- Is Foreign Policy a Product of Interests or Identities? Analysis of the U.A.E-Israel-U.S. foreign Policymaking in the Abraham Accords - 1 October, 2026
- Bitcoin: Crypto-Anarchist Dreams or Invisible Governance? - 8 September, 2026
- The Decline of the USMCA Renewal: Tariffs and Trade Tensions - 7 August, 2026
Introduction
The concept of identities and interests exert a principal role in international politics as explanations for a nation’s foreign policy. Foreign policy will be argued to be produced through a dialectical relationship of both interests and identities, where, at times, one constitutes a larger role in influencing foreign policy. Neo-Realism will be utilized to examine national interest as it views the national interest as the primary variable and objective of foreign policy. Contrastingly, constructivism positions identity as a master variable in producing foreign policy and can provide a social context for the meaning of identities as well as national interest. The combined approach of neo-realism and constructivism will help examine the interrelationships between power and norms, incorporating the significance of ideas in determining foreign policy but not challenging the neo-realist premise of self-interested behavior and an environment of anarchy. Applying a symbiotic theoretical framework of Neo-Realism and Constructivism, this essay will argue that foreign policy is underpinned by the social construction of national interests and identity in order to compete for relative power in the international anarchic realm.
The Abraham Accords will be used as a case study to exemplify the role of identities and interests in foreign policy. The Abraham Accords are joint normalization agreements between Israel, the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.), and Bahrain mediated by the United States. The name ‘Abraham accords’ is rooted in the U.A.E. and Israel sharing an Abrahamic religion identity, presenting the diplomatic normalization between these countries as bridging the divide of a historical sectarian conflict and creating a space for Arab Muslim and Jewish coexistence as neighbors in the Middle East. Important Abrahamic religious sites were historically located in the Holy Land of Palestine and the control over this land along lines of identity has been a major factor in the Arab-Israeli conflict that characterized the 20th-21st century (Walberg, 2013). The shared recognition of Israel’s sovereignty by the U.A.E. and Bahrain helped solidify Israel’s identity based goal of survival in the Middle East as an ethno-religious Jewish state (Triantama, 2023). These agreements were signed against long-standing regional Arab-Islamic socio-political loyalties to Palestine, indicating shifting identity alignments and changing national interests in the region. Therefore, examining only the U.A.E, Israel, and the U.S., this essay will argue that the U.A.E. and Israel were driven to normalize relations by their both identity and interests in order to solidify their relative power in the region.
Neo-Realism and Constructivism
The paradigm of constructivism views knowledge of reality to be constructed by an individual’s notions, resulting in multiple realities’ existence (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Schwandt, 1997). Constructivist epistemology, or theory of knowledge, is that all human knowledge is constructed socially and therefore humans cannot possess any knowledge external to the world society constructed. The core ontology, or theory of reality, is that multiple realities exist and these realities are created by individuals in a group (Wendt, 1992). Therefore, reality is subjective, always under construction, and has room in which to enact change (Fierke 2017, p. 180). Constructivism views international politics as socially constructed; that is, international politics reflects a social intersubjective reality of shared ideas rather than a material objective reality (Onuf, 1989). This would perceive national interests and identity as defined by ideas, values, and social norms rather than by material or objective conditions. Ideas are viewed by constructivists to be salient determinants of government policy (Goldstein and Keohane, 1993, p.3). As foreign policy is not fixed or set in stone, foreign policy can be constructed to be what the state wishes according to such ideas (Gaskarth, 2006). The significant role of power as presented by Realism in international relations is accepted by most constructivists; Wendt even states that in regards to the degree realism is about power, he too is a realist (1999, pp.13–14). The departure between constructivism and realism occurs at the point where realism perceives politics as having ‘‘a material rather than a social basis’’ (Wendt, 1999, pp. 13–14).
The ontological claim of Neo-Realism is that the international realm is anarchical, which imposes a systemic requirement on states to accumulate power (Waltz, 1979). Beyond the accumulation of power being the fundamental goal of states, neo-realism is characterized by the following: the primary objective being the survival of the state, self-interest states acting in competition, the analytic centrality of states, and the importance of material capabilities (Donnelly, 2000). While classical realism emphasizes the self-interested human nature and views states seeking absolute power, neorealism places the causation of self-interest in the anarchic international system and views states as seeking relative power relative power in the anarchical world as that is the best way to ensure survival (Morgenthau, 1948; Burchill, 2005, pp. 45). Therefore, cooperation is possible to solidify relative power when interests converge (Jervis, 1994). As Mearshimer states, neo-realists “believe that power is the currency of international politics” and therefore the ultimate arbiter of outcomes (2007, p.78); that is, while there may be common national interests, identities, and a degree of cooperation, the power dynamics between actors determine the outcome. Neo-realism is therefore useful in examining how the power dynamics of national interest and identity influence foreign policy.
