We can rightly applaud the steps now being taken by the UAE and Israel to normalise their relations. Such initiatives can only be to the long-term advantage of the people of the Middle Eastern nations, helping to build trust, opening fresh possibilities for harnessing Israeli know-how and Arab resources, and finding pragmatic solutions to the most bitter and deep-rooted problems. Following moves by Egypt some four decades ago and then Jordan, to reset relations with Israel, there are now  many permutations in the relations between Israel and the 22 states of the Arab league with a majority open to low-level diplomatic relations and trade. This is in spite of the efforts to isolate Israel through the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement and its western apologists. Extremists will of course seek to exacerbate problems. They will try to intensify their efforts through the more radical mosques and madrassahs, through social media, and through acts of terrorism, to continue to cajole and mislead the most populous and deprived areas of the Arab street. All this is well understood.

My immediate concern is elsewhere – the alienation of Turkey. We are used to Iran’s exploitation of Shia proxies in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq in order to threaten Western interests and the security of Israel. But there is now a new and deepening schism in the region. This could open dangerous and fresh fault lines across the Sunni Arab world where temporal rivalry is being played out through various strands of political Islam, in particular the Moslem Brotherhood. Central to this concern is Turkey, a great country that for the past century has looked to Europe for its modernising inspiration, for nearly 70 years has been a key member of NATO but which has been taken for granted by the West and its interests neglected. Now Turkey, feeling rejected, has turned to the South,  seeking to rekindle its Ottoman heritage and to show affinity with radical,  pious or opportunist elements in Gaza and Libya and Qatar and take issue with rival traditional rulers in Saudi Arabia and UAE and the military secular regime in Egypt.  The pre-Erdogan alliance of convenience between Israel and Turkey has long collapsed. The west is in disarray. Not only has Russia now managed to reinsert itself into the Middle East but we also have France and the EU exacerbating the difficulties with Turkey by bone-headed support for Greek interests over the long-running Cyprus issue and now exploitation of natural gas resources in the eastern Mediterranean.

US policy in the region in recent years has lacked strategic consistency and is seen to be weak. The UK, once the most influential power in the region, has been barely visible, but could play a key role with the US in helping bring Turkey into the mainstream before schism becomes an irreparable chasm. The threat from the Iranian regime, from Russia and from international terrorism have not gone away. It is vitally important therefore to generate cohesion among our allies in the Middle East, to heal sensitivities and to repair damaged relations with restored regional alliances and economic opportunities. Turkey is central to this task.

The Israel-UAE agreement to normalise relations is a historical peace accord in the region. It is a bold and courageous move by both sides, which could lead to further Arab countries in the region to follow suit and recognise the state of Israel. Whilst a number of Arab and Islamic countries already have secret relationships with Israel, the current accord is only the third Israel-Arab peace treaty in the Middle East after Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994). The international community has welcomed the move, except for Palestine, Iran and Turkey who have  lashed out against it; the fact that other Arab states, in particular Saudi Arabia, have not denounced the agreement is generally positive.
It is worth paying attention to the timing of the agreement. Arab countries have been hostile to the Jewish State since its establishment. For many years, the idea of recognising Israel was unthinkable; and most Arab states, including the UAE, have financially and militarily supported various Palestinian groups against Israel. Now the political landscape and geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East are changing. A united front to fight economic problems and military threats from Iran is needed. Whilst we do not know the exact details of the agreement just yet, here are 12 positive points that we think are important for the understanding of the impact of  this peace agreement and for the overview of its geopolitical, social and economic effects for the whole region:

