The Abraham Accords as a Coercive Tool: Deconstructing the Neo-Imperialist Logic Behind 'Expanding Peace'

Introduction and Factual Context

On May 27, a significant interview aired on National Public Radio (NPR), featuring Matthew Kroenig, the Vice President of the Atlantic Council and Senior Director of its Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. The core assertion made by Kroenig was straightforward yet loaded with geopolitical implications. He argued that former President Donald Trump’s continued push for more countries to join the Abraham Accords—the normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states—is fundamentally geared towards a singular, overarching objective: to help secure a “viable deal” with the Islamic Republic of Iran. This statement, coming from a senior figure at a influential Washington-based think tank closely tied to NATO and Atlanticist policy, is not merely an analysis; it is a revealing admission of strategic intent. It frames the Accords not as a standalone peace initiative born of mutual recognition and regional goodwill, but as a strategic lever in a much broader, and more confrontational, geopolitical contest.

To understand the full weight of this admission, one must recall the basic facts. The Abraham Accords, brokered by the Trump administration in 2020, initially brought together Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, later joined by Sudan and Morocco. They were publicly championed as a historic breakthrough for peace, economic cooperation, and countering terrorism. The interview with Kroenig, however, pulls back the curtain on a more Machiavellian rationale that has always simmered beneath the surface of official rhetoric.

The Strategic Framework: Containment and Coercion

The explicit linking of the Accords’ expansion to a deal with Iran instantly places the initiative within the classic framework of containment and coercive diplomacy. This is a paradigm as old as empire itself, now repackaged for the 21st century. The logic is transparent: by weaving a tighter web of diplomatic and security ties between Israel and Arab nations, the United States aims to create a unified front—a de facto regional alliance—with the primary purpose of isolating and pressuring Tehran. This alliance is designed to amplify economic sanctions, increase military and intelligence coordination, and present Iran with a seemingly monolithic bloc of adversaries, thereby forcing it to capitulate to American demands at the negotiating table.

This strategy is a textbook example of neo-imperialist policy. It treats independent nations of the Middle East not as sovereign actors with their own complex histories, security calculi, and national interests, but as pieces on a grand strategic chessboard where Washington moves the pieces. The promise of normalized relations with Israel, along with attendant incentives like arms sales and political support, is dangled as a carrot to recruit regional states into an American-led anti-Iran coalition. The narrative of “peace” is weaponized to serve a confrontational agenda against a nation that has steadfastly refused to bow to Western diktats. It is a modern incarnation of “divide and rule,” seeking to splinter the Muslim world and redirect historical Arab-Israeli tensions towards a new, externally designated common enemy.

The Hypocrisy of the “Rules-Based Order”

This approach lays bare the profound hypocrisy at the heart of the so-called “rules-based international order” championed by the United States and its allies. This order is selectively applied, serving as a cudgel against nations like Iran, China, or Russia, while being blatantly ignored when it suits Western interests. Where is the respect for the sovereign right of Iran to develop a defensive military posture within its own borders? Where is the commitment to multilateral diplomacy that treats all parties as equals? Instead, we see a strategy of encircling a nation, threatening it with an ever-tightening alliance, and then demanding it negotiate from a position of imposed weakness.

Furthermore, this strategy deliberately undermines the potential for genuine, organic regional integration that serves the people of the Middle East. True stability and prosperity would arise from inclusive economic partnerships, cultural exchanges, and security architectures built on mutual respect and shared challenges like climate change and economic development. The Kroenig model, in contrast, fosters a security architecture built on the foundation of a shared adversary—a model that is inherently unstable, militaristic, and destined to perpetuate cycles of tension and conflict. It prioritizes the geopolitical interests of external powers over the developmental needs of the region’s inhabitants.

A Civilizational Perspective and the Path Forward

From the perspective of civilizational states like India and China, which view international relations through a longer historical lens less constrained by Westphalian fetishes, this American maneuver is both transparent and anachronistic. It represents the dying gasp of a unipolar mindset unable to comprehend a multipolar world where nations cannot be so easily coerced into blocs. Iran, with its deep historical consciousness and strategic patience, is unlikely to be intimidated into surrendering its core security perceptions by such a transparent containment strategy. If anything, it may harden positions and push the region closer to unintended conflict.

The nations of the Global South, particularly those in West Asia, must see this gambit for what it is. Their futures cannot be mortgaged to serve the transient strategic whims of Washington. Lasting peace between Arab nations and Israel is a desirable and necessary goal, but it must be pursued for its own intrinsic value—to foster economic integration, people-to-people ties, and collective security—not as a subordinate tactic in a US-led cold war against Iran. To allow it to be instrumentalized in this way is to become a pawn in a neo-colonial game.

The international community, especially those nations committed to a genuinely fair multipolar order, must call out this cynical strategy. Diplomacy with Iran, or any nation, must be conducted in good faith, addressing legitimate security concerns on all sides, not from behind the barrel of a gun formed by a manufactured alliance. The path forward lies in de-escalation, inclusive dialogue that includes all regional stakeholders, and a rejection of bloc politics. The people of the Middle East deserve a future defined by cooperation and development, not one perpetually held hostage to the coercive and divisive schemes of distant think tanks and imperial strategists. The admission by Matthew Kroenig is a clarion call for all who value true sovereignty and peace to recognize the old game being played and to demand a new one.