    [House Hearing, 118 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                         EXPANDING THE ABRAHAM ACCORDS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                    SUBCOMMITTEE MIDDLE EAST, NORTH AFRICA, AND
                                   CENTRAL ASIA

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 9, 2023

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 118-4

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available:  http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
                                docs.house.gov,
                           or http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    51-383 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2023

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                       MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman

    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     	GREGORY MEEKS, New Yok, Ranking
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina               	Member
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania	 	BRAD SHERMAN, California
    DARRELL ISSA, California		GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    ANN WAGNER, Missouri			WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
    BRIAN MAST, Florida			DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    KEN BUCK, Colorado			AMI BERA, California
    TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee			JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee		DINA TITUS, Nevada
    ANDY BARR, Kentucky			TED LIEU, California
    RONNY JACKSON, Texas			SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
    YOUNG KIM, California			DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
    MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida		COLIN ALLRED, Texas
    BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan			ANDY KIM, New Jersey
    AMATA COLEMAN-RADEWAGEN, American	SARA JACOBS, California
        Samoa				KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
    FRENCH HILL, Arkansas			SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK,
    WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio			 	Florida
    JIM BAIRD, Indiana			GREG STANTON, Arizona
    MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida			MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
    TOM KEAN, JR., New Jersey		JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
    MIKE LAWLER, New York			JONATHAN JACOBS, Illinois
    CORY MILLS, Florida			SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
    RICH MCCORMICK, Georgia			JIM COSTA, California
    NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas			JASON CROW, Colorado
    JOHN JAMES, Michigan			BRAD SCHNEIDER. Illinois
    KEITH SELF, Texas

                        Brenden Shields, Staff Director
                        Sophia Lafargue, Staff Director
                                     ------

         Subcommittee on MIDDLE EAST, NORTH AFRICA, AND CENTRAL ASIA

         JOE WILSON, Chair

         BRIAN MAST, Florida                  DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota, Ranking
         TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee                  Member
         RONNY JACKSON, Texas		     BRAD SHERMAN, California
         JIM BAIRD, Indiana		     GERALD CONNOLLY, Virginia
         MIKE LAWLER, New York		     DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
         RICH MCCORMICK, Georgia		     KATHY MANNING, North Carolina

                             Sophia Lafargue, Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    Greenway, The Honorable Robert, President and Executive Director,
      Abraham Accords Peace Institute................................     8
    Votel, General Joseph L., Distinguished Fellow, Middle East
      Institute......................................................    15
    Shapiro, The Honorable Daniel B., Distinguished Fellow, Atlantic
      Council........................................................    22

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing Notice...................................................    54
    Hearing Attendance...............................................    55
    Hearing Minutes..................................................    56

             STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY

    Statement for the record from Representative Connolly............    57

                RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    Responses to questions submitted for the record..................    59

                 ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    Additional statement submitted for the record from Mr. Lankford..    66
    Additional statement submitted for the record....................    68

                         EXPANDING THE ABRAHAM ACCORDS

                            Thursday, March 9, 2023

                              House of Representatives,
                 Subcommittee on the Middle East, North
                               Africa and Central Asia,
                          Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:11 p.m., in
    room 210, House Visitor Center, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman of
    the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Wilson. Ladies and gentlemen, the Subcommittee on
    Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia will come to order.
    The purpose of this hearing is to identify opportunities to
    strengthen and expand the extraordinarily successful Abraham
    Accords.
        And at this time, I would like to ask for unanimous consent
    that the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Brad Schneider, be
    allowed to sit on the dais and participate following all other
    members in today's hearing. No objection. I am not going to
    recognize you. And so, without objection, so ordered. OK. And 1
    day we will recognize people from Rhode Island. But it is going
    to be June, if you do not mind, after you are gone.
        I now recognize myself an opening statement.
        And good afternoon and welcome. And this is really
    meaningful to me, the first hearing of the Middle East, North
    Africa, and Central Asia Subcommittee in the 118th Congress.
    And I am really grateful to ultimately be serving again with
    Congressman David Cicilline, who has been the prior chairman,
    and prior to that, Ted Deutch. And so it has been a bipartisan
    experience with Dean Phillips I am confident will continue. And
    then Kathy Manning from the Republic of North Carolina is going
    to be sitting in today. One day it is going to be a State.
        And I want to thank our members for being part of the
    subcommittee. And I want to thank the expert witnesses for
    being here today to provide insight into how we can most
    successfully expand the groundbreaking Abraham and historic
    Accords.
        I regret that the ranking member, Dean Phillips, is unable
    to be here today. But, indeed, we are very fortunate to have
    Representative Kathy Manning from North Carolina.
        I look forward to a compelling conversation today of very
    talented people and in many more important hearings during this
    Congress as we promote the United States as the country that it
    is, so important in maintaining world stability.
        The historic Abraham Accords are one of the most
    consequential diplomatic achievements of my lifetime and a
    success of the Donald Trump Administration. I was grateful to
    be present at the signing at the White House. The signing of
    these accords by the leaders of Bahrain, Israel, and the United
    Arab Emirates represented the single most significant step
    toward a stable and positive Arab-Israeli relations since Egypt
    and Jordan normalized relations in 1979 and 1974 respectively.
        We have already seen positive results with Morocco formally
    joining and Sudan pledging to join the Accords in 2021 and
    additional memorandums of understanding being signed to address
    issues of mutual concern.
        These agreements are a win for the region and a win for the
    United States. For decades, we have known that our friends in
    the Middle East all have shared interests for mutual benefit.
    Now at long last, we can work together collaboratively to
    protect our countries' shared technology and information and
    grow our economies, address creating jobs, addressing the
    threat emanating from the kleptocratic Iranian regime. It is an
    issue of foremost concern.
        Both Israel and our Arab allies live under constant threat
    of Iranian-backed terrorism. And Iran continues the enrichment
    of uranium while testing satellite-launched vehicles in
    proliferating drones to its proxies, as well as to war criminal
    Putin to kill innocent Ukrainians.
        Sadly, the Biden Administration still seems to believe that
    diplomacy via a nuclear deal is possible. You cannot negotiate
    with those acting in bad faith, as we have seen time and time
    again. Working with our partners to deter these threats is
    critical to maintaining peace and stability through strength.
        The Abraham Accords coincided with Israel being moved into
    the responsibility of the U.S. Central Command from European
    Command. Now our Middle East partners can work together
    directly with U.S. military on issues of shared concern, like
    Iran and the integrated air and missile defenses.
        After three major countries joining the Accords in quick
    succession, UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco, we hope to see more
    countries join the Abraham Accords during the Biden
    Administration. Changing minds is hard. Diplomatic
    breakthroughs are hard. It is not easy to change longstanding
    policies or public opinions.
        With all the momentum built up during the Trump
    Administration, there have been at times questions regarding
    whether the Biden Administration is sufficiently prioritizing
    the Accords. I am pleased the Administration has now embraced
    the name Abraham Accords and has also worked to convene Israel
    and the Arab partners through the Negev Forum.
        This forum is important for helping to deepen the
    relationships between Israel, UAE, Egypt, Morocco, and Bahrain,
    and the United States. It shows other countries in the region
    the positive benefits that can come from a relationship with
    Israel.
        In addition to security cooperation, the Abraham Accords
    have ushered in unprecedented economic cooperation. We are
    witnessing significant increase in bilateral trade between the
    signatories, as well as joint projects in technology, energy
    and infrastructure, health care, and tourism. These efforts
    will undoubtedly yield positive person-to-person results and
    increased prosperity for all involved.
        Still, there is more to be done. I hope our witnesses today
    can speak to the types of initiatives that will be required to
    bring important countries, such as Saudi Arabia, into the
    Abraham Accords. We look forward to hearing from them about
    more details of how the Accords came to be, how we can
    strengthen relationships between countries that are parts of
    the Accords, and how we can bring new countries into these
    incredible agreements.
        I want to thank the witnesses for their time and expertise.
    And I yield to the stand-in ranking member, Congresswoman
    Manning, for her remarks.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
    important hearing. And on behalf of Ranking Member Dean
    Phillips, who asked me to fill in for him today,
    congratulations on holding your first hearing as subcommittee
    chair. We are all looking forward to working together with you
    in this Congress. And I want to thank our distinguished panel
    of witnesses for joining us today to share your expertise.
        In 1967, the League of Arab States put forward what is
    often referred to as the three no's: no peace with Israel, no
    recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. Despite
    these overtures, Egypt was the first country to break ranks and
    make peace with Israel in 1979, a decision that cost President
    Sadat his life. Jordan then followed suit in 1994.
        And since then there had been no significant progress on
    regional peace agreements until the Abraham Accords, in which
    Bahrain, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, and Sudan agreed to
    normalize relationships with Israel. This historic agreement
    changed the region practically overnight, leading to incredible
    opportunities for regional coordination and cooperation.
        With U.S. support, these countries chose to form a forward-
    looking group of nations in the Middle East focused on building
    a better and brighter future for their people and a more
    integrated and secure region. These countries also recognized a
    common interest in cooperating to counter the threats posed by
    Iran, the principal source of instability in the region. Iran's
    advancing nuclear weapons program, expanding ballistic missile
    NUAV programs, and support for armed proxy groups, including
    but not limited to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the
    Houthis in Yemen all pose deep challenges to security and
    stability across the Middle East.
        Our partners and allies are clear-eyed about this threat
    and are working side by side in coordination with the United
    States to advance their shared security. Israel's integration
    into CENTCOM marked a huge step toward creating a more secure
    and prosperous region. And its role in the recent international
    maritime exercise, along with increased intelligence sharing,
    communication, and training have demonstrated significant
    progress toward a more integrated regional security
    architecture.
        I am eager to hear from our witnesses today about
    opportunities for expanded security cooperation, the prospect
    of a more integrated regional security framework, and how
    shared security concerns can promote further expansion of
    normalization between Israel and its neighbors. Security
    cooperation is important. But it cannot be the only leg on
    which relations between Israel and the Abraham Accords'
    countries stand.
        The Biden Administration has sought to deepen and expand
    Israel's engagement with its neighbors by establishing the
    Negev Forum, a new vehicle for implementing the Abraham Accords
    on a multilateral scale. The forum established six working
    groups on regional security, food and water security, tourism,
    trade, health, and education and tolerance, areas that
    highlight shared regional challenges and create opportunities
    for tangible benefits to the citizens of each country.
        These buckets have provided a framework to weave together
    the fabric of the Middle East. For example, the signing of the
    Israel-UAE free trade agreement aims to bolster economic
    cooperation between the two countries, bringing trade volume
    from around one billion to ten billion within 5 years.
    Increased trade and tourism, investment in technology and
    health, cooperation on cyber security and green energy, the
    opportunities are seemingly endless.
        I look forward to hearing from our guests today about how
    to advance Israeli-Arab engagement, promote greater regional
    cooperation, and engage the private sector and civil society in
    this effort.
        As we celebrate the Abraham Accords, the milestone for
    regional security and stability that it represents and look
    ahead toward opportunities to expand the Accords, we must also
    try to find ways to include Palestinians in regional
    cooperative initiatives and continue working toward a
    comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace. Key additional
    regional players have indicated their interest in normalizing
    relations with Israel, but not without significant steps toward
    peace.
        As we look for ways to strengthen and expand the Abraham
    Accords, I am interested in hearing about how these efforts can
    be used to help both Israelis and Palestinians make progress
    toward the long-term goal of a negotiated peace. And as we hold
    this hearing just weeks away from the convergence of Ramadan
    and Passover, I would further ask how the U.S. and our regional
    partners can support steps to de-escalate tensions.
        Since the Abraham Accords were announced by President Trump
    in 2020, there has been bipartisan support in Congress and
    across Administrations for the Abraham Accords and ongoing
    efforts to support peace between Israel and its neighbors. The
    Middle East today is not the same region it was even a few
    years ago. And efforts to continue to enhance and expand the
    Abraham Accords are integral to building robust security and
    economic relationships, establishing people-to-people ties, and
    contributing to a more tolerant, peaceful region.
        So, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished
    panel. And with that, I yield back.
        Mr. Wilson. And thank you, temporary ranking member.
        I ask unanimous consent that a statement by Senator Jim
    Lankford of Oklahoma and a statement of Representative Ann
    Wagner of Missouri be entered into the record. Without
    objection, so ordered.
        We are pleased to have a distinguished panel of witnesses
    before us today on this important topic.
        The Honorable Rob Greenway, a graduate of the Virginia
    Military Institute, is President and Executive Director of the
    Abraham Accords Peace Institute. He previously served as Deputy
    Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Middle East
    and North Africa at the National Security Council under the
    Trump Administration.
        Also, General Joseph Votel is a Distinguished Fellow at the
    Middle East Institute. He served as Commander of U.S. Central
    Command in 2016 to 2019. And I know of his great service
    because I had the opportunity to visit with him and to great
    success. Thank you.
        Ambassador Daniel B. Shapiro is a Distinguished Fellow at
    the Atlantic Council. He served as the U.S. Ambassador to
    Israel from 2011 to 2017. I think you must have set a record, 6
    years.
        I want to thank you all for being here today. Your full
    statements will be made part of the record. And I will ask each
    of you to keep your spoken remarks to 5 minutes in order to
    allow members for questions. And they, too, will be strictly
    maintained, including me, of 5 minutes.
        I will now recognize President Greenway for his opening
    statement.

       STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT GREENWAY, PRESIDENT AND
          EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ABRAHAM ACCORDS PEACE INSTITUTE

        Mr. Greenway. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Manning,
    members of the subcommittee, thank you all for the opportunity
    to testify on the development of the historic Abraham Accords
    peace agreements and the ways in which the United States can
    help ensure they reach their true potential. It is an honor to
    join Ambassador Shapiro and General Votel today.
        The Abraham Accords Peace Institute, where I serve as
    President and Executive Director, is a non-partisan, non-profit
    U.S. organization dedicated to supporting the implementation
    and expansion of the Accords, the primary platform for
    disseminating Accord progress. And we work with a broad range
    of actors abroad as appropriate to develop new opportunities in
    the fields of trade, investment, tourism, and people-to-people
    relationships.
        The Abraham Accords constitute the beginning of a
    transformation of a region that will continue to be a vital
    battleground astride security and economic interests of world
    powers. American leadership was a necessary but insufficient
    condition for the emergence of these agreements. And American
    leadership will remain essential to its growth and evolution.
        The alignment of our regional partners and allies in
    economic and security domains will ensure that the agreements
    endure. It will also be incentivizing to others to join,
    pooling critical capacities to advance and defend mutual
    interests.
        This transformation serves to constrain the malign
    influence of Iran and Russia and predatory practices of China.
    These countries will continue to manufacture and exploit
    fissures among the U.S. and its regional partners if we fail to
    take advantage of the favorable shift in the region's security
    and economic architecture.
        On the other hand, appropriate support will allow the
    Abraham Accords to advance and secure America's interests with
    the use of significantly fewer resources and with more capable
    partners integrated as never before.
        To give just a brief sense of the impact the Accords have
    had in just less than 3 years, in 2022 trade between Israel and
    regional peace partners as a whole reached $3.47 billion, up
    from $593 million in 2019. 470,700 Israelis have traveled to
    Abraham Accords countries in 2022, up from 39,300 in 2019.
    Seventeen new flight routes have been established to
    accommodate this growth. Cooperation has flourished in the
    fields ranging from water and food security, renewable energy,
    technology and innovation, health care, sports, trade, and
    investment.
        I would suggest five ways the U.S. can encourage and
    support these historic agreements.
        The first would be for the U.S. to the support the
    establishment of an Abraham Accords free trade area, ensuring
    progress toward members' aspirations, preserve the integrity
    and stability of global markets, provide a tangible alternative
    to China's Belt and Road Initiative. We could begin by
    leveraging the matrix of free trade agreements and other
    bilateral agreements already in place between the U.S. and
    Accord members and between the Accords' members themselves.
        According to RAND analysis, the benefits of a multilateral
    free trade area encompassing current signatories would create
    more than 150,000 new jobs and new economic activity exceeding
    $75 billion. A multilateral free trade area among the expanded
    number of potential Accord signatories could create as many as
    four million new jobs and one trillion dollars in new economic
    activity.
        A second avenue would be to ensure that resources dedicated
    to regional peace encompass the Accords and work with Accords'
    members to reestablish the Abraham Fund, providing financial
    and technical support necessary to reduce poverty, expand
    infrastructure, and help improve health and education,
    reinforcing the Accords.
        A third way would be to connect Accords' members and other
    partners to establish new overland trade routes, connecting its
    members from the Mediterranean to the Gulf. Such routes would
    revolutionize East-West trade, decrease associated transit
    times, costs, and risks, and strengthen resilience and
    prosperity.
        The fourth would be to support and resource a new enduring
    regional security architecture in the Middle East, the Abraham
    Accords as a foundation, while accelerating protected security
    systems to Accord member countries. Only by making our partners
    and allies more capable will we mitigate the spectrum of risk
    to our vital national interests in the global economy. This
    would also reduce, but not eliminate, the requirement for a
    robust U.S. presence.
        A fifth way would be to leverage Abraham Accords to offset
    the loss of European energy following the Russian invasion of
    Ukraine and strategically realign our partners and allies by
    breaking the dependency on adversary resources.
        Without U.S. leadership, the historic agreements would not
    have been concluded. Absent sustained investment, they will
    fail to achieve their potential. Such a setback would constrain
    the region's economic recovery from the pandemic, erode support
    for counterterrorism cooperation, open a door to malign
    influence by Russia and China, compromise regional stability,
    disrupt global markets, discourage essential cooperation, and
    provide an opportunity for resurgence of both ISIS and Al
    Qaeda.
        But if we seize the opportunity this historic agreement
    offers, the inverse holds. We would buildupon it to enhance
    regional stability, security, and trade. We could also seize
    the opportunity for a U.S. regional security architecture built
    to safeguard an economic foundation that can endure, while
    reducing our costs and constraining our adversaries.
        The Abraham Accords, and the Institute which bears its
    name, hold the potential to serve as the foundation for an
    enduring peace in the Middle East by demonstrating the tangible
    benefits of interpersonal ties, trade, commerce, and mutual
    cooperation. It is vital we seize this historic opportunity,
    unleash the potential of our partners and allies in the Middle
    East and North Africa, keep America safe, and help the region
    turn the page on a generation of conflict and instability.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Greenway follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, President Greenway.
        And we now recognize General Votel for his opening
    statement. And, General, I want to congratulate you, 2016 to
    1919, the achievement of you and your personnel. There was no
    terrorist attack against American people. And that to me is
    such an achievement. Please proceed.

    STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. VOTEL, DISTINGUISHED FELLOW, MIDDLE EAST
                               INSTITUTE

