The Abraham Accords framework continues to demonstrate its transformative potential for Middle East diplomacy, with new possibilities emerging for expanded normalization that could fundamentally reshape regional relationships. Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter recently outlined a compelling vision for how Syria and Lebanon might join this groundbreaking diplomatic initiative, potentially even before Saudi Arabia completes its own normalization process with Israel.

Understanding how diplomatic normalization works requires examining both the practical mechanisms that enable countries to establish formal relationships and the strategic considerations that motivate such transformative decisions. The Abraham Accords provide an excellent framework for exploring these concepts because they represent a departure from traditional approaches to Middle East diplomacy.

Understanding the Abraham Accords Foundation

To appreciate the significance of potential expansion to Syria and Lebanon, we need to understand what made the original Abraham Accords so revolutionary. When the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco normalized relations with Israel between 2020 and 2021, they demonstrated that Arab-Israeli normalization could proceed independently of resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict—a departure from the traditional Arab Peace Initiative approach.

The Abraham Accords framework works because it focuses on mutual benefits rather than zero-sum calculations. Countries joining these agreements gain access to Israeli technology, security cooperation, trade relationships, and often enhanced relationships with the United States. Israel gains diplomatic recognition, regional integration, and strategic partnerships. This win-win approach creates sustainable foundations for lasting diplomatic relationships.

Think of diplomatic normalization like building a bridge between two communities that have been separated. The bridge doesn’t just connect the two sides—it creates entirely new possibilities for commerce, cultural exchange, and cooperation that didn’t exist before. The Abraham Accords have functioned as diplomatic bridges that enable previously impossible collaborations.

Syria’s Transformation and Normalization Potential

Ambassador Leiter’s assessment that “There’s no reason now why we wouldn’t be moving into accommodation with Syria and Lebanon” reflects the dramatic changes that have occurred in Syria’s political landscape. The removal of the Assad regime has created what diplomats call a “strategic opening”—a moment when fundamental changes in government create opportunities for establishing entirely new diplomatic relationships.

However, as Ambassador Leiter wisely notes, “There’s not a long history of jihadis becoming Jeffersonians.” This observation highlights one of the most important principles in international relations: the difference between revolutionary change and sustainable democratic transformation. Just because a government changes doesn’t automatically mean it will adopt democratic governance or become a reliable partner for normalization agreements.

The concept of “performance-based agreements” that Ambassador Leiter advocates represents a sophisticated approach to managing diplomatic risk. Instead of providing benefits upfront based on promises, performance-based frameworks tie concrete benefits to demonstrated actions over time. This approach protects all parties involved while creating incentives for positive behavior.

For Syria specifically, performance-based normalization would likely require several key demonstrations. The new Syrian leadership under Ahmed al-Sharaa would need to show concrete progress in disbanding extremist groups, outlawing terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, and protecting minority communities including the Druze and Alawites. Each of these requirements addresses specific security concerns while building confidence in Syria’s commitment to responsible governance.

Lebanon’s Path to Renewed Statehood

Lebanon presents a different but equally compelling case for potential Abraham Accords membership. Ambassador Leiter’s observation that Lebanon has the opportunity to “emerge from its failed state status and reassert itself as a civil society” captures the tremendous potential that exists when external constraints are removed.

Lebanon’s challenges have largely stemmed from Hezbollah’s domination of the country’s political and security landscape. With Hezbollah’s capabilities significantly diminished, Lebanon has an unprecedented opportunity to reclaim its sovereignty and rebuild its institutions according to democratic principles and the rule of law.

Understanding Lebanon’s potential transformation requires recognizing how failed states can recover when the right conditions align. Lebanon possesses several crucial advantages that position it well for successful state rebuilding: a highly educated population, strong cultural traditions of pluralism and commerce, established institutions that can be revitalized, and a strategic location that makes it valuable as a regional partner.

The normalization process with Lebanon would likely follow a different timeline and structure than with Syria, precisely because Lebanon’s challenges are more about institutional rehabilitation than fundamental regime change. Lebanon’s path toward Abraham Accords membership could serve as a model for how countries can use normalization as a tool for internal reconstruction and regional reintegration.

Saudi Arabia’s Continued Normalization Journey

Ambassador Leiter’s insight that Saudi Arabia “wasn’t very far away” from normalization in 2019 helps us understand how diplomatic processes develop over extended timeframes. Diplomatic normalization rarely happens suddenly—it typically results from years of behind-the-scenes relationship building, confidence-building measures, and gradual alignment of interests.

The Saudi normalization process demonstrates how major diplomatic initiatives can be temporarily disrupted by regional conflicts but ultimately resume when conditions improve. The ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict has understandably complicated Saudi decision-making, but the fundamental strategic logic that originally motivated Saudi interest in normalization remains intact.

Saudi Arabia’s approach to Abraham Accords membership will likely influence how other regional powers evaluate their own normalization decisions. As the guardian of Islam’s holiest sites and a leader in the Arab world, Saudi normalization with Israel would send a powerful signal about the acceptability and benefits of such diplomatic relationships.

Performance-Based Diplomacy: A New Standard

The concept of performance-based agreements that Ambassador Leiter advocates represents an evolution in diplomatic practice that could become increasingly important for future normalization efforts. Traditional diplomatic recognition often follows an all-or-nothing approach—countries either have full diplomatic relations or they don’t.

Performance-based diplomacy creates a middle ground that allows relationships to develop gradually as trust builds through demonstrated actions. This approach acknowledges that trust in international relations must be earned through consistent behavior over time, not just promised through signed agreements.

