What role did Trump play in the normalization of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates in 2020?
Executive summary
President Donald Trump and his administration actively mediated the 2020 normalization between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, presenting it as a historic diplomatic breakthrough and hosting public announcements and a signing ceremony in Washington that framed the deal as a core foreign-policy success for the White House [1] [2] [3]. Critics and analysts, however, note the agreement largely formalized preexisting covert cooperation, involved tradeoffs such as the suspension (not cancellation) of Israeli annexation plans, and served clear political purposes for U.S. actors and regional governments [4] [1] [5].
1. Trump as broker and public face: mediating, announcing, and hosting
The Trump White House positioned the president and his team as the brokers of the deal: U.S. officials—most visibly Jared Kushner and Avi Berkowitz—facilitated talks, President Trump took part in the conference calls with Israel and UAE leaders, and the administration hosted the accords’ public rollout and later the Washington signing ceremony, a sequence the State Department and White House described as U.S.-mediated and brokered by President Trump [1] [3] [2].
2. The practical mechanics: leveraging offers, suspension of annexation, and mediation channels
Reporting and the public record indicate the UAE’s outreach—exemplified by Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba’s June op-ed—created a tactical opening that Kushner and Berkowitz converted into a normalization option offered to Israel in exchange for putting annexation plans on hold, a quid pro quo that U.S. negotiators relayed and helped solidify [1] [6]. The deal expressly resulted in the UAE and Israel agreeing to formal diplomatic relations while Israeli annexation was suspended rather than permanently abandoned, a nuance emphasized across sources [4] [1].
3. Rewards, incentives, and U.S. leverage: arms sales, diplomacy, and transactional diplomacy
Analysts and media pointed out that U.S. incentives and prior U.S. policy moves helped create a receptive environment: the Trump administration had already advanced large arms sales and security cooperation with Gulf partners, and some observers argued the UAE was “handsomely paid” and incentivized by deeper ties with Washington and access to Israeli technology and markets—factors that the U.S. leveraged in brokering normalization [7] [4].
4. Political timing and domestic payoff: an election-year foreign policy win
Commentators framed the agreement as a timely, visible foreign-policy success for Trump shortly before the 2020 election, a narrative repeated in outlets that said the Accords would likely redound to his political advantage and be touted as a historic, unambiguous achievement by the administration [5] [8]. The White House and allied U.S. missions likewise emphasized the breakthrough as evidence of “bold leadership” and a new approach to Middle East peace [9] [10].
5. Substance vs. optics: formalizing covert cooperation and regional agendas
Several sources caution that the Accords largely formalized relationships that had existed covertly—intelligence and security cooperation against shared threats like Iran—and that regional geopolitics, not just U.S. idealism, drove the outcome; the UAE’s strategic calculus and mutual concerns about Iran were recurrent themes in contemporaneous coverage [4] [1]. The deal also shifted incentives away from a Palestinian-centered settlement approach, a consequence criticized by Palestinian representatives and noted in legal and academic analyses as part of a broader U.S. strategy to pressure Palestinian negotiations [11] [1].
6. Competing interpretations and implicit agendas
Supporters framed Trump’s role as decisive peacemaking and U.S. mediation that expanded Israeli diplomatic normalization since 1994 [3] [9], while critics argued the move was transactional, aimed at U.S. electoral politics, and reflective of regional actors’ priorities rather than a comprehensive resolution of core disputes like Palestinian statehood [5] [11]. Official U.S. and UAE statements accentuated peace and prosperity, yet contemporaneous reporting from analysts and think tanks highlighted incentives, military sales, and political timing as central motives [12] [7].