        Mr. Votel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to
    you and to Representative Manning and to the distinguished
    members of the subcommittee.
        I am pleased to join my fellow panelists, Ambassador Dan
    Shapiro and Mr. Rob Greenway, in this hearing on expanding the
    Abraham Accords. I am testifying today in my capacity as a
    former Commander of U.S. Central Command and as well as a
    Distinguished Fellow with the Middle East Institute right here
    in Washington, DC.
        The Abraham Accords were signed after my retirement and
    departure from Command, as was the decision to include Israel
    in the U.S. Central Command's designated area of
    responsibilities. It was my view at the time and it remains so
    today that these Accords and the decision regarding Israel were
    timely and essential steps in promoting stability and security
    across the region. In both cases, these actions represented the
    maturing of the political and security situations across the
    area.
        As noted in a recent report by the Jewish Institute for
    National Security of America, JINSA, the United States has a
    fundamental interest in strengthening the Accords and helping
    ensure they achieve their full political, economic, and
    security potential.
        Less than 36 hours ago, I returned from my most recent
    travel to the Middle East. These trips have left me with three
    impressions that are germane to the issue we are discussing
    today.
        The first impression is that U.S. leadership in the region
    remains critical. While our force posture has changed due to
    policy decisions, focusing our attention and resources toward
    the pace and challenge presented by China, the U.S. remains an
    indispensable partner across the Middle East. The region looks
    to us for our leadership, for our world-class capabilities, and
    our values-based approaches. Initiatives like expanding the
    Abraham Accords are clear examples of things we can and must do
    to promote stability in a critically important region where we
    retain enduring interests.
        My second impression is the importance of continuous
    dialog. The Middle East is an area with deep underlying
    tensions which left unattended will work against the better
    interests of those who live in the region and those who retain
    vital national security interests there, including the United
    States.
        It is an area prone to misperceptions and failed
    expectations. And the only way through this is by effective
    communication and relationship building. We must have open
    dialog and a framework to interact and operate that minimizes
    miscommunication, while at the same time promoting better
    interaction in areas of common interest. Therefore, we must
    promote better relationships and more substantial cooperation
    and collaboration among our regional friends. The Abraham
    Accords are doing this today.
        My third impression is the need for a sense of urgency to
    move forward in the region. Change is coming quick to the
    Middle East. Saudi Arabia is a good example. There is profound
    and palpable change due to its 2030 vision and strategy, change
    that can be seen and heard. It is accelerating on a day-to-day
    basis. We should be encouraging this.
        Our adversaries and strategic competitors are operating
    with a sense of urgency as well. Iran continues its pursuit of
    nuclear capability and is doubling down on its malign influence
    activities across the region. Chinese influence is apparent
    across the region. And they continue to maneuver effectively
    into the spaces left behind by the U.S. to promote their
    economic and political objectives. These activities and others
    like them can undermine critical interests of the United States
    and our partners.
        In an era of Great Power competition, the United States
    must play its role. Today, that role is unlikely to be
    manifested by large U.S. military formations and long-term
    deployment across regional military bases. It is, instead, more
    likely to be pursued through improved security cooperation
    efforts, partnership, shared awareness and responsibility, and
    greater resilience among our friends and partners in the
    region.
        The best tool against these factors is not just better
    equipment and more U.S. troops on the ground. It is, in fact,
    strong relationships, effective communications, and trust. As a
    former boss reminded me often, you cannot surge trust in times
    of crisis. It must be nurtured and developed beforehand.
        The Abraham Accords are an essential hedge platform to
    promote better understanding, shared interests and
    responsibilities, and common expectations that lead to better
    trust. We must seize the opportunity it presents.
        There will be obstacles to expanding the Abraham Accords
    and pursuing meaningful progress under its rubric. Iran's
    pursuit of a nuclear weapon and continued efforts to sew
    instability and chaos across the region will continue to
    frustrate our efforts and pose real challenges, threats against
    our interests. Resolving the Palestinian situation remains
    essential for many in the region. This important issue will
    continue to resonate strongly in and out of the area.
        And, of course, geopolitics will play a role as well. Our
    efforts and those of our allies to support Ukraine against
    unprovoked invasion by Russia, as well as China's posturing
    against Taiwan, will have impacts in the region that will
    challenge our goals and objectives.
        The United States has a critical role in overcoming these
    and other obstacles. We must be willing to lead and use our
    inherent attributes to bring parties together to expand and
    truly operationalize the Accords in a way that allows for real
    change and progress. We can do this by being a good convener,
    bringing others together and helping work through the issues
    with candid communications and trustful dialog. And we must do
    this by recognizing the importance of acting now to strengthen
    and solidify emerging alignments and seize near-term
    opportunities.
        Once again, thank you for the opportunity to speak with the
    subcommittee today. I look forward to joining my panel
    colleagues in answering your questions and bringing more
    attention and understanding to what I believe is one of the
    most significant opportunities to promote stability in this
    region, a region where we have made extraordinary sacrifices
    and expended significant national treasure and where we have
    and will continue to have enduring interests that are important
    to our security and prosperity.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Votel follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, General Votel.
        And now we are very grateful to have Ambassador Daniel
    Shapiro for your opening statement.

      STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DANIEL B. SHAPIRO, DISTINGUISHED
                        FELLOW, ATLANTIC COUNCIL

