expand the Abraham Accords could become a defining component of Trump’s second-term foreign policy legacy. Republican control of Congress could help legislation supporting regional economic and security cooperation advance, although any measure would still need sufficient support to overcome Senate procedural hurdles.
Saudi Arabia’s conditions concerning Palestinian statehood pose a significant obstacle to Trump’s push for several countries to join the accords as part of an Iran agreement. The administration’s effort to link nuclear cooperation, regional security and Israeli normalization into one package risks faltering if any component proves unacceptable to the participating governments. Reuters reported that Saudi Arabia has long refused to join the accords without a pathway toward Palestinian statehood.
For Friedman, the hearing offered an opportunity to defend the accords and advocate for their expansion. Shapiro urged lawmakers to recognize the limits of U.S. leverage and the relationship between Saudi normalization, Palestinian political progress and broader U.S.-Saudi relations.
The Complication: What Critics Say
Not everyone views the accords as a move in the right direction. Foreign Policy published a critique arguing that the agreements laid the groundwork for “a new era of violence,” providing political cover for the war in Gaza and enabling the conflict with Iran. Similarly, Responsible Statecraft argued that the Iran war “destroyed the strategic logic of the Abraham Accords” and called for a new political process establishing an “irreversible pathway toward Palestinian statehood” in exchange for full normalization.
Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.
Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article