A neo-realist constructivism framework accepts the neo-realist ontology of the anarchical realm of international politics as being the current predominant perceived reality, however this is not an inherent condition to the world. Therefore neo-realist anarchy and threat will be acknowledged yet examined in a constructivist epistemology: that is, originating from and shaped by socialized interaction which created a shared understanding of international politics (Barkin, 2003). Accordingly, international politics can be characterized by anarchy through a historical experience and constructed idea of other states representing threats. Furthermore, even if international system actors accept a fundamental set of normative structures, the interpretations of such structure will differ among actors, whether for psychological reasons or rationally self-interested reasons (Shannon, 2000; Rosati, 2000). Therefore, the power of the interpreter matters when interpretations differ among international and domestic actors. A realist constructivism has value in examining the interrelationships between power and international norms (Loriaux, 1992). International politics is constructed socially, not only materially as realists would perceive. As Barkin states: the neo-realist paradigm is a framework on how politics work, while constructivism is an approach on how to study politics (2003). Therefore, neo-realism and constructivism will be viewed as in a dialectical relationship and used to account for change in the international system. This essay will adopt the Neo-realist view of international politics being a reflection of balances of power, situated in an anarchical world, as well as the constructivist approach of this power originating from the social construction of norms, identities, and relationships, as well as how value is placed in material capabilities.
National Interest
National interest is a sovereign nation’s ambitions taken to the aim of the government.National interest oriented policies answer the question of what is at stake; this can include political, military, economic, cultural, or other interests (Burchill, 2005). Neo-realists view national interest as the primary objective in foreign policy making, operating as an instructive signal for politicians to act rather than the classical realist view of national interests being the sole responsible driver of foreign policy (Sørensen, Møller, and Jackson, 2022, p. 81). As described by Rosenau, national interest is “a concept which could be used to describe, explain, and assess foreign policies of nations” (1964, p.35). Furthermore, neo-realism recognizes the dictates and impersonal limitations of the anarchical international system. Neo-realists define national interest in terms of power (Burchill, 2005, p.39), this power being a relative power in the competitive international structure. Beyond the basic national interest of security, through state survival through sovereignty and territorial preservation in an anarchical environment, neo-realists view national interest as given and subjective (Donnelly 2000, p. 31; Burchill, 2005, pp. 44-45). National interest is rooted in and includes strategic and material interests, however it also includes considerations of identity. Nevertheless, neo-realists place identity as subordinate to national interest if these interests do not converge.
Constructivists view interests of nations and actors as not given by nature, but constructed by shared ideas. Foreign policy goals and perceptions of national interest are influenced by societal norms, cultural beliefs, institutions, and social structures, including: public opinion, popular culture, the media, religion, and individual actors (Goldstein and Keohane, 1993).For example, pro-Israel lobbying in the U.S. has had significant influence on American foreign policy support of Israel. Nevertheless, it is recognized by constructivists that national interest is produced predominantly, although not solely, by foreign policy decision makers (Weldes, 1996, p.8). The concept of national interest is described by Weldes to do two important things in foreign policy making: first, it directs foreign policy makers to understand the objectives to be pursued; second, it is constructed to provide political support and legitimacy for state action (Weldes, 1996, p.276). National interests, including value in material and territory, are constructed through shared meanings, norms, ideas, and historical experiences, particularly about the state’s position in the international system. This approach helps clarify the concept of ‘national interest’ as subjective, as conflicting claims made in the name of an objective national interest often defy certain actors’ interests (Kratochwil, 1982). For example, a constructivist would view the value of obtaining military capabilities to leverage power as due to the socialized association of international norms of military capabilities equating power. Therefore, constructivists view weapons to not inherently possess power but have gained this meaning through a shared perception. While constructivists do not deny neo-realist detailing of national interest along material lines with the goal to obtain power, constructivists incorporate the social origin of constructing relations with those materials and how those materials gained value to the point that they become part of national interest.