        Mr. Shapiro. Mr. Chairman, Representative Manning, thank
    you and my thanks to Ranking Member Phillips for the
    opportunity to testify before the subcommittee on expanding the
    Abraham Accords. Like my colleagues on the panel, Rob Greenway,
    who was involved in negotiating the Accords, and General Votel,
    who has done so much for regional security, it is a subject I
    am passionate about.
        I direct the N7 Initiative, a partnership between the
    Atlantic Council and the Jeffrey M. Talpins Foundation, that
    convenes conferences of Israeli and Arab experts to generate
    multilateral policy and program ideas to bring the benefits of
    normalized relations to the citizens of those countries.
        The past year has seen a great deal of progress in building
    on the Abraham Accords. Thanks in no small part to the
    commitment of the Biden Administration. I will not detail them
    all, but the Negev Summit, the Negev Forum, opening of air
    space, free trade, and expanded trade between the parties,
    cyber security cooperation are all ongoing examples.
        And a number of challenges remain as well. The Negev Forum
    is a consensus organization. A consensus is sometimes hard to
    achieve. Jordan has not yet joined the group. There appears to
    be low and by some polling results declining public support for
    normalized relations with Israel, even in the UAE and Bahrain,
    and spiking Israeli-Palestinian tensions may weaken the
    popularity of the Abraham Accords.
        But none of those challenges diminish the progress that has
    been made. And with the remainder of my time, I will outline a
    number of steps the United States should pursue to expand that
    progress that has been made to date.
        First, our strategy should be to combine U.S.-led security
    coordination with regionally led, U.S.-supported integration in
    civilian fields. When it comes to building an integrated
    regional security architecture, there is no substitute for the
    United States, as the convener, sponsor, and enabler. Our
    unique capabilities, our enduring presence in the region, and
    the way each U.S. partner looks to us to shape the security
    environment and coordinate responses to key threats makes the
    U.S. role essential.
        The Biden Administration and CENTCOM leadership have
    embraced this responsibility, sponsoring joint exercises that
    improve interoperability, facilitating high-level strategic
    discussions on addressing the full range of threats posed by
    Iran and its proxies, and initiating the gradual process of
    integrating air defenses across these U.S. partners. It is not
    likely to become a Middle East NATO. But it does not need to be
    NATO to be meaningfully beneficial for the security of all who
    participate. But what it does need like NATO is the energetic
    leadership of the United States.
        Alongside the U.S.-led security architecture, we should
    support a regionally led web of non-defense integration. In
    parallel with the Negev Forum, there must be room for the
    emergence of a truly regional organization, like the European
    Union or ASEAN, that weaves together multilateral cooperation
    at every level, in every area of governance, collaboration and
    integration of resources and capabilities, a regional free
    trade zone, and reinforcing linkages between private sectors,
    universities, professional organizations, religious
    communities, and other elements of civil society.
        Let's call this hypothetical organization AMENA, A-M-E-N-A,
    the Association of the Middle East and North Africa. AMENA has
    the advantage that it means trustworthy or reliable in both
    Hebrew and Arabic. And it will signal with trilingual clarity
    that it represents a community of trust, reliability, common
    interests, and the common benefits of security and prosperity.
    And as the participating countries benefit from this
    association and as they forge a common regional identity, it
    will create incentives for other States to join, just as the EU
    and ASEAN expanded well beyond their original membership in
    their respective regions.
        Second, we should draw on all resources and expertise of
    the U.S. Government and beyond to advance the U.S. interest in
    deep regional integration. At the Negev Summit working group
    meetings in January, over 40 U.S. Government personnel from
    some 9 government agencies took part. That is an excellent
    showing and something to build on.
        While the State Department, Defense Department, military,
    U.S. military, USAID under the guidance of the National
    Security Council will always have the lead, nearly every
    cabinet department and Federal agency has an international
    affairs department, and most have resources and programs
    available to promote international cooperation that serves U.S.
    interests. The House and Senate Abraham Accords Caucuses are
    critical partners in this effort, able to use their diverse
    expertise and committees of jurisdiction to motivate and fund
    the work of the cabinet departments they oversee.
        In this context, I want to take note of H.R. 1268, a
    thoughtful bill introduced by Representatives Torres and
    Lawler, to create a special envoy for the Abraham Accords. If
    Congress creates such a position, one of that official's most
    important duties might indeed be to serve as the traffic cop
    for an expansive and diverse set of U.S. Government and non-
    government programs that support integration in various fields.
        Third, we must give special focus and priority to achieving
    Israeli-Saudi normalization, while recognizing that it will
    take time and may advance in phases. Clearly such an agreement
    would have many transformational effects, given Saudi Arabia's
    centrality and influence as a leading nation in the Arab and
    Islamic worlds. In some respects, we see it happening
    gradually. But I would caution against the narrative that Saudi
    Arabia is ready to normalize relations with Israel tomorrow as
    long as the United States provides the right quantities of
    weapons, security guarantees, or civil nuclear technology.
        Saudi-Israeli normalization is certainly in the United
    States' interests. And we should be prepared to contribute as
    the United States has done in nearly all previous Arab-Israeli
    agreements. But it cannot be divorced from the U.S.-Saudi
    relationship, nor from other U.S. interests that we must
    protect.
        If, in fact, the United States would be expected to provide
    a range of benefits to Saudi Arabia at the time normalization
    occurs, there will also be things the United States needs from
    the Saudis, such as their commitment to stable oil markets and
    not to act in ways that run counter to core U.S. interests
    regarding Russia and China.
        A Saudi-Israeli deal is also unlikely to require nothing of
    Israel, especially in periods of heightened tensions with the
    Palestinians. And the U.S.-Israel dynamic will also be
    complicated. Israel may seek additional security assistance,
    which the United States has always provided, and the United
    States may seek from Israel steps to keep the two-State
    solution alive. Such an agreement would be a carefully balanced
    triangle. And it is worth pursuing with significant diplomatic
    resources. But it is far from automatic.
        Finally, I will just endorse Congresswoman Manning's point
    that it is imperative and there is an opportunity to draw
    positive energy from the Abraham Accords into the deeply
    deteriorating Israeli-Palestinian arena. In short, no other
    regional development holds better prospects of breaking down
    Palestinian resistance to normalization with Israel or Israeli
    resistance to including Palestinians in the promise of a better
    region.
        And Arab States as partners to both are uniquely positioned
    to positively influence the decisions and actions of both sides
    in ways that can improve conditions on the ground and keep a
    two-State solution alive for a future attempt to reach it
    through negotiations. The United States can play an important
    role in reinforcing these positive messages.
        I thank you again for the opportunity to testify. And I
    look forward to answering any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Shapiro follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Ambassador. And, indeed,
    each of you are so important for the American people to promote
    the developments and stability in the Middle East by your
    input.
        And additionally, again, one of the highlights in my
    service was to be present at the White House in September 2020
    when the president signed the agreements, the Abraham Accords.
    And it was just such a positive experience and a dream come
    true to see stability so beneficial to all the countries
    involved in the Middle East.
        And with that, President Greenway, stability and shared
    security interests in the historically volatile region is just
    one of the many ways the Abraham Accords has benefited our
    partners in the region and by extension the United States. The
    Abraham Accords' countries have made significant commitments in
    trade, tourism, energy, and infrastructure investments.
        With U.S. leadership, expansion of the Accords would mean
    our allies working together in the interests of their countries
    to the detriment of the predatory Chinese Communist Party and
    Putin presence in the region. The Chinese Communist Party and
    Putin engaged in debt trapping and expansionism disguised as
    diplomatic investment and posed a serious threat to the
    sovereignty and security of the countries that enter into the
    agreements.
        With that, President Greenway, what is your view of the
    strategic impact the United States and our allies under the
    Abraham Accords working together to facilitate investment and
    trade rather than the Chinese Communist Party and Putin?
        Mr. Greenway. Thank you, Chairman Wilson, an excellent
    question, perhaps among the most vital.
        As I alluded to in my opening remarks, there is an
    opportunity to take advantage of this constellation of U.S.
    aligned partners and allies. And it is, in fact, at the expense
    of inroads that China is actively building within the region.
    And so it is to a certain extent a binary question.
        I would also I think remind all of us that the benefit
    derived from the Middle East has always been principally
    economic, whereas the evolution of the Carter Doctrine in 1979
    made the region important because of the necessity of U.S.
    imports of oil and gas from the region. Now I would argue it is
    the criticality of those resources to support the global
    economy, not necessarily the United States. In either case, it
    is in our best interests to do so.
        Second, it is China's devoted interest to ensure they have
    adequate access to energy to sustain their economy and
    hypothetically would sustain any military excursion or
    operations. They are now dependent upon the Middle East for oil
    and gas. And that dependency creates a strategic imperative for
    them to maintain relationships. And so they have prioritized
    that. And most recently, President Xi managed to convene and
    hold quite an assemblage of regional heads of State in Riyadh
    during his recent visit.
        I would argue that if we do not prioritize our engagement
    we would cede natural partners and allies and a critical
    strategic objective of our own and allow the Chinese to benefit
    greatly from it. The inverse I think is also true in that we do
    require stability of the global energy markets. Our partners
    and allies are well situated to help us do that.
        Second, important to look at the region as a transit point
    for all goods and services moving between Europe and Asia and a
    good bit of it moving elsewhere. And that includes information
    and the global information network which also transits the
    region.
        And so it is critical I think for us to safeguard both and
    to build on the partners and allies of which many are Abraham
    Accords' member countries in order to safeguard our own
    interests, advance our own economic prosperity, and at the same
    time create constraints for China's advance in the region.
        It is an unnatural place for the Chinese to operate. We
    have been there for decades, generations to build, as General
    Votel referenced, the trust required to do business and to gain
    I think progress in the region. The Chinese do not have that
    advantage. And so I think it is our advantage certainly, and I
    think it is in our best interests to do so. The Chinese
    recognize it.
        Most importantly, our partners and allies in the region
    eagerly want the United States to play this role as we once
    had. And so I think they would welcome our efforts on their
    behalf to integrate the region more effectively. And it would
    serve our interests and theirs.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much. And, General Votel, in
    November 2021 the U.S. faithfully coordinated the first joint
    military exercise between Bahrain, UAE, and Israel in the Red
    Sea. And President Greenway is actually correct. The United
    States has had such an association, an affection for the people
    of the Persian Gulf, actually with the Kingdom of Bahrain,
    developing the first schools and hospitals there in 1895 and
    then in 1948, the location of the U.S. naval base, which was
    critical in the victory in the cold war by having such a
    presence in Bahrain.
        And then flash forward, in South Carolina tomorrow, even
    Congresswoman Manning will be surprised, we are celebrating the
    delivery of F-16 Block 70's to the Kingdom of Bahrain by
    Lockheed Martin in Greenville, South Carolina, not the other
    one. And so we are--and how important that is to see this
    relationship and how it can come together within the next 24
    hours.
        With that, what shared security concerns in the Red Sea,
    General, help drive the cooperation between Israel and, hey,
    our longtime and treasured ally of Saudi Arabia?
        Mr. Votel. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is an
    excellent question.
        And my response to you would be the proliferation of
    autonomous systems is a particular concern of our partners in
    the region. As many of you will recall, there was a very
    devastating attack on Abqaiq, you know, the Saudi Aramco
    facility here a number of months ago. And that was devastating
    to the economic prowess of this. And that attack continues to
    resonate, not just in Saudi Arabia, really across the region.
        So it is effectively addressing the proliferation of
    autonomous systems in the Gulf that is I think of primary
    concern, not just to the United States but certainly to our
    partners. And addressing this I think would be a good way to
    bring, to build trust in the relationship, while also
    effectively addressing what is a rapidly growing and changing
