(ZENIT News – Asia News / Milan, 11.22.2024).- The Abraham Agreements signed in 2020 during US President-elect Donald Trump’s first term in office – which led to the normalisation of relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan – today ‘do not have the appeal of four years ago’.
A pact that ‘seems almost dormant at the moment’, but which remains a valid ‘basis’ for relaunching ‘the issue of regional peace’, hypothesising ‘even a name change’, in order to untangle the ‘knot with Saudi Arabia’.
This is what Jordanian professor and geopolitical analyst Amer Al Sabaileh, an expert on Middle Eastern issues, international security, and the politics of peace processes in crisis areas, emphasises to AsiaNews.
The scholar, born in Amman and a contributor to several international publications including The Jordan Times, recognises the value of the agreements signed in the Tycoon’s first four years in the White House, which could still ‘be useful’.
‘However,’ he continues, “the name should undergo a change compatible with the demands” of Riyadh, which is “the largest country and represents the Sunni Islamic world”. However, ‘the concept of religious coexistence, rapprochement between the faiths’ remains central and the ‘Agreements’ could always be ‘the main node on which to rebuild a new model’.
Riyadh: zero conflict
In recent weeks, international (and regional) diplomacy has been moving the pawns in an attempt to defuse the numerous hotbeds of war and tension burning in the Middle East. The visit – in a rare high-level meeting – of the head of the Saudi armed forces, General Fayyad al-Ruwaili, to Tehran, where he met his Iranian counterpart Gen. Mohammad Bagheri, fits into this perspective.
At the centre was the development of ‘defence diplomacy’ and an ‘expansion of bilateral cooperation’, at a stage when the two powers of Sunni and Shia Islam are ‘strengthening relations’ in a framework far removed from Trump’s first victory. In 2016, Iran and Saudi Arabia severed ties following attacks on Riyadh’s diplomatic missions in the Islamic Republic during protests over the execution in the Wahhabi kingdom of Shia cleric Nimr al-Nimr.
Relations already marked by the opposing sides in Yemen, with the Saudis supporting the government recognised by the international community and the Iranians close to the Houthi rebels.
‘Saudi Arabia today aspires to play a fundamental and ambitious regional and global role,’ Al Sabaileh stresses, ’based on economic power that revolves around the concept of stability, especially after the experience in Yemen. The war has shown an ease in carrying the crisis within the borders and putting strategic sites such as oil companies under attack. Riyadh intends to pursue the goal of ‘zero conflict’, it does not want to represent itself as a threat’ and in this perspective “aims at rapprochement with Tehran” also because instability and clashes “contradict the Vision 2030 plan” of Moḥammad bin Salman (Mbs). It aspires, the expert continues, to become ‘a regional economic and energy hub, as well as a sports hub’ with the Football World Cup in 2034 and other events of equal importance. In this perspective, ‘a war against Iran would have serious consequences for Saudi ambitions’ and would run counter to the ideal of ‘mediation in crises’. The first step ‘is to re-establish an alliance’ regionally and in the Muslim world ‘to find a political solution to the Palestinian issue and, consequently, to the war in Lebanon’.
2016-2024: Trump and the Middle East
Among the leaders of dozens of Arab and Muslim nations gathered in the Saudi capital, many speculated on the meaning – and choices – of a second Trump presidency and, unlike the fears that linger in Europe, unpredictability could be a force for stability.
After all, Trump is viewed more favourably in Saudi Arabia than outgoing President Joe Biden and the Democratic administration, whose influence has waned in recent years, with a White House incapable of stemming Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon.
A picture of deep uncertainty and confusion remains, with rumours of negotiations and confidential meetings later denied by the diplomacies of the countries involved.
Evidence of this is the alleged meeting between Elon Musk, Trump’s right-hand man and recently called to co-direct the new Department for Efficiency in the US government: according to the New York Times, which quoted anonymous Iranian sources, the billionaire allegedly had a face-to-face meeting with Amir Saeid Iravani, Tehran’s ambassador to the UN, although the news has not been confirmed either by the Iranian side or by the president-elect’s transition team.
It was Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei who ‘categorically denied such a meeting’ and also expressed ‘surprise’ at the coverage given by the American media.
The differences between 2016 and 2024 ‘obviously are many’, Amer Al Sabaileh emphasised, especially ‘the question of stability in the region’, as well as the challenges ‘for the open fronts of conflict’ that threaten to block Trump’s economic aims, from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean. ‘There are many problems,’ he continues, ’so the first point will be security, the presence of militias, and the open conflicts in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq that threaten any future economic corridor.
Then there is the ‘stabilisation in Gaza: around these issues,’ says the Jordanian scholar, ‘I believe there will be a fundamental change from the previous mandate’ at the White House, although ‘imposing a solution will not be easy and will not be able to satisfy everyone. This will require a much more rigid policy, but one that is equally determined: this may be his challenge for at least the first two years’.
In the past, Trump has exploited the tensions between Riyadh and Tehran to bring Israel closer to the Gulf countries and introduce not only the Abrahamic Agreements, but also the ‘military’ side by moving the Jewish State ‘under the wing of CentCom (United States Central Command), no longer of the European division: this was a very important step’. Now, he warns, the point is to link peace with Israel ‘to the recognition of a Palestinian state’.
Palestine and Iran: the paths to peace
The Arab and Muslim countries discussed the issue on 11 November, setting a common table that calls for an immediate ceasefire and reiterates the two-state solution – Israel and Palestine – for peace in the region. On the occasion, Mohammad bin Salman spoke of the ‘genocide’ taking place in Gaza and, in a joint note at the conclusion of the summit, the participants condemned the aggression that is spreading to Iraq, Syria and Iran after bloodshed in the Strip and the Land of the Cedars.
‘The concept of recognising a Palestinian state,’ Al Sabaileh says, “is mandatory in a peace package, also to prepare the region for future economic projects” and the Israelis ’will have to compromise and concede something, especially with Trump. ‘A good Israeli intention guaranteed by the Americans,’ he adds, ’would open the dialogue because Saudi Arabia could also, with great pragmatism, see the opportunity to build the solution, not wait for it to be outlined by others.
Then there is the stone guest, the Islamic Republic that ‘should be seen as various Iranes, not just one: there is the hostile one,’ the scholar explains, ‘of the policy of regional aggression that has formed militias, groups around Israel’ from Lebanon to Syria, from Iraq to Yemen. ‘With this Iran,’ he says, ‘I do not think there will be any tolerance.
However, since the death of President Ebrahim Raisi we have seen a pragmatic line emerge, which tries to find solutions to problems. The conflict we see outside the country is also internal, at least on a political level’ and the rise of Masoud Pezeshkian has brought, at least in words, an attempt at “reconciliation with the world”.
Not least because these recent wars have weakened the Guardians of the Revolution and the groups linked to them, from Hamas to Hezbollah. The defeats suffered by the Pasdaran and their affiliates, the expert concludes, could push ‘Iranian policy to look more inward and prioritise development, with a less aggressive foreign diplomacy that Trump could exploit’.
Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.