Identity
National identity is composed of culture, norms, nationality, and ideology (Wendt, 1999, p.165, 357). Ideas, beliefs, and worldviews are interlinked with identities and help answer the question of, what is the national identity and interest? As ideas help to order the world, identities can shape agendas which in turn can shape the outcome of foreign policy akin to realisms’ conception of material governance of human conduct (Goldstein and Keohane, 1993, p.10; Weber, 2009, p.280). Nations are an ‘imagined community’ shaped in relativity to other nations (Anderson, 1983), indicating the role of dividing the ‘Self’ from the ‘Other’ in defining the identity of the national community. These factors influence and shape foreign policy: foreign policy is produced with the identity of ‘Self’ in mind (which serves as a form of national identity) and in context of the ‘Other’ (which can constitute a threat to the identity of the ‘Self’). Constructivism therefore views national identity as constructed through interaction and discourse within society. For many constructivists, identity is the master variable of foreign policy and international politics more widely; As Lebow states, ‘Identity is as fundamental to the paradigm of constructivism as power is to realism’ (Lebow, 2016, p.1). Therefore, to understand an actor’s behavior, or in this case, foreign policy making decisions, one must reconstruct the world through their eyes and consequently, their identity (Lebow, 2016, p.2) .
Furthermore, identity can shape the ideological lens in which you perceive national interest. The conception of ‘us’ as an identity in the national interest is a social construction of the self raised to the collective, constituted by the majority, and/or created by individual leaders (Adler, 1997). Ideology fuels the conception of certain states/groups as a threat (eg. liberal democracy vs. autocracy, sectarian divides). Adopting a constructivist view of identity, conflict is not inherent to differences in identity – it is rather the social and historical experiences that shape the interpretation of identity. For example, Israel’s identity as a Jewish state and identity as a historical perpetrator of ethnic-cleansing of Muslim Palestinains has had adverse ramifications for integration into the Middle East; its Jewish identity, ethnicity, culture and ideals were therefore perceived as a threat with the rest of Muslim Middle East (Qumsiyeh, 2004). Additionally, there may be multiple identities of the state due to differing perceptions of that state internally and externally. Therefore, the interpretation of a state’s identity to be that of a threat can change over time and change in relativity to other actors. As an example, the U.A.E. and Israel’s threat perception of each other’s national identity at the state level has changed in relativity to the increased perceived identity of Iran being a threat.
Abraham Accords
The Abraham Accords are joint diplomatic normalization agreements between Israel and the U.A.E. as well as Bahrain, moderated by the United States. The name ‘Abraham accords’ is rooted in the U.A.E. and Israel sharing an Abrahamic religious identity. Underpinning this debate is the constructivist view of the inherent identity of Iran as a state to be perceived as a ‘threat’ in the Middle East, shaped through historical social interactions (eg. war, violence, etc.). Elicited by the shared threat perception of Iran by all parties, the Abraham Accords were also a product of national interests in terms of strategic material capabilities and territorial influence. National interests driving the Abraham Accords have included the following: qualitative military edge (through military capabilities, training, weaponry); oil; alliances; trade; economic cooperation. Driving themes of identity in producing these joint normalization agreements have included: moral obligation; Abrahamic religion identity based access to Holy sites; Zionism; Islam; shifting U.A.E. identities towards Western values; peace through stability and absence of war; and containment of ‘threat’ identity state Iran and militant fundamentalist movements (Slater, 2002). The Abhraham accords are produced from national interest and identity factors.
U.A.E.
The U.A.E. was part of the historical pan-Arab unification against Israel in the Israel-Palestine conflict and Arab-Israeli Wars (Spangler, 2015). The contestation over the Holy Land of Palestine is rooted in Islamic and Jewish identity, as it is the location of important religious sites for both religions; Jerusalem is home to three important holy sites: the Western Wall, one of the Judaism’s holiest sites; Islam’s third holiest site in the world, the Al-Aqsa mosque; and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, where most Christians believe Jesus died at the cross and was later resurrected. Along these religious sites, there has been a historical territorial claim for national interest rooted in religious identity. Pan-Arab solidarity with Palestine is rooted in a shared intersubjective ethno-religious identity and emerging from historical social relations in the Middle East. Diplomatic normalization can function to facilitate U.A.E. influence over and citizen access to Muslim holy sites in Israeli controlled Palestine (Zanotti, 2021). Additionally, Iran constitutes a differing identity to the U.A.E.; Iran identifies ethnically as Persian and religiously as a Shia Muslim state, with the ideology of Shi’ism being conceived as part of Iranian nationalism (Saleh, 2013, p.101). On the other hand, most Arab states religiously identify as Sunni in the Middle East such as the U.A.E., where approximately 85 percent of the citizens are Sunni Muslims (U.S. Department of State, 2018). This sectarian difference fuels Iran’s support of Hezbollah and the opposing alignments of the U.A.E. in proxy wars in Yemen and Syria (Ketabi, 2018; Darwich, 2018). The importance of identity to Arab nations to the West, caught between their Arab Islamic identities (perceived to be a relative ‘threat’ that of Western Christian dominated identities) and their past ties with Iran and their desire to deepen integration with the West.