    threat to not just Saudi Arabia but others.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much. And I regret my time is
    up. But, Ambassador, I would love to get your input later in
    regard to expanding Abraham Accords.
        Now we proceed to Congresswoman Kathy Manning of North
    Carolina.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, indeed, both of
    our Greenvilles are lovely places.
        Thank you to our witnesses for your work and for sharing
    your expertise.
        General Votel, I want to thank you for sharing the
    impressions arising from your recent trip to the region. I am
    sure, as former Commander of CENTCOM, you have particular
    insights into the region and the changes taking place. And I
    appreciate your emphasis on the urgency of moving forward to
    build on these transformative Accords. I wonder if you could
    give us your thoughts about the most significant barriers to
    moving these Accords forward and expanding on the work that is
    already being done.
        Mr. Votel. Thank you. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        I think, as I mentioned in my comments, I think there is
    really three that stand out. And then there are several others.
        Certainly, Iran and our policy toward Iran or our approach
    toward Iran continues to be a topic that resonates with our
    partners in the region. They are looking for a clear
    articulation of what it is that we are trying to do with Iran
    and how we are going to bring them to a position where they are
    not a threat to their partners in the region. So I think Iran
    is a big one.
        I do think the Palestinian situation still does resonate in
    many of these countries, as you are well aware. This is a
    particular challenge in Saudi Arabia I believe because of their
    role as the custodian of the holy sites. And so this is more
    delicate for them. And as a result, it will take more time and
    more effort to work through that particular issue with the
    Saudis. And I think that that will be a big piece.
        I also think areas that, just in my most recent visit
    there, areas where we could move forward and which I think
    present some current obstacles right now, particular with Saudi
    Arabia, is in investments, particularly investments in
    renewable energies and some of the other technologies that they
    are attempting to develop under kind of their diversification
    plan here. They are looking for the U.S. and other Western
    partners to come in and invest in these areas. And I do not
    think that that has manifested itself in the way that they had
    hoped that it would at this particular time.
        So my point is that I think anything we can do to promote
    investments in the business community through our capital
    markets and other things I think is important to demonstrate
    resolve there.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you. So, with regard to Iran, is it fair
    to say that you think those countries are looking to us, to the
    U.S., for our long-term strategy on dealing with Iran?
        Mr. Votel. I think they are. I think they are looking for
    that. They are looking for the long-term strategy of how the
    United States continues to pursue its interests more broadly
    across the Middle East. And it is really important to do that.
    The narrative that many of them repeat back to me is they hear
    about our shift to the Pacific and our focus on China. But what
    they do not hear as well is what we are doing to continue to
    preserve the interests that we retain in this region.
        So, again, in this matter, articulation, clear articulation
    of our policies, of our approaches, of things we are going to
    do and things we probably will not do are really important for
    our partners in the region.
        Ms. Manning. And with regard to your second point about the
    Israeli-Palestinian issues, is there a way that you think we
    can use the positive energy of these Accords to encourage the
    Abraham Accord countries to have a positive impact on improving
    relationships between the Israelis and the Palestinians?
        Mr. Votel. Well, I absolutely believe that to be true. I
    think doing--progress in one area I think gives way to progress
    in other areas. And I think it is important for people in the
    region to see the definitive progress and improvements that are
    being made as a result of the Abraham Accord process and the
    arrangements that are in place, because they give indications
    of areas where we can do this, where we can make progress in
    other areas.
        I do not know that it can directly address that issue. But
    the important part of the Abraham Accords is the fact that it
    provides a platform for dialog. It provides a platform for
    interaction. It provides a way for these countries of the Gulf
    and Israel to have candid discussions and to move forward in
    critical areas that are of mutual interest.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you so much. I have about 12 more
    questions. But in fairness, I will yield back.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Kathy
    Manning.
        And, indeed, we are so fortunate with scheduling on the
    first person who came to the Middle East Subcommittee meeting
    for 2023 was Congressman Brian Mast. He was here first. And so,
    he gets all that credit, except for one thing, we are all
    balancing different meetings, so he had to go to another
    meeting, too. But he should be remembered as No. 1 to be here.
        And so, but then that shifts all the weight from Florida to
    Indiana, of all things, Congressman Jim Baird.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I would just say that most of my questions have been
    answered, one of which was the Palestinian-Israeli
    relationship. And I think you have discussed that.
        So, I will pass, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Wilson. Well, thank you very much, Congressman Baird.
        And we now proceed immediately to Congressman Brad Sherman
    of California.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you. As to an opening comment, I do not
    think any of us trust the Iranian regime, but I do think we
    have to negotiate with them just as Roosevelt negotiated with
    Stalin, and Nixon negotiated with Mao.
        We are embracing the Abrahamic Accords, but we should
    remember that as to real diplomatic relations it remains
    somewhat stalled, both as a result as regards Sudan and
    Morocco.
        It looks like the Saudis and Ambassador are pushing for
    U.S. cooperation with their supposedly peaceful nuclear
    program. As I have pointed out to some friends of Israel, just
    because the Saudis are not Shi'ites does not mean that they are
    Zionists.
        And I saw a close relationship the United States had with
    the Shah, and every weapon the Shah had was then in the hands
    of the ayatollahs. So, we do not want to see Saudi, we do not
    particularly want to see a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia.
        The UAE entered the gold standard level of assurance that
    they wouldn't be using their peaceful program for military
    purposes. The Saudis seem very reluctant to do that. And, of
    course, bin Salman has, you know, hinted, well, if the Iranians
    have a nuclear weapon then we ought to have a nuclear weapon.
        Does Saudi Arabia want cooperation with a peaceful program
    with all the safeguards, or do they just want to be able to
    respond to the Iranian nuclear weapons program?
        Mr. Shapiro. Thank you, Congressman. I think the Saudis,
    obviously, have made clear in every forum that they view Iran
    as their most significant threat. It is not only the nuclear
    program of Iran; it is also the proxies in Yemen and elsewhere
    who have attacked Saudi Arabia. General Votel mentioned the
    attack on Abqaiq. And so, they are rightfully concerned, and
    rightfully seek the kind of assurances from the United States,
    as their key security partner, that would help themselves.
        Mr. Sherman. Why are they reluctant to sign the safeguards
    their close neighbor has signed?
        Mr. Shapiro. First of all, there is some rivalry between
    Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. I think that is
    actually increasing over time. And it may--there may be a
    factor of what the UAE wants, the Saudis want, and plus a
    little bit more.
        But it is also, I think, what one would expect almost at
    the beginning of any negotiation. The gold standard 123
    Agreement achieved with the United Arab Emirates took many
    years to negotiate. And so, if the Saudis are serious about
    wanting U.S. civil nuclear technology cooperation as a part of
    a settlement, they would need to come to a serious negotiation
    about that.
        Mr. Sherman. I would just say that diplomatic relations and
    niceties can be reversed, governments can be overthrown, but
    nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology stays where it
    is. And, thank God, while we did a lot to the military of the
    Shah, none of it was in the nuclear area.
        The Ambassador of the UAE has Stated the truth of the
    Abraham Accords was about preventing annexation. The reason it
    happened, the way it happened, at the time it happened was all
    to prevent annexation. To what extent does some of the comments
    made more recently by the Netanyahu regime--government about
    annexing parts of the West Bank conflict with either the letter
    or the spirit of the Abrahamic Accords?
        Mr. Shapiro. Well, it is true that at the time that the
    Abraham Accords were signed the Emirates did make clear that
    they expected the what was then being discussed as Israel,
    which was a partial annexation of the West Bank, to be shelved.
    And there was such a commitment by Israel.
        So, to have some Israeli, members of the Israeli Government
    speak about de facto annexation, or to take actions that might
    be consistent with de facto annexation, even if it is called
    something else, obviously raises question about whether that is
    upheld.
        But I think more concerning is whether, of course, it also
    could mean the death of any possibility of the two-State
    solution. But how that development would influence and impact
    the possibility of future expansion of the Abraham Accords.
        The Saudis may not prioritize the Palestinian issue as
    their No. 1 priority in this, nor may other Arab States looking
    at this and, yet, the polling we have seen about the relatively
    low popularity of the Accords suggest the Palestinian issue is
    at least part of the reason for that.
        And if we see two-States receding over the cliff and
    annexation pushing it there, I think that will make it harder
    to achieve the goal we are all here to discuss.
        Mr. Sherman. And, finally, I will just point out that in
    addition to the Abrahamic Accords, the Biden Administration's
    brokerage of an agreement with Lebanon on maritime and
    exploitation of the natural gas resources, and their
    negotiation with regard to Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and Israel
    over the islets of the Gulf, mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba, they
    may not be Abrahamic but they are important.
        Thanks.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congressman Sherman.
        And I am happy you brought up about the Biden
    Administration's success for the drilling in the Mediterranean,
    how important that is going to be for the economy of Lebanon,
    how beneficial it is for Israel, and to show how things
    connect. And that is that he did not brag about it enough.
        The oil that is achieved by Israel is sent to Egypt, of all
    things, to be refined, to be sent to Italy to reduce any
    dependency on Putin. And so that was a tremendous achievement
    of offshore drilling in the Mediterranean.
        With that in mind, indeed, the very first person to be here
    for the very first Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia
    Subcommittee is here, Congressman Brian Mast.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate it.
        I want to start with just giving my own personal analysis
    on the last comments that you made about two-State. You
    mentioned it briefly, so I am just going to mention my opinions
    on it.
        I think two-State should be left dead. In my opinion it
    makes no sense to me that the United States of America work to
    make a State out of an entity that would have to immediately be
    labeled as a terrorist State, and a State that we would
    immediately in Congress begin coming up with sanctions for.
        So, personally, that is my analysis of the situation.
        My question goes to you, General, and it is about what was
    spoken about, the communication that is taking place, and the
    diplomacy that is taking place, and stability that can take
    place between different entities. But I want to ask if the
    Abraham Accords are leading to communication in another place?
        We have the Abraham Accords taking place. We have a de
    facto separation between Gaza and the West Bank for two
    decades, let's say. It is well-assumed by many that if there
    were to be a real election held, that Hamas would win a popular
    election across those, those two de facto areas.
        Are the Abraham Accords resulting in an increased
    communication between Gaza and the West Bank to one way or
    another change that relationship from de facto separation to
    officially separated, or somehow united under the PA, or united
    under Hamas, or in some other ways has it resulted in that over
    there?
        Mr. Votel. Congressman, to be very truthful, I am not sure
    I can make a conclusion one way or the other on that. Some of
    the other panelists may be in a better position to comment on
    that.
        I think, tangentially, it could have some influence,
    frankly, in terms of, in terms of, you know, uniting some folks
    in those, in those particular areas around, around certain
    issues. So, I think there may be some tangential issues. But in
    terms of something more substantive and influencing, I am not
    sure. I haven't seen that. And I may not be the best person to
    conclude that.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you, General. And I do not know that we
    would necessarily see it, or that it would be evident to us.
    But I would certainly welcome the opinions from both of you as
    well about if you are seeing that. That is something I am just
    particularly curious about because I think it is whatever,
    wherever people stand on wanting to see two-State or not two-
    State, or however they see peace, long lasting peace and
    stability in that region taking place, that is something that
    has to be addressed is that separation of those two entities.
    And I do not see it being looked at a lot, so I would be
    curious to know you all's analysis as well.
        Mr. Greenway. Thanks, Congressman.
        I would say that the direct answer to your question is I do
