How have the Trump-brokered peace agreements affected US foreign policy in the Middle East since 2021?

1. Why the Accords Look Like a Strategic Break — and What They Actually Delivered

The core claim across reports is that the Abraham Accords created a new baseline of economic and security integration between Israel and Gulf partners, turning normalization from a one-off to an operational network supporting trade, intelligence, and military coordination. Policy analyses in 2025 quantify growing commercial ties and coordinated security initiatives among signatories, framing the Accords as an enduring architecture that advances U.S. objectives of regional stabilization and countering Iran ^{[2] [3]}. That said, the sources also stress this architecture is instrumental rather than constitutive: it changes how states work together without resolving the underlying Israeli–Palestinian impasse that continues to shape public legitimacy for normalization efforts ^{[4] [5]}.

2. How Regional Conflicts Tested the Accords — Gaza, Houthis, and the Iran Question

Multiple analyses argue that the Accords were stress-tested by the Gaza war and broader tensions involving Iran-backed proxies; these conflicts revealed both the Accords’ strengths in facilitating crisis coordination and their limits in preventing escalation. A 2025 report notes that while partners leveraged Accords-era channels to pursue cease-fires and hostage deals, the conflicts exposed gaps in collective deterrence and humanitarian influence, prompting questions about the Accords’ resilience in high-intensity scenarios ^{[6] [3]}. Critics in the policy record assert that U.S. missteps on Iran policy and insufficiently robust enforcement against arms flows to groups like the Houthis have undercut regional stability, arguing for harder-line measures to protect Accords gains ^[7].

3. U.S. Policy Instruments: From Mediation to Military Posture

Analysts consistently report that U.S. engagement since 2021 blended diplomacy with selective military pressure: Washington used Accords diplomacy to deepen alliances while also relying on military action and deterrent postures against Iranian proxies. Government briefings and think‑tank work from 2024–2025 frame this as a dual-track approach—bolstering partner capabilities through the Accords while maintaining unilateral tools to deter escalation ^{[6] [4]}. However, divergent assessments appear: some sources see this as pragmatic balancing; others argue it produced incoherence, with alternating moves that both enabled normalization and left unanswered how America would manage high-stakes crises that pit partner coordination against U.S. direct intervention needs ^{[6] [7]}.

4. The Saudi Question and Congressional Constraints — Why Normalization Remains Elusive

Reports updated through 2025 highlight Saudi-Israeli normalization as the biggest unfulfilled promise of the Accords, constrained by domestic politics, the Palestinian issue, and Congressional oversight. A Congressional Research Service update in August 2024 is explicit about the political and legal complexities facing any U.S.-brokered push for Saudi normalization, noting Congress’s role and the need for a unified U.S. strategy that addresses Palestinian concerns ^[4]. Policy pieces in 2025 add that while technical progress and private diplomacy continue, a calibrated U.S. approach balancing ambition and realism is required to turn Saudi interest into formal ties without sparking backlash ^[5].

5. Competing Narratives and Policy Prescriptions — Read the Agendas

The corpus contains clear alternative framings: some sources present the Accords as a durable strategic win that should be deepened through stronger enforcement and expanded partnerships, while others attribute regional chaos to subsequent administrations’ policy choices and advocate for restoration of tougher measures on Iran and militant proxies ^{[7] [2]}. These divergences reflect distinct agendas—institutional policy realism versus partisan critiques of administration performance—and they shape recommended U.S. actions: one side urges consolidation of Accords networks, the other presses for renewed coercive measures to secure those gains ^{[3] [8]}. Recognizing these motives is crucial to evaluating prescriptions offered in the analyses.

6. Bottom Line: Gains Secured, Fragility Remains — Policy Choices Ahead

Taken together, the evidence from 2024–2025 shows the Abraham Accords materially altered U.S. leverage in the Middle East by creating cooperative platforms that the U.S. can use to pursue stability and counter Iran, but they did not eliminate chronic flashpoints. The Accords produced tangible cooperation and new diplomatic space, yet the Gaza war, Iran’s regional role, and stalled Saudi normalization reveal structural limits that require deliberate U.S. policy choices—either to consolidate partnerships with stronger multilateral mechanisms or to revert to unilateral coercion and crisis management—which the reviewed sources frame through different strategic lenses and dates ^{[2] [8]}.