1. Iran is growing militarily in the region. A united anti-Iranian front is essential to combat the Iranian danger; the  deal will signal the official formation of an anti-Iranian bloc. 
2. Israel is the region’s superior military force which the UAE and other Gulf states can rely on.
3. This move will encourage other Arab and Gulf states to engage with Israel. (It is understood that Sudan, Oman and Bahrain are interested in finding ways to normalize their relationships with Israel).
4. In the past, most people believed that the road to peace with the Arab world must go through Ramallah, but now the road to peace is going through Cairo, Amman and Abu Dhabi and might soon go through new locations in the Gulf and North Africa.
5. The deal firmly highlights American leadership in the region and demonstrates how the role of the US can be paramount in controlling current political troubles. 
6. The agreement is no longer about the ’land for peace’ mechanism but, as Netanyahu said, ’peace for peace’ formula. 
7. Whilst the deal has the potential to change Arab-Israeli relations and begin a new path for the future; it moves the Arab and Gulf states away from the Palestinian question. 
8. Israel makes peace with the Arabs without returning to the 1967 borders.
9. It appears that recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is not an issue for the UAE leadership.
10. Israel is now less secluded and isolated, not just in terms of political connections but also in the commercial, social and geostrategic importance with its neighbors. 
11. Apart from the geopolitical repercussions from the deal, which antagonizes Iran, it is a warning sign to Hezbollah, Syria’s Al Assad, Turkey’s Erdogan and some of the Iraqi Shia militias.
12. The deal has significance for those who fight terrorism in the region and is damaging for the Shia and Sunni terrorist groups, such as ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra and the Houthis in Yemen.

400 North Capitol Street N.W.,Suite 585,

The policy of Iran is bringing Sunni countries together with Israel. KSA has relations though not a diplomatic status, as far as I know. The developments with UAE, followed by Oman and Bahrein broaden the network. Qatar will be more reflectant, given its Shia majority, if I am right.

The policy of Iran is bringing Sunni countries together with Israel. KSA has relations though not a diplomatic status, as far as I know. The developments with UAE, followed by Oman and Bahrein broaden the network. Qatar will be more reflectant, given its Shia majority, if I am right.

European countries and the EU had to admit that the ‘normalization of relations’ between Israel and the UAE is a good step forward, which they probably had not expected to be achieved by the current US administration. The EU High Commissioner for Foreign Policy, Josep Borrell Fontelles, ‘welcomed’ the move but added that plans to annex the West Bank should be completely abandoned immediately.

The EU is not in the driving seat as far as the Middle-East is concerned. It always regarded itself as the caretaker of the Iran nuclear deal, once the US government decided to leave it. During the Obama administration the EU had been given a disproportionate part of the praise allowing the US government to remain less visible for the political forces in US Congress, in particular the Senate. Obama had to maneuver carefully because there was no majority in the Senate for ratification in terms of a treaty. So, it became a ‘deal’.

The EU felt it owned the deal, hammered out by the US, and that it made the EU ‘relevant’ in world politics. The EU negotiating at the table made it a ‘reality’ on the ground. For the first time since the introduction of a Common Foreign and Security Policy ten years ago the EU could point at an achievement. For the EU the deal was all about the EU, not about the content of the deal.

After the US left the Iran deal, the EU was on its own. Strongest supporters of the deal were Germany and France. Most lukewarm were countries in Central and Eastern Europe like Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. They tended to support the US. In particular Germany pretends the Iran nuclear agreement is still in place and the German Greens, an upcoming force in German politics, are the strongest supporters of the ayatollah regime in Iran.

Simultaneously, the EU is a strong critic of Israeli policies in the Gaza and the West Bank. Again, there is a rift within the EU between East and West. Some East European countries supported the relocation of the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. France and Germany predicted ‘violent demonstrations’, but little happened. Also, BDS is strongly rooted as a movement in several West- and North European countries, though not state policy. The EU tries to target products from the West Bank with customs formalities.

But generally, the EU is running after the facts and taken by surprise. Borrell speaks about ‘normalization’ between Israel and UAE, avoiding the term ‘full diplomatic relations’. Bahrain and Oman are likely to follow. Egypt and Jordan already have normal diplomatic relations with Israel for many years. Saudi-Arabia maintains relations with Israel through the backdoor. Arab countries come closer to Israel, while the EU shifts further away, with the wrong focus.

For the EU the Palestinian issue is the heart of the problem in the Middle-East. For Arab countries Iran is the problem. Iran is the troublemaker and Palestinians have a knack to end up at the wrong side of history. The US has understood that; the EU hasn’t. The US focuses on solving the Palestinian issue within common ground on policies towards Iran. The EU befriends Iran hoping it will help the Palestinians in some way. But it won’t. Therefore, EU policy is misguided; and the current US government has shown to understand the heart of the problem much better, using the right focus.