    not think that is the case now.
        I think the perspective of the Accords members before and
    after the agreement was that they could better contribute to
    setting conditions for an eventual brokered settlement,
    whatever that might be, by being a member of the Accords and
    having normalized diplomatic relations with Israel. And they
    point to both Egypt and Jordan as examples of this, where their
    influence over Israel, positive and negative, would contribute
    to an ultimate resolution, one that they would frankly admit is
    not currently within sight.
        And I think there is merit to that argument.
        Second is I think there is a material way for them to
    contribute to the conversation and to set conditions. And I
    think that that has probably not been exploited to the degree
    to which it could. And one of the ways which I mentioned up
    front in my opening remarks, and one of the ways we established
    early on with the Accords was a fund to allow Accord member
    countries to contribute to infrastructure investment within the
    territories. That was both acceptable to Israel and to the
    Palestinians, and to the benefit of both.
        And I think there is ample opportunity for that to continue
    to occur while we are waiting for the resolution of a more
    difficult political question.
        Mr. Mast. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Shapiro. Congressman, I think the attitude of the
    Palestinian Authority to the Abraham Accords was very
    disappointing. They, of course, have called it a betrayal and
    essentially boycotted it. Of course, Hamas, Gaza's terrorist
    organization that rejects Israel's existence, are obviously not
    going to be a party.
        I do think there are different views among the Palestinian
    people, the younger generation, businesspeople, people who are
    open to the idea, that Palestinians could benefit and
    contribute if they were participating in these dialogs.
        What I hope is that we will see--we try to do this in our
    programs--but I think the Arab States that have normalized with
    Israel--the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, in particular are well
    positioned to be convenors in forums where both Israelis and
    Palestinians participate, look for ways to cooperate, develop
    some personal relationships, lower suspicion.
        That may not get us to the resolution that I would like to
    see, the two-State solution, or any resolution of the conflict,
    but it would certainly lower the barriers to an eventual
    resumption of negotiations and some kind of resolution by
    developing this.
        I think these Arab States have more influence in that arena
    than they may realize they do, and that we should encourage
    them to use it.
        Mr. Mast. I appreciate you all taking the time to testify
    today. And I yield no time back because I have no time left.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congressman Brian Mast.
    And we now proceed to former chairman David Cicilline.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I congratulate you
    on your first hearing as chair, chairman of this important
    committee. And thank the witnesses for being with us today and
    for your testimony.
        I think we all recognize that the Abraham Accords is really
    an important and historic breakthrough on building and
    maintaining peace in the Middle East through new and extended
    regional cooperation. And as we acknowledge the successes of
    these agreements I am optimistic about the opportunity that
    lies ahead to build on these historic achievements.
        Additional engagement and partnerships will allow for
    cooperation on key issues, which you have discussed. And I, you
    know, of course am looking forward to ways in which Congress
    can help support efforts to deepen and broaden the Abraham
    Accords in a better future for all in the region.
        As you mentioned, Ambassador Shapiro, one of the main
    impedimenta to expanding the Abraham Accords has been the
    Israeli-Palestinian issue. And Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and
    Oman have all indicated, to various extents, their interest in
    stabilizing relations with Israel, but not without significant
    steps toward peace.
        And so what I am wondering is if you have recommendations
    on the kinds of things that we might be suggesting to our State
    Department in these conversations that would provide some
    engagement to Palestinians, some benefits so they would see the
    Abraham Accords is not only bringing more peace and stability
    to the region but actual benefits to them?
        Mr. Shapiro. Sure. Thank you, Congressman.
        The kinds of projects that have already been announced, for
    example the Prosperity Green and Prosperity Blue solar energy
    for desalinated water exchange between Jordan and Israel,
    financed by the United Arab Emirates, is a very good example of
    a project that could have and should, I think, include the
    Palestinians. They are, obviously, in the same geographic area.
    They have similar needs for energy and water. They could be a
    contributor but also a beneficiary of that and ten other joint
    projects like it.
        I discussed the idea that the UAE can be a convenor of the
    kinds of exchanges where Israelis and Palestinians outside
    their own immediate environment can actually meet with their
    mutual Arab partners to do business deals, to do development
    projects, do education initiatives. And just by doing that, it
    shows that there is something to be gained by Palestinians by
    contributing.
        It is not going to answer all of their immediate needs. It
    is not going to start a negotiation tomorrow. And, certainly,
    the lack of trust, almost total lack of trust between Israeli
    and Palestinian leaders is a big barrier. We are not going to
    overcome that tomorrow.
        But I do think those parties, with U.S. sponsorship and
    organization, can draw Palestinians into these dialogs with
    Israelis and with their other Arab partners and change that
    dynamic rather than dramatically.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
        And, you know, I think we all recognize this past year has
    been one of the deadliest periods of violence in the West Bank
    in nearly two decades. And I am wondering whether you, General,
    or you Mr. or President Greenway, have thoughts on whether or
    not the parties to the Abraham Accords have been helpful and
    can they be helpful in terms of assisting and responding to
    some of the violence and brokering some kinds of agreements
    because of their new positions as members of the Abraham
    Accords?
        Has that proved useful or has that not really spilled over
    into some of these issues with respect to settlement expansion?
        Mr. Shapiro. OK. You know, the UAE is struggling with this.
    They are a member of the U.N. Security Council. They have
    several times in the last 2 or 3 months brought complaints on
    behalf of other Arab countries to the U.N. Security Council
    about statements or actions by Israel in the West Bank.
        I do not think they have been as consistently critical as I
    think they should be of Palestinian terrorist attacks that take
    the lives of Israelis or, indeed, of Palestinian Authority
    salaries paid to terrorists.
        But, again, it is a demonstration that they are, they are
    positioned to play a role as both a supporter of both. They are
    now friends with Israel, and nobody would want them to withhold
    any of that, but also friends and partners to the Palestinians.
    They can be supporters. They can be coaches. They can put some
    positive pressure on each side to avoid the things that make it
    harder, or keep the situation on the ground very tense, or make
    it harder to resume negotiations.
        I would like to see them step more into that role.
    Obviously, that should be done in coordination with the United
    States.
        Mr. Votel. Congressman, I completely agree with the
    Ambassador. I think that, I think the key point here is that
    the maturing of the Abraham Accords relationships will really
    give the opportunity for trustful communication between the
    partners in the arrangement. That does take time, frankly. I
    think we are seeing some of that. People are treading lightly,
    but over time continuing investments I think does provide a
    good platform of addressing really sensitive issues like, like
    you raised.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you so much.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman Cicilline.
        We now proceed to Congressman Rich McCormick of Georgia.
        Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to make
    this quick because each one of you brings such a wealth of
    knowledge, I am really excited about this.
        I am going to start with the general, if you do not mind.
        I2U2, are you familiar with I2U2?
        Mr. Votel. I am not sure that I am.
        Mr. McCormick. With India, Israel, United States, and UAE,
    the partnership they have, sharing information, sharing
    economy, and just kind of thinking outside the box with what we
    have with the Abraham, and thinking outside even the regional
    benefit of the Abraham.
        As we tie in other places you have a big country like
    Indonesia, which is primarily Muslim, and who also has a
    potential to come in and be a part of this greater peace
    process. What do you think about expanding this outside of the
    direct region?
        Mr. Votel. I think it is extraordinarily important, in my
    view. Again, I think the benefit of these types of accords,
    these types of arrangements, is they promote dialog and they
    promote communication between partners. And I think whenever
    you are doing that you are reducing risk for things happening.
    So, I am very, very supportive.
        I understand Indonesia is one of the countries that has
    been most engaged to date in some of the expansion. So, I think
    that is a, I think that is a positive, positive thing.
        That said, the priority needs to remain in the Middle East.
        Mr. McCormick. Absolutely.
        Mr. Votel. That is where the original problem really
    exists.
        Mr. McCormick. Perfect. And I agree with you, power in
    numbers, especially with such a large population of the Muslim
    community coming on board in that peace process.
        Honorable Mr. Greenway--by the way, thank you for both of
    your services, too, by the way, as fellow military brothers in
    arms. When we talk about the second largest Shi'a population in
    the world, next to Iran, being in Azerbaijan, and having Russia
    distracted with a war where they have basically withdrawn from
    the Armenian region, provides a real needed opportunity, I
    think, to kind of go in there and establish this presence. What
    are the holdups, or what are the pros and cons do you think to
    including Azerbaijan? And how can we get them pulled in quickly
    while Russia is distracted?
        Mr. Greenway. Thank you, Congressman. Excellent question.
    And your preceding one was I think as well.
        I think that, well, first, Azerbaijan already has a strong
    relationship with Israel. And so membership in the Accords
    would be more formal and symbolic than substantive because of
    the relationship they already enjoy.
        To your broader point on whether there is room for us to
    pull Azerbaijan out of the other Central Asian States more
    closely within the fold, at the expense of Russia and China,
    which I think would be their strong preference, I think there
    is in fact an opportunity for us to do exactly that. And I
    think the time is certainly right for it.
        And we would, I think, increase our flexibility, and also
    economic prosperity for ourselves, and also for the region. The
    benefit of looking outside the Middle East, particularly, the
    Middle East, North Africa, to Asia and to the Central Asian
    States is the economic benefit that ties them together,
    increases the bond, the bond that endures.
        So, I think any effort we can make along those lines would
    be beneficial.
        Mr. McCormick. That's perfect. And I always stress that
    economic tie, which kind of goes to I2U2, and with the other,
    especially you mentioned Azerbaijan's strong economic ties to
    Israel, especially with energy, so that is what I am looking
    for.
        Ambassador, I am going to shift back to more local
    concerns. You mentioned in your opening remarks the
    deteriorating relationship between Israel and Palestine. I have
    been in the military for over 30 years, or around the military
    for over 30 years, it always seemed bad to me. I do not see how
    we can deteriorate from bad to bad. I am just curious what you
    mean by that.
        I mean, it always seems like we kind of vacillate but we
    never really get good. So, I do not understand what you mean by
    deteriorating. What specifically do you mean?
        I mean, is there a path forward? It seems like there is a
    vested interest since a certain guy came along to divide us,
    people actually make a profit off of dividing us. And I do not
    know how we overcome that other than to tie them in somehow
    economically. At one time it seemed like they were kind of blue
    color workers, they had a pretty good relationship, pretty
    economically sound model for those particular, that particular
    demographic to succeed. And now that has kind of gone by the
    wayside.
        Mr. Shapiro. Congressman, it is obviously a situation that
    does go through ups and downs and various cycles. I do not
    think anyone would dispute that the recent months has seen a
    spike in violence and number of terrorist, deadly terrorist
    attacks by Palestinian terrorists against Israeli citizens. A
    number of operations the Israeli military has undertaken to go
    after those who are responsible for those attacks. And
    sometimes civilians are wounded in those or killed in those
    operations.
        Mr. McCormick. I get your point.
        I am sorry, I am almost out of time.
        Just what do you think, if we, once again I think Iran is,
    if you take away the big brother, the person who is kind of
    supplying the motivation, the arms behind it, is there a way to
    divide them from that and cutoff that supply that would benefit
    this process?
        Mr. Shapiro. I think the best opportunity, and I am not
    saying anybody can promise that this is a guarantee of success,
    but to get Palestinians who have been drawn toward violent
    extremism, drawn toward the sponsors who are the providers of
    that kind of weaponry--and I do not mean Hamas, who are
    ideologically committed to Israel's destruction--I mean other
    Palestinians who have in the past at least considered what
    would it look like to live alongside Israel in the two-State
    solution, would be to, first of all, show some improved
    conditions on the ground via economic and security upgrades
    and, second of all, to show that there is a horizon, a path, a
