Former U.S. ambassadors to Israel tell Congress that Iran war hasn't weakened Abraham Accords

David Friedman didn't mince words, and he shouldn't have had to. Democrats spent the hearing trying to build a narrative that striking Iran's nuclear sites would blow up the Abraham Accords, and the guy who actually negotiated those deals stood up and said no, that's not what's happening. That matters. This wasn't some think tank fellow speculating from a distance. This was the ambassador who was in the room when the UAE and Bahrain signed on, telling Congress the relationships are holding.

There's a pattern here worth naming. Every time this administration takes a hard line against Iran, the same voices predict the Gulf states will bolt for the exits and the whole regional realignment will collapse. It hasn't happened yet, not in 2020 and not now. The Gulf monarchies aren't sentimental about Tehran. They watched Iranian proxies lob missiles at their own territory for years. A weakened, chastened Iran is not a threat to their calculus, it's closer to the outcome they wanted quietly all along.

None of this means the Accords are bulletproof or that Gaza and the broader Palestinian question don't complicate things. They do, and pretending otherwise would be its own kind of spin. But there's a difference between acknowledging real friction and manufacturing a collapse narrative because it's politically convenient to paint the Iran strikes as reckless. The people who actually built these agreements are telling us the foundation is intact. Maybe start there instead of the talking points.