The UAE’s shift away from its historical hostilities with Israel is rooted in both national interest and identity.The construction of the threat perception of Iran is rooted in national material interests and along lines of identity. U.A.E.-Iran relations have deteriorated both due to the U.A.E.’s increased anti-Iran support in proxy wars and a perceived threat of Iran by the wider region (including Bahrain and Israel) characterized by the following features: “the enlistment and support of sectarian militias; the pursuit of missile capabilities; the potential restoration of its nuclear programme” (Ketbi, 2018). In the U.A.E. arms deal that followed the joint normalization agreements, the U.S. provided worth $23 billion in military capabilities to the U.A.E. with the intention to deter potential threats from Iran; MQ-9B Unmanned Aerial Systems, air-to-ground and air-to-air munitions, and the aircraft F-35 Lightning II is included in this deal (Pompeo, 2020). Israel also provided $6.5 billion worth of cyber technologies to the U.A.E. which constitute a cyber defense system and threat to Iranian nuclear facilities (Barrington and Williams, 2020). The arms deal represents a strengthening of ties between the U.S. and U.A.E. through the use of American weaponry in their dual military deterrence of Iran. Therefore, both national interest and identity have constituted a strategic reorientation to solidify relative power, the intent to do so arising from the constitutive norm of increased pro-Western orientation.
Israel
The “Jewish State” was carved out of Palestine through the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and officially founded as Israel in 1948. The subsequent territorial expansion of Israel occurred through a violation of international laws, territorial encroachment, and human rights crimes against Palestinians (Spangler, 2015). This creation of Israel was along ethno-religious identity lines out of an Arab majority Muslim state, resulting in a mass displacement and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (McCarthy, 1990, p.35; Spangler, 2015, p.203). As Muslim and Arab states have largely supported Palestine due primarily to a shared identity, a history of hostility between the U.A.E. and Israel has constructed the shared perception of each other’s identity as a threat. Political Zionism, the foundational identity of Israel, details political national interest in creating a homogenous ethno-religious state, exemplifying how the construction of ethnic and religious identity can be employed to value the survival of the (Jewish state) as primary objective (Yapp, 1987). The neo-realist element of survival has particular gravity in Israel as it was founded in the aftermath of the Holocaust; this produced the socially constructed shared idea of threat to the Jewish existence and a fear of anti-semitism when criticizing the ‘Jewish State,’ which these ideas are then applied for ‘national interest’ political ends and security agendas (Spangler, 2015). Therefore, Israel has a clear national interest in obtaining power through sovereignty recognition and diplomatic normalization.
In more material terms, Israel holds a national interest of obtaining influence over or access to U.A.E. bases due to their proximity to Iran. This provides Israel a qualitative military edge in which to deter Iran, deploy weapons, and pursue hostile naval activities to Iran in the Persian Gulf. The shared identity of Israel and the U.A.E. as major economies in the region also provide an avenue to obtain relative power across economic sectors in the international realm. Israel maintains interest in enhancing trade connections, particularly through U.A.E. ‘s advanced trans-shipping infrastructure, which prompted Israel’s subsequent first free trade agreement with an Arab country (Vakil and Quilliam, 2023). This provides Israel the opportunity to increase its power through cooperation, economic advancement, and territorial influence against a referent threat.
U.S.