    diplomatic pathway that could get back to that outcome if they
    are willing and, obviously, if Israel is also willing to engage
    in that diplomatic process.
        As long as it looks absolutely hopeless from the
    Palestinian perspective that there will ever be any end, then I
    suspect it will be harder for us to steer more Palestinians
    away from that path as we absolutely should be trying to do.
        Mr. McCormick. Apologize for going over time.
        Mr. Wilson. And thank you very much, Congressman Rich
    Burchett. We now proceed to Congressman--Excuse me, to Rich
    McCormick.
        We now have Congressman Tim Burchett of Tennessee.
        Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ambassador Shapiro, you know, we are quick to be critical
    of anti-Semitism overseas. And we should; we have got it here.
    But, of course, overseas it has been thousands of years before
    we were even a country. I am wondering what can the Abraham
    Accords do to help put a stop to some of it?
        Mr. Shapiro. Thank you, Congressman. It is an excellent
    question, and something I am quite excited about.
        In December, our N7 Initiative hosted a conference in
    Morocco on education and coexistence. And we brought together
    from eight countries, Israel and seven Arab countries,
    educators of NGO's involved in coexistence, interfaith work,
    including a number of Arab activists in Morocco, and in the
    UAE, and in Bahrain who are working to educate their own
    populations against anti-Semitic narratives that have been
    present in their societies or their education systems for far
    too long, for understanding the common roots of Judaism and
    Islam, and the times during history when Jews and Muslims have
    lived peacefully alongside each other.
        There is a lot of pride in that, particularly in Morocco
    where the Jewish community has been a major part of Moroccan
    society of centuries.
        And so, I think there are initiatives underway. There is
    Holocaust education now being brought into their school
    systems, at least the UAE and Morocco, for the first time. So
    there is significant progress. And all of this is made possible
    by the dialogs and the cross-pollination discussions that were
    only really started after the Abraham Accords came into being.
        Mr. Burchett. Would you say that leadership sometimes I
    find that they want to stay in power? And that seems to be the
    key. And as long as Jews, and Muslims, and Christians are all
    fighting it keeps the same old bunch of dirtbags in power? And
    would you say that is a safe assumption?
        Mr. Shapiro. I think there are many examples of that
    dynamic throughout history.
        Mr. Burchett. ``Dirtbags'' is probably not in you
    diplomatic dossier, but it is in mine, so.
        Mr. Shapiro. I think, Congressman, you can find many
    examples of that dynamic throughout history.
        Mr. Burchett. All right. I will take that as a yes.
        Mr. Greenway, Saudi Arabia's interest to engage publicly
    with Israel affects other countries. And I would be interested
    in do you feel like they are interested in normalizing those
    relations?
        Mr. Greenway. Thanks for the question, Congressman.
        We had a number of conversations with our Saudi partners
    while we were negotiating the Abraham Accords, before and
    since. I would say, first, that public discussions about
    negotiations tend to increase negotiating leverage of one or
    more parties. Usually it become detrimental.
        It is why the Accords themselves were never disclosed or
    announced before they were concluded. So, I think any public
    discussion usually has a less-than-productive impact on it.
        My private and conversations, and what has been, I think,
    disclosed publicly generally comports with the conclusion that
    this is really about the Riyadh-Washington relationship and has
    very--has a lot less to do with the relationship with Israel.
    And on sound footing I think there is room to proceed.
        I think, ultimately, it is in our interests, the United
    States' best interests. I think it is certainly within Israel's
    best interests. I think it is also within the Kingdom's best
    interests. But I do think that we would have to repair the
    relationship and build on a sounder footing in order to
    proceed.
        Ultimately, I do think it is about integrating our partners
    and allies in the region, which I think they desperately want.
    And I do think that there is certainly room to address
    legitimate security concerns.
        And the previous comments about the Saudi discussion and
    potential requirement to pursue civil deeper cooperation, I
    think the general point there is they do not want to see a
    standard upheld by the United States that is one way for Tehran
    and another way for partners and allies in the region. And I
    think they would be comfortable with the gold standard 123
    Agreement that saw the construction of Barakah and the UAE
    ultimately, provided that the United States did not enable a
    wholesale civil and military nuclear program in Tehran.
        Mr. Burchett. Do you think there is any additional measures
    that need to be taken to support peace besides those that you
    mentioned?
        Mr. Greenway. Well, I think there certainly are. And,
    again, I think providing for our security and stability in the
    region, and our partners' and allies', would demonstrate
    exactly that level of commitment.
        I think the right approach on Tehran, as the shared-upon
    and the agreed-upon principal threat to peace and stability in
    the region, would go a long way toward doing that. So, I think
    if we make movement in that direction, I think we will find
    partners moving with us.
        Mr. Burchett. What do you think America sees by expanding
    these Accords, what benefits? Quickly.
        Mr. Greenway. The first is to constrain China's ambitions
    globally.
        The second is to secure global markets upon which we are
    dependent and the principal beneficiary.
        And the third would be to see stability in the region that
    all too often has required a huge expenditure for the United
    States to redress.
        Mr. Burchett. Those are three good things.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remaining 8 seconds.
        Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Congressman Tim Burchett. And we
    appreciate your very accurate terminology, whatever you use.
    So, this is correct.
        With this, we are very fortunate to have Congressman
    Michael Lawler from New York.
        Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all
    of you for testifying today.
        Ambassador Shapiro, you made note in your remarks of the
    legislation that Congressman Torres and I have introduced to
    create a special envoy specifically for the Abraham Accords.
    Why do you believe that would be an effective tool, if you
    will, to help ensure the stability and long-term success of the
    Abraham Accords?
        Mr. Shapiro. Thank you, Congressman.
        I think when Administrations elevate their focus on
    particular areas and appointments of that nature, special
    envoy, they can have other titles, can help do that, it
    demonstrates a very significant commitment that gets the
    attention of our foreign partners, obviously those in the
    region, those who have already made their decision to normalize
    with Israel, and the additional steps that we seek to have them
    deepen those conversations. Those States that have not yet
    normalized relations, and there is a focal point for
    discussions with those countries. And even for external
    partners.
        Mr. McCormick mentioned the I2U2 Initiative that India has
    constructively contributed to, while we have a lot of other
    U.S. partners in Europe, in Asia, that also could be
    contributors. But somebody needs to sort of corral that.
    Somebody needs to organize that. Somebody needs to be the focal
    point.
        And then within our own Government, I mentioned it is not
    just the State Department, it is not just the Defense
    Department that has to do this. There are numerous other
    cabinet departments that have something to contribute.
        But, again, having a focal point for organizing all of that
    effort, and even the effort of external non-government entities
    that want to contribute, I think is made easier when you have
    that sort of focal point.
        Mr. Lawler. So, obviously in 2020 the Abraham Accords were
    entered into with the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco. They have
    somewhat, I do not want to say stalled, but obviously I think,
    you know, there was obviously a change in Administration here,
    and there are other, other events that have happened in the
    world, obviously the Russian invasion of Ukraine being one of
    them. It is your belief that whether it is a special envoy or
    some sort of heightened position, that would help maybe
    continue to push this forward toward success?
        I mean, we are seeing, you know, other countries allowing
    Israeli airlines to operate and come into their airspace which,
    certainly, I think is a positive step toward more normalized
    relations. But you agree that ultimately having this type of
    position, or something similar, would help advance the ball
    here?
        Mr. Shapiro. I do.
        I want to give full credit to the Biden Administration. I
    think they have invested in this. I think the Negev Summit and
    the resulting Negev Forum and the working groups that have met,
    as you've mentioned, the opening of airspace first in Saudi
    Arabia, now in Oman, that facilitates much shorter flights
    between Israel and the Far East, some of the other visits, and
    the I2U2, and some of the other engagements that the United
    States has helped sponsor, all result from good work, good
    diplomatic work.
        But, again, you can do even more when you have a high level
    focal point without our own Government and dealing with foreign
    governments.
        Mr. Lawler. What additional countries would you, and just
    if you could name them, just in the interests of time, but what
    additional countries would you like to see ideally enter into
    the Abraham Accords?
        Mr. Shapiro. Of course Saudi Arabia is the biggest prize
    but probably one of the most difficult. I think Oman,
    Mauritania, Qatar, and Kuwait are all possibilities. Next,
    outside of the region, Indonesia, Somalia, Niger, and Malaysia
    are also legitimate candidates.
        Mr. Lawler. OK. Last, and you are somewhat uniquely
    positioned on this, given both your role as former Ambassador
    to Israel, but also your work as a consultant with respect to
    Iran, how do you think the Administration's approach toward
    Iran, and their efforts as recently as last year to restart the
    Iran Nuclear Deal, impacts the Abraham Accords and the
    potential of other countries, like Saudi Arabia, to really
    engage with Israel?
        Mr. Shapiro. Well, you know, one thing Israel and a number
    of these Arab partners, those that have normalized this, have
    not agreed on is that they disagree with the United States.
    They disagreed at the time the JCPOA was signed, and they
    disagree with the Biden Administration's approach. But I think
    that--to try to reenter it.
        But I think that ship has largely sailed. I do not see an
    opportunity to go back into that deal. Things that were
    possible or necessary in order to do it I do not think are
    possible anymore in light of Iran's oppression of its own
    people, and the protests, and arming of Russia in the war in
    Ukraine. So, I think we are in a new phase.
        Mr. Lawler. Just so I am clear, is it your position that
    the United States should not try to restart?
        Mr. Shapiro. I do not think it is even an option at this
    point.
        Mr. Lawler. OK.
        Mr. Shapiro. I think we are in a new phase where
    deterrence, and that is something that the United States,
    Israel, and a lot of these Arab partners can agree on is going
    to be a central portion, a central component of a new Iran
    policy, obviously drawing certain lines about things that Iran
    might do, hopefully will not do, but if they would do would
    draw a response of one kind or another from one or a coalition
    of these partners.
        So, I think there is actually a new opportunity, mostly
    because of Iran's behavior and Iran's refusal to try to return
    to that agreement, and then do all of these other destabilizing
    things, to coalesce a more unified U.S. and regional policy to
    deal with Iran.
        Mr. Lawler. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the additional time.
        Mr. Wilson. And thank you very much, Congressman Michael
    Lawler.
        And, also, I am really grateful that we have the co-
    chairman of the Bulgaria Caucus here, Congressman Brad
    Schneider.
        Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
    personally thank you for allowing me to join the committee
    hearing this morning.
        I want to thank our witnesses first and foremost for your
    service to our Nation, all three of you in different ways. We
    are grateful to you as a country, and for your time here, and
    for your commitment to the Abraham Accords.
        I have the privilege of being one of the co-founders and
    co-chairs of the bipartisan, bicameral Abraham Accords Caucus.
    And I think that is a reflection of what we do, what you do in
    this fundamental belief that the Abraham Accords Caucus are one
    of the most bright things we see coming out of the Middle East.
    It is something that we, as a Nation, should be extraordinarily
    proud of, being the facilitator of this accords a couple of
    years ago, and something that we need to be completely
    committed to.
        As you have touched on, we need to make sure that we are
    deepening the roots of the Accords in the countries that have
    signed the Accords today, while at the same time I would argue
    working to help it branch out, branch out in two ways that you
    have touched on:
        One, bring more countries in. Saudi Arabia obviously would
    be very welcome. But, Ambassador Shapiro, as you touched on,
    reaching out to Europe, building relationships with Asia, and
    making sure that this becomes a centerpiece of diplomacy and
    opportunity.
        In that vein, I think one of the challenges we face is
    demonstrating the value of the Abraham Accords, first to the
    decisionmakers in the region and around but, also, critically,
    to the people living in these countries, that they see the
    benefits of the Accords, and to demonstrate U.S. commitment to
    the region, and through that commitment to the Accords.
        So, I will start with you, Ambassador Shapiro.
        How do we work to make sure that the people living in the
    region see the value of the Accords, and that they see the U.S.
    commitment to the region and to the Abraham Accords itself?
