.svg?width=1400)
In this analysis
The hardest test of a diplomatic agreement is often not the ceremony that creates it but the crisis that follows. The Abraham Accords opened formal relationships between Israel and several Arab states. By mid-2026, a much harsher regional security environment was testing whether those relationships were principally political moments or durable institutions.
The useful evidence is not a count of supportive statements. It is whether embassies, trade rules, direct commercial channels and government-to-government mechanisms continue to function when public politics becomes more difficult.
Normalization acquired an economic infrastructure
The Israel-UAE treaty established peace, diplomatic relations and normalization, while subsequent arrangements gave that relationship more operational depth. The UAE-Israel Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement created preferential trade rules covering the overwhelming majority of tariff lines and trade value identified by the UAE government.
Israel West Institute argued on 24 June that this institutional layer is a better long-term test than ceremonial diplomacy. That is persuasive as a measurement framework, but it should not be confused with evidence that political disagreements have disappeared.
Institutions can survive disagreement without eliminating it
Trade agreements and diplomatic missions create routines, legal expectations and constituencies with an interest in continued exchange. They can make a relationship harder to unwind than a communiqué. They do not, however, create a mutual-defence obligation or require governments to adopt identical positions on Gaza, Iran or Palestinian statehood.
That distinction is central to understanding the current Middle East. A government can maintain formal ties with Israel while sharply disagreeing with Israeli policy. The relationship can be institutionally durable and politically constrained at the same time.
The power question is implementation
For State & Power, the important shift is from recognition to implementation. Once normalization produces customs rules, investment arrangements, aviation links and recurring diplomatic contact, power moves partly into bureaucracies and commercial systems that operate on a different timetable from summit politics.
The next evidence to watch is therefore mundane but consequential: diplomatic representation, use of trade preferences, direct transport links, ministerial contact and whether existing agreements continue to be administered. Those indicators reveal whether normalization has become embedded enough to withstand regional shocks.