US-Saudi nuclear deal shows the Abraham Accords is a positive incentive - analysis

The United States is moving ahead with a proposed nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia, focusing on civilian nuclear power, according to a report by the New York Times published on July 22, 2026. The potential deal has sparked discussions among Israeli officials and regional analysts, who note that it appears to lack provisions for Saudi Arabia to join the Abraham Accords or establish formal diplomatic relations with Israel. Details of the agreement remain confidential, though U.S. lawmakers are expected to scrutinize the terms before final approval. The proposal raises questions about whether the Abraham Accords, signed under former President Donald Trump in 2020—are being used as a tool to secure strategic advantages rather than as a genuine path to peace. Analysts argue that the Accords were initially attractive to Gulf nations like the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain because they offered a chance to normalize ties with Israel while benefiting from U.S. military presence and economic partnerships. The Trump administration played a pivotal role in facilitating the Abraham Accords, which were framed as part of a broader vision for regional stability. At the time, the U.S. maintained key military bases in both the UAE and Bahrain, offering these countries a sense of security. Additionally, the global lockdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic created an environment where diplomatic overtures were more feasible. The administration also promoted its “Peace to Prosperity” initiative, aimed at improving conditions for Palestinians. In early 2020, Israel had considered annexing parts of the West Bank, prompting concerns in the region. However, after Israel abandoned its plans, the UAE and Bahrain proceeded with their normalization agreements. These countries saw value in aligning with the U.S. and gaining access to its resources and influence. The success of the Abraham Accords demonstrated that mutual benefit can drive diplomacy, even in complex political landscapes. The current Saudi-U.S. nuclear deal, however, lacks similar incentives for Saudi Arabia to engage directly with Israel. Some observers suggest that this omission could undermine the effectiveness of the Accords as a model for future negotiations. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has long advocated for a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, emphasizing the need for progress in Jerusalem. Yet, the absence of reciprocal demands for Israeli concessions may lead Saudi Arabia to question the sincerity of U.S. commitments. U.S. foreign policy has historically struggled when it relies on conditional offers to achieve diplomatic outcomes. Former Secretary of State John Kerry noted that normalization efforts often stalled unless there was visible progress on the Palestinian issue. His approach, which emphasized mutual compromise, proved more effective than using peace as a punitive measure. Instead of pressuring Israel to soften its stance, the U.S. risked alienating Arab allies by linking nuclear cooperation solely to normalization. Analysts warn that the perception of a zero-sum game, where one side gains only at the expense of another, can erode trust and hinder long-term cooperation. Saudi Arabia, as a major player in the Arab world, has shown willingness to pursue peace but expects tangible results in return. If the U.S. continues to prioritize Israeli interests without addressing broader regional concerns, it may find itself isolated in its efforts to broker lasting solutions. As the U.S. moves forward with its nuclear partnership with Saudi Arabia, the implications for the Abraham Accords and Middle East diplomacy remain uncertain. Whether this deal represents a step toward greater regional collaboration or reinforces existing divisions will depend on how the U.S. balances its strategic goals with the expectations of its Arab partners. The coming months will likely reveal whether the U.S. can navigate these complexities without compromising its credibility in the region.