        Mr. Shapiro. Sure. Thank you, Congressman.
        The Negev Forum, obviously, is one effort to try to come up
    with projects and proposals that will go beyond the leadership
    level, but show benefit to the public in the different sectors,
    energy, health, water, and food, et cetera.
        The problem is the Negev Forum is a consensus organization
    and moves very slowly. It takes time for the ministers to meet
    again and ratify the work done at the working level. And so,
    there are a lot of proposals but very little has actually been
    implemented.
        Those things that have been implemented haven't been
    region-wide, they have been sort of between individual
    countries: the UAE-Israel Food Trade Agreement; I mentioned the
    Prosperity Green and Blue; Israel-Jordan-UAE Agreement.
        We are, as I said, at the Atlantic Council trying the N7
    Initiative to bring together a Track 2 or Track 1.5 component
    to run parallel to the Negev Forum so that a broader community
    of experts can build a network, develop ideas for projects that
    really are focused precisely on that. How does a citizen of one
    of these countries feel that they have a new educational
    opportunity, new better health care, better access to water and
    food security than they did before, and because of these
    agreements?
        So, there is a number of ways. It requires a lot of
    investment by expertise. It requires money, of course, some
    from governments, some from private or foundation or
    philanthropic entities. But that really needs to be the focus
    going forward.
        Mr. Schneider. General Votel, let me turn to you. And just
    to refresh, sir, we actually spoke about a year-and-a-half ago
    with a mutual friend Al Goldstein. So, it is good to see you
    here. But I would love to have your thoughts on this as well.
        Mr. Votel. Absolutely.
        So, just to build a little bit on that, I think one of the
    most important things that could take place is the promotion of
    people-to-people exchanges in contact between countries.
    Obviously, tourism provides an opportunity for this, but so
    does exchanges for education purposes, for business purposes,
    for health care, for technology exchanges. I think these are
    extraordinarily important. And people in each of the countries
    who are parties to the agreement will begin to see this. And
    so, I think this idea of promoting people-to-people exchanges.
        Certainly there is a series of exercises and other things
    that are taking place in the Gulf, and in the air over the
    Gulf, and in a variety of areas. A demonstration of, you know,
    an effective defense against the threat certainly will, I
    think, is something that needs to be emphasized in the region.
    And, again, people will begin to see that.
        Mr. Schneider. Thank you.
        And, Mr. Greenway, give you the last word.
        Mr. Greenway. I appreciate it, Congressman. Excellent
    question.
        I think we spend a lot of our time on implementation. There
    have been over 260 agreements between the Accord member
    countries. And we spend most of our time connecting ministries,
    departments, agencies, public and private institutions, to
    execute these:
        Academic exchanges, including scholars and fellows
    programs; athletic events which will encompass some of the
    first international Abraham Accords-based international
    athletic events this year; an agriculture initiative between
    the Accord member countries actually putting shovels in the
    ground in Sudan this year; expanding cross-border trade by
    expanding infrastructure; and, as you mentioned earlier,
    bringing external support to this.
        We have worked hard to build caucuses in the U.K., in
    France, in Germany, in Brussels, in Hungary just this past
    week, and soon we hope in other countries as well, and in Asia
    in order to leverage that support.
        So, implementation and follow-through on agreements that
    have already been achieved I think will go a long way toward
    cementing the ties, demonstrating the benefit to people, and
    encouraging others to join.
        Mr. Schneider. Great. Thank you.
        And let me just emphasize, I agree with everything you
    said.
        General Votel, you have talked about people-to-people. We
    have had the chance here with the caucus to meet with the
    Ambassadors of the Abraham Accords countries, Israel, UAE,
    Bahrain, Morocco. It is very important.
        And if I can, Mr. Chairman, we are working to try to get a
    trip to the Abraham Accords countries, and would love to try to
    work with you on that as well.
        And with that, I yield back.
        Mr. Wilson. And thank you, Chairman, co-chair of the
    Abraham Accords Caucus, for your--you have had so many
    chairmanships it is hard to keep them straight. But I just want
    to say that is terrific. In fact, you are doing so good we are
    going to have a second round. And when we have such
    distinguished individuals here. And so we would like to
    proceed, including Chairman Schneider.
        So, at this time, Ambassador Shapiro, the normalization of
    relations between Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan
    have been an historic accomplishment during the Trump
    Administration, benefiting all of the Abraham Accords countries
    and the United States. At this point, what roadblocks might be
    stopping more Arab countries from joining the Abraham Accords?
        And if you could review again the benefits that signatories
    have made since normalizing relations?
        Mr. Shapiro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The benefits, I think, are flowing on a regular basis.
    There are already people-to-people exchanges, as General Votel
    mentioned, although room for vast expansion of those. There are
    the beginnings of educational exchanges, Israeli students
    studying at Arab universities and vice versa. There is room to
    dramatically expand that as well.
        There is a free trade agreement between the UAE and Israel,
    and a dramatic increase in bilateral trade between them, and
    negotiations on an Israel-Bahrain agreement.
        And then, of course, there are the various things that
    those governments sought from the United States, again
    something that the United States has always done in Arab-
    Israeli peacemaking, which is make a contribution. The UAE
    sought a particular weapons system. It hasn't actually followed
    through on that, but that was part of that agreement.
        And Morocco got the recognition of Western Sahara.
        So, they of course seek something in their own interests in
    addition to what they get out of the relationship with Israel.
        I think other countries, of course, look at some of those
    negotiations and they look for the right moment. They look for
    the question of whether they, too, would be in a bargaining
    situation with the United States. I think we need to expect
    that with any country that comes forward.
        They also, I think, look for the moment when they would
    find this to be something they could most easily absorb in
    their own political systems. That is where the tensions between
    Israelis and Palestinians that have increased have also, I
    think, been a--have the potential to slow additional countries
    from coming into the fold.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
        And indeed, President Greenway, it has just been awesome to
    see the agreement between Lebanon and Israel. I just I cannot
    even visualize how important that is for the offshore drilling
    of oil and natural gas, environmentally sound. How important it
    is to back up a country that should be great, but it is not, as
    Lebanon. It has been great in terms of economic opportunity and
    achievement. But the economic stability that can be achieved by
    the sale of oil and gas.
        And then how extraordinary to put together the benefit to
    Israel and then the thought that this would tie directly to
    Egypt for the refining, and then tie to Italy for the export.
    And also to have an impact on war criminal Putin.
        And so, again, the offshore drilling I was hoping to get
    more attention what an achievement that is, because what you
    have Lebanon wins, Israel wins, Egypt wins, Italy wins, war
    criminal Putin loses.
        Are there any other initiatives that you see that--I think
    it would be hard to replicate that--but are there any other
    economic achievements that could be achieved between the
    countries of the Middle East?
        Mr. Greenway. Well, you bring up, I think, one of the most
    important areas, Chairman, and that is energy cooperation. And
    I think we haven't yet seen the full potential of this.
        And so, while cooperation between parties we have already
    mentioned, chiefly Israel and Egypt in this case, but others
    within the Mediterranean can, I think, offset and replace the
    loss of Russian gas. Some 43 percent of Europe's energy
    requirements were met previously by Russia. That loss has not
    been replaced.
        There isn't yet infrastructure plans in place to offset it
    completely. The United States, Norway, and others I think have
    taken steps, but there is not yet a mid-to long-term plan in
    place. This is where we judge the Abraham Accords countries,
    including Israel, Egypt, and other partners could, in fact,
    offset, if not replace the loss of Russian gas to Europe. And I
    think the U.S. can play a critical role in doing it.
        The plans previously existed but the business model to
    require the infrastructure investment did not until Russia
    invaded Ukraine. And at that point it then becomes perfectly
    reasonable. But it will take time, effort to do. It will be an
    enormous revenue generator for the participant countries. It
    will also, again, strategically align our partners to one
    another and not dependent upon an adversary.
        So, we cannot emphasize the enormous potential of this too
    much, but there is a lot of work to be done.
        Mr. Wilson. Well, it is just exciting to see the offshore
    drilling, the consequence. That could be expanded to pipelines
    to Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, to the Western Balkans, all to
    provide the energy independence for that region of Southeastern
    Europe.
        And so, I yield back.
        And now we have Congresswoman Kathy Manning.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you again to our witnesses for sharing your time
    and your expertise.
        So, there are two other countries in the immediate region
    that we have barely mentioned. And Mr. Chairman just mentioned
    Lebanon which, sadly, is on the verge of becoming a failed
    State. We haven't even talked about Syria, which is the source
    of countless problems in the region.
        So, I am wondering is there any way that the Abraham
    Accords countries working together could have any positive
    impact on either of those countries?
        I saw a smile on Ambassador Shapiro's face. I do not know
    if that meant you were hoping someone else would answer the
    question or you would like to take it on?
        Mr. Votel. Well, I think it is an excellent question,
    Congresswoman.
        I think the defense, security and defense cooperation
    between Israel and other countries in the region, particularly
    those that are involved in this, I think does increase the
    opportunity to emplace measures that can have an impact on
    Iran's ability to move their lethal resources closer to Israel.
        That is very indirect right now. But I think when we, when
    we look at some of the initiatives that are being undertaken
    right now by U.S. Central Command with a very excellent
    commander trying to, you know, create a series of sensors, and
    drones, and all backed by artificial intelligence, to really
    understand what is happening in the Gulf, that gives us the
    opportunity to better control the maritime movement of lethal,
    lethal aid.
        The same thing could apply to the air. These things, I
    think are, they are indirect at this point, but they could have
    the opportunity to have an impact on that.
        I think, you know, what is most important I think what I am
    trying to emphasize to you is that showing a united front and
    then demonstrating coherent approaches to security and defense
    in the region can have a--can address that situation and
    particularly with respect to some of the Iranian malign
    influence that plays out in Syria, and affects Israel, and
    others in the region as well.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you.
        So, let me ask this question: what can we be doing in
    Congress to support and foster the expansion of the Abraham
    Accords? You have talked about so many ways these Accords and
    the interaction of these countries is transformative and can be
    even more transformative for the region, what can we in
    Congress be doing to be supportive?
        And I would actually ask each of you to answer that.
    Ambassador Shapiro, would you mind starting?
        Mr. Shapiro. Sure. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        I think, first of all, the establishment of the Abraham
    Accords Caucuses in and of itself demonstrates that this is a
    cause that deserves bipartisan sustained investment and support
    rather than being the province of one party or one
    Administration. And I think that is very, very important.
        The visits that a number of members have already made, and
    Congressman Schneider referenced additional visits that will
    come, are an opportunity to go and talk directly to those
    leaders and people, and explain why it is that the United
    States sees its own interests and the interests of its partners
    served by doing this.
        And then as I also indicated, there are, there is more than
    just the negotiations that the State Department sponsors, more
    than just the security cooperation that the Defense Department
    and the military lead on. Almost every department of the U.S.
    Government has an international affairs program, has something
    to bring to it: things as diverse as USTR's expertise on trade
    negotiations; the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum's ability to
    bring curriculum on Holocaust education; the U.S., the Center
    for Disease Control's ability to share, provide information,
    and networks for sharing about future pandemics. These are just
    a few examples.
        But every Member of Congress sits on a committee and has
    oversight over, has jurisdiction over a department that could
    be encouraged, and maybe even more than encouraged and
    impounded to participate in this. And kind of this whole
    government approach I think would be the right way to think
    about how the Congress can make its biggest contribution.
        Ms. Manning. Wonderful. Mr. Schneider, you have your
    charge.
        And, Mr. Greenway, would you add to that?
        Mr. Greenway. Yes, Congresswoman, happy to.
        It already mentioned energy cooperation in the free