The United States’ role as a mediator in the Abraham Accords projects a socially constructed identity of itself as a democratic and peaceful international actor (U.S. Department of State, 2017) . This is further exemplified in Slater’s argument “U.S. national interests in the Middle East are to ensure the general stability and absence of war in the region, especially of war that could involve the use of weapons of mass destruction” (2002), which also demonstrates the mutual constitution of national interest and identity for the U.S. to act as an arbitrator. In turn, the construction of this identity coalesce material national interests. These material national interests hold their value in upholding the power of the U.S. as the international system (and therefore, society) has constructed these materials to equate with or hold meanings of an accumulation of power. This can be demonstrated through bringing “peace” through the proliferation of American weapons, socially constructed as holding the meaning of American power and pro-American influence, in the U.A.E. to counter the threat of Iran.
The Abraham Accords reinforces strategic U.S.-Israeli presence in the Middle East, in terms of military capabilities, power influence, and the spread of pro-Western orientation. Israel, as the closest American ally in the region, will have unprecedented access to the Persian Gulf, Arabian Peninsula, and therefore, land and naval routes to Iran (Rynhold, 2019). This is in line with the American national interest to diminish Iran’s military edge. Mike Pompeo, the U.S. Secretary of State at the time, described the U.S. tactical interest and construction of Iran as a threat in the region: “The UAE’s historic agreement to normalize relations with Israel under the Abraham Accords offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to positively transform the region’s strategic landscape. Our adversaries, especially those in Iran, know this and will stop at nothing to disrupt this shared success” (2020). Therefore, the U.S. is utilizing the Abraham Accords as an avenue in which to accrue power through material gains and to reconstruct the perception of the American role in the Middle East from that of ‘war and violence’ to one of ‘peace’. Nevertheless, as exemplified by Mike Pompeo’s statement and material interests, this social reconstruction of American identity in the Middle East is part of a strategic goal to solidify power through pro-American orientation in order to counter the power of Iran.
Conclusion
Foreign policy is a product of national interest and/or identity. National interest and identity can converge and act as mutually constitutive in producing foreign policy; identity can be a way of interpreting national interest, while national interest can include attention to or be perceived according to identity. Social construction matters as the shared idea of national interest and/or identity provides social legitimacy in foreign policy and can be employed to facilitate the accumulation of relative power in the anarchical international realm of politics. Identity constituted through beliefs, world views, norms, can have impacts on foreign policy makers by acting as a guiding map, shaping perceptions of national interest, and by being embedded in social institutions (Goldstein and Keohane, 1993, p.29). Foreign policy is also a product of national interest, as national interest is considered to be the goal of and shapes the content of the foreign policy. Therefore, interests and identities have a dialectical relationship in foreign policy, where, at times, one is perceived to constitute a larger role in influencing foreign policy.
The signing of the Abraham Accords was driven through a mutual constitution of ideology and national interest for all parties. The U.A.E. was driven by a shifting identity towards the West and political alignment against Iran. Additionally, the national economic, political, and material interests, such as obtaining F-35s among other military capabilities, drove the U.A.E. to change its long-standing foreign policy. Israel’s foreign policy was produced by the identity and political project of Zionism, to secure the survival of the ethno-religious Jewish state within the geo-political context of the Middle East. While the U.A.E. produced this foreign policy against historical ties of Pan-Arab identity based loyalties to Palestine, it was constructed with a shared U.A.E., Israeli, and American perception of Iran having a threat identity. This threat identity is produced from the socialized relation of these states among lines of identity, shifting interpretations of the state of Iran, and engagement in historical and current hostilities. The Abraham accords exemplify how foreign policy is a product of both national interests and identities, simultaneously produced through social construction and state competition for power. Therefore, as foreign policy is not fixed, it can be shaped by the social construction of identity and national interest in order to obtain or solidify relative power in international politics.
Bibliography
Adler, E., 1997. Seizing the middle ground: Constructivism in world politics. European journal of international relations, 3(3), pp.319-363.
Anderson, B., 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism, London.
Barkin, J.S., 2003. Realist constructivism. International Studies Review, 5(3), pp.325-342.
Barrington, L., and Williams, D., 2020. UAE, Israeli Cyber Chiefs Discuss Joining Forces to Combat Common Threats. Reuters, [online] (Last updated 24th September 2020). Available at: <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-gulf-emirates-cyber-idUSKCN26F2UK >
[Accessed on 19 May 2023].
Burchill, S., 2005. The national interest in international relations theory. Springer.
Darwich, M., 2018. The Saudi intervention in Yemen: Struggling for status. Insight Turkey, 20(2), pp.125-142.
Donnelly, J., 2000. Realism and international relations. Cambridge University Press.
