The recent war has reshaped regional perceptions, with Gulf public opinion increasingly viewing Iran as a more immediate threat than Israel—an unprecedented shift in dynamics. For the first time, several Gulf states see Israel less as a destabilizing force and more as a potential partner in fostering stability. Yet this sentiment does not guarantee peace; it represents a fleeting window of opportunity. Israel must act decisively to build trust and align with Gulf priorities, or risk watching the moment slip away.
From the Gulf perspective, normalization is not ideological but strategic. Israel’s military capabilities are valued as deterrents, while its technological strengths complement Gulf diversification strategies. Closer ties also enhance Gulf states’ global influence, positioning them as pragmatic actors in a volatile region. Still, this alone cannot secure peace. The October 7th attack underscored the fragility of the environment and highlighted how the Abraham Accords, once envisioned as a framework for broader Arab participation, remain underutilized. The urgency now lies in Israel’s ability to seize the current opening before it narrows again.
Negotiations are cautiously perceived on both sides. For Gulf states and Israel, recalibration has limits: Iran will remain hostile regardless of diplomacy. Yet its evolving relationship with Washington introduces a dynamic that could bring the Gulf and Israel closer. Momentum exists, but it is conditional—it thrives only in the absence of war. Renewed conflict would empower hardliners, undermine moderates, and reinforce the perception that negotiations were tactical pauses rather than genuine attempts at resolution.
For Gulf states, war would mean reverting to deterrence and alliance-building, sidelining economic diversification and integration. For Iran, it would justify intensifying nuclear and regional activities, while Washington would be forced to reframe the conflict as containment. In short, the diplomatic scaffolding erected through negotiation is precarious: if war returns, trust—even symbolic—becomes nearly impossible to rebuild. This underscores the urgency for Israel and its partners to act decisively while the window remains open.
The Israeli media’s call for swift action is not misplaced, but Gulf states expect tangible steps beyond rhetoric. Confidence-building measures—cultural exchanges, investment partnerships, humanitarian cooperation—would reassure Gulf publics. Active participation in multilateral Gulf-led initiatives would signal respect for collective security frameworks. Crucially, progress on the Palestinian issue remains essential for legitimacy. Strategic interests may drive normalization, but movement on the Palestinian front provides the political cover needed to transform normalization from a slow diplomatic process into a regional breakthrough.
Looking ahead, Gulf states remain pragmatic. They see normalization as a tool for stability and influence rather than a wholesale reorientation. If Israel acts decisively and aligns its diplomacy with Gulf priorities, it could consolidate its role as a preferred partner. The Abraham Accords, once seen as a breakthrough, may yet expand into a broader architecture of cooperation—provided both sides seize the current momentum.