What were the key terms of the Trump-brokered Abraham Accords?
Executive summary
The Abraham Accords are a set of U.S.-mediated normalization arrangements first signed in 2020 that paired a short multilateral declaration with individual bilateral normalization agreements between Israel and several Muslim-majority states; initial signatories included the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan (Sudan’s bilateral remained contingent), and the framework has been expanded symbolically to additional countries such as Kazakhstan in 2025 [1] [2] [3]. The core terms combine a brief “Abraham Accords Declaration” plus country-specific treaties that create diplomatic relations, trade and security cooperation and, in Morocco’s case, U.S. recognition of Moroccan claims over Western Sahara as part of the package [1] [4] [5].
1. What the Accords actually are — a two-part structure
The Abraham Accords are not a single long treaty but a two-part diplomatic construct: a short, multilateral “Abraham Accords Declaration” paired with separate bilateral normalization agreements negotiated between Israel and each partner state. Those bilateral accords establish diplomatic relations, open channels for trade, investment, travel, and cooperation across sectors including energy, technology and defense [1] [4].
2. Who signed and how those signings differed
The initial 2020 signings involved the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain (September 15, 2020), followed by Morocco and Sudan later that year; Sudan signed the declaration but full normalization was contingent on internal developments, so its bilateral normalization lagged [1] [2]. Later additions such as Kazakhstan in November 2025 have been described as largely symbolic because some countries already maintained formal ties with Israel before “joining” the Accords [3] [6].
3. Concrete policy elements contained in bilateral deals
Country-specific agreements varied: the UAE and Bahrain normalization created diplomatic missions, commercial ties and cooperation frameworks; Morocco’s deal included a separate U.S. commitment — recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara — as part of the diplomatic package [4] [5]. The U.S. role has been to mediate and often supply incentives or simultaneous recognitions that smooth the bilateral arrangements [4] [1].
4. U.S. incentives and strategic aims behind the Accords
The U.S. framed the Accords as geoeconomic diplomacy: promote trade, investment and regional integration as an alternative pathway to stabilizing relations in the Middle East. Analysts note Washington sought to build an axis of cooperation that could counterbalance Iran and expand U.S. influence, while offering economic and security incentives to potential partners [7] [1].
5. Political costs, contested goals, and Palestinian question
The Accords intentionally prioritized normalization between Israel and regional states over immediate progress on an Israeli–Palestinian settlement. That tradeoff attracted criticism: public opinion in some Arab countries remained opposed because the Accords sidestepped a Palestinian state as the core issue, and analysts warn that renewed attention to Palestinian grievances (for example after Gaza escalations) can blunt momentum for expansion [5] [7].
6. Expansion strategy and symbolic accessions
Since the original signings, U.S. policymakers have treated the Abraham Accords as expandable: any state willing to sign the Accords Declaration and then conclude a bilateral normalization with Israel can be counted as joining. Efforts in 2025 focused on bringing in Central Asian states and encouraging others such as Azerbaijan and potentially Saudi Arabia to accede; some entries (e.g., Kazakhstan) were largely formalities because those states already had relations with Israel [1] [3] [6].
7. Competing perspectives and hidden agendas
Supporters present the Accords as pragmatic peace-by-integration that yields immediate economic and security gains and creates a platform for broader regional cooperation [4] [8]. Critics say the deals reward Israel with acceptance while sidelining Palestinian political claims and that U.S. incentives (including recognitions like U.S. backing for Moroccan claims) reflect transactional diplomacy that pursues narrow U.S. and ally strategic aims [5] [7].
8. What reporting does not say (limitations)
Available sources do not mention a single, uniform “key terms” text beyond the declaration-plus-bilateral arrangement framework; specific terms differ by country and are embedded in each bilateral treaty and any parallel U.S. commitments [1] [4]. Detailed clause-by-clause provisions for every bilateral agreement are not summarized across the provided reporting and must be read in the individual treaty texts for full legal detail [4].
Sources cited: White-paper and analysis of Accords structure [1]; U.S. State Department materials on the Accords and bilateral documents [4]; reporting and context on expansion and symbolic accessions [3] [6]; note on Morocco/Western Sahara recognition and wider political context [5] [7].