Fierke, K., 2017. Constructivism. In: T. Dunne, M. Kukri, S. Smith, eds. 2017.International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.161-178.
Gaskarth, J., 2006. Discourses and ethics: The social construction of British foreign policy. Foreign Policy Analysis, 2(4), pp.325-341.
Goldstein, J. and Keohane, R.O. eds., 1993. Ideas and foreign policy: beliefs, institutions, and political change. Cornell University Press.
Jervis, R., 1994. Hans Morgenthau, realism, and the scientific study of international politics. Social research, pp.853-876.
Ketbi, E.A., 2020. Contemporary shifts in UAE foreign policy: From the liberation of Kuwait to the Abraham Accords. Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, 14(3), pp.391-398.
Kratochwil, F., 1982. On the notion of “interest” in international relations. International organization, 36(1), pp.1-30.
Lebow, R.N., 2016. National identities and international relations. Cambridge University Press.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G., 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Loriaux, M., 1992. The realists and Saint Augustine: Skepticism, psychology, and moral action in international relations thought. International Studies Quarterly, 36(4), pp.401-420.
McCarthy, J., 1990. The population of Palestine. In The Population of Palestine. Columbia University Press.
Mearsheimer, J.J., 2007. Structural realism. International relations theories: Discipline and diversity, 83, pp.77-94.
Morgenthau, H. and Nations, P.A., 1948. The struggle for power and peace. Nova York, Alfred Kopf.
Onuf, N.G., 1989. World of our making: Rules and rule in social theory and international relations. Routledge.
Pompeo, M., 2020. U.S. Approves Advanced Defense Capabilities for the Arab Emirates. U.S. Department of State, [online] Available at: <https://www.state.gov/u-s-approves-advanced-defense-capabilities-for-the-united-arab-emirates/> [Accessed 17 March 2023].
Qumsiyeh, M.B., 2004. Sharing the land of Canaan: human rights and the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. Pluto Press (UK).
Rosati, J.A., 2000. The power of human cognition in the study of world politics. International Studies Review, 2(3), pp.45-75.
Rosenau, J. ed., 1964. National Interest. International Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences. New York.
Rynhold, J., 2019. The special relationship between the United States and Israel. In Israel in a Turbulent Region (pp. 237-254). Routledge.
Saleh, A., 2013. Ethnic identity and the state in Iran. Springer.
Schwandt, T.A., 1994. Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. Handbook of qualitative research, 1(1994), pp.118-137.
Shannon, V.P., 2000. Norms are what states make of them: The political psychology of norm violation. International Studies Quarterly, 44(2), pp.293-316.
Slater, J., 2002. Ideology vs. The national interest: Bush, Sharon, and US policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Security Studies, 12(1), pp.164-206.
Sørensen, G., Møller, J. and Jackson, R.H., 2022. Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches. Oxford university press.
Spangler, E., 2019. Understanding Israel/Palestine: Race, nation, and human rights in the conflict. Brill.
Triantama, F., 2023. United Arab Emirates-Israel Rapprochement: A Rational Choice of Emiratis. Journal of International Studies, 19(1), pp.169-199.
U.S. State Department, 2017. The Abraham Accords. [online] Available at: <https://www.state.gov/the-abraham-accords/> [Accessed 15 May 2023].
U.S. State Department, 2018. 2018 Report on International Religious Freedom: United Arab Emirates
. [online] Available at: <https://www.state.gov/reports/2018-report-on-international-religious-freedom/united-arab-emirates/#:~:text=Approximately%2011%20percent%20of%20the,Emirates%20of%20Dubai%20and%20Sharjah.> [Accessed 18 May 2023].
Vakil, S. and Quilliam, N., 2023. The Abraham Accords and Israel–UAE normalization. Chatham House.
Walberg, E., 2013. From Postmodernism to Postsecularism: Re-emerging Islamic Civilization. SCB Distributors.
Waltz, K.N., 2010. Theory of international politics. Waveland Press.
Weber, M., 2009. From Max Weber: essays in sociology. Routledge.
Wendt, A., 1992. Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. International organization, 46(2), pp.391-425.
Wendt, A., 1999. Social theory of international politics (Vol. 67). Cambridge University Press.
Weldes, J., 1996. Constructing national interests. European journal of international relations, 2(3), pp.275-318.
Yapp, M., 2014. The Making of the Modern Near East 1792-1923. Routledge.
Zanotti, J., 2021. Israel: Background and US relations in brief. Congressional Research Service.