For Syria, performance-based normalization might begin with limited cooperation in specific areas such as border security or humanitarian assistance, then gradually expand to include trade, cultural exchange, and full diplomatic recognition as Syria demonstrates its commitment to peaceful governance and minority protection.

This graduated approach protects all parties involved while creating clear incentives for positive behavior. It also provides mechanisms for adjusting the relationship if circumstances change, making it more resilient than traditional all-or-nothing diplomatic arrangements.

Regional Security and the “October 7th Lesson”

Ambassador Leiter’s reference to the importance of not allowing “jihadis to be on our border” and the lessons learned from October 7th highlights how security considerations shape normalization decisions. The October 7th Hamas attack on Israel demonstrated how terrorist organizations can exploit weak governance and porous borders to launch devastating attacks on civilian populations.

This security dimension explains why Israel and its potential normalization partners focus so heavily on ensuring that any new diplomatic relationships contribute to rather than undermine regional security. Normalization agreements that don’t address underlying security threats would be unsustainable and potentially counterproductive.

The Abraham Accords framework has proven effective precisely because it enhances security for all parties involved. UAE and Israeli cooperation in counter-terrorism, intelligence sharing, and regional security coordination has made both countries safer while advancing their broader strategic interests.

Economic Dimensions of Expanded Normalization

While security considerations often dominate headlines about Middle East diplomacy, the economic dimensions of normalization frequently provide the strongest foundations for lasting relationships. Israel’s advanced technology sector, combined with Syria and Lebanon’s strategic locations and human capital, could create significant economic opportunities for all parties involved.

Lebanon’s potential economic revival through normalization could be particularly dramatic. The country’s highly educated diaspora, combined with its traditional role as a regional financial and commercial hub, could quickly regenerate economic activity once political stability is restored and international confidence returns.

Syria’s reconstruction needs, while enormous, also represent significant economic opportunities for international partners who can provide the technology, expertise, and capital necessary for rebuilding infrastructure and institutions.

The Role of American Leadership

Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s prediction that additional countries will join the Abraham Accords by the end of the year, combined with President Trump’s calls for expanded Middle East unity, demonstrates how American leadership can accelerate diplomatic breakthroughs.

The Abraham Accords Peace Institute continues to facilitate the practical cooperation that makes normalization agreements successful in practice. Organizations like Christians United for Israel and the American Jewish Committee provide crucial advocacy and educational support that builds public understanding of normalization benefits.

Understanding American involvement in Abraham Accords expansion requires recognizing how great power support can provide the security guarantees and economic incentives that make normalization politically viable for regional partners. American backing doesn’t determine whether normalization happens, but it can significantly influence the timing and terms of such agreements.

Civil Society and Cultural Diplomacy

The success of expanded Abraham Accords will depend not just on government-to-government agreements but on building people-to-people relationships that create lasting foundations for cooperation. Organizations like Sharaka work to build grassroots support for normalization by connecting civil society organizations across the region.

Cultural and educational exchanges, business partnerships, and professional cooperation create the human connections that make diplomatic agreements sustainable over time. These relationships often prove more resilient than formal diplomatic arrangements because they create direct personal stakes in maintaining cooperation.

The Israel-UAE Business Council and similar organizations demonstrate how quickly practical cooperation can develop once diplomatic barriers are removed. Lebanon and Syria’s eventual inclusion in such networks could accelerate their economic recovery while strengthening regional integration.

Addressing Minority Protection

Ambassador Leiter’s emphasis on protecting minorities such as the Druze and Alawites in Syria reflects a crucial principle of sustainable peace building: successful normalization agreements must protect all communities, not just majority populations.

The Abraham Accords framework has consistently emphasized religious freedom and minority protection as core values. This approach recognizes that lasting peace requires all communities to feel secure and included in post-conflict arrangements.

For Syria and Lebanon, minority protection isn’t just a moral imperative—it’s a practical necessity for building stable governance and sustainable normalization relationships. The region’s religious and ethnic diversity is a potential strength, but only if all communities feel secure in their rights and future prospects.

Timeline Considerations and Strategic Patience

Ambassador Leiter’s suggestion that Syria and Lebanon might join the Abraham Accords before Saudi Arabia highlights an important principle in diplomatic strategy: the sequence of normalization can be as important as its substance.

Sometimes smaller or more flexible partners can move more quickly than larger powers that face more complex domestic and regional considerations. Syria and Lebanon’s urgent need for international support and investment might motivate faster decision-making than countries that feel less immediate pressure for change.

Strategic patience in diplomacy means recognizing that different countries will be ready for normalization at different times, and that successful frameworks accommodate these variations rather than demanding uniform timing.

Looking Forward: A Transformed Region

The potential expansion of the Abraham Accords to include Syria and Lebanon represents more than additional bilateral relationships—it points toward a fundamental transformation in how Middle Eastern countries approach regional cooperation and conflict resolution.

Instead of viewing regional relationships as zero-sum competitions, the Abraham Accords framework demonstrates how countries can pursue mutual benefits through practical cooperation while maintaining their distinct identities and interests.

This transformation doesn’t eliminate all regional challenges or conflicts, but it provides alternative approaches to managing disagreements and building cooperation that can make the region more prosperous and secure for all its inhabitants.

The vision that Ambassador Leiter articulates—of a Middle East where former adversaries become partners in building prosperity and security—represents the kind of diplomatic breakthrough that can transform regions and reshape international relations for generations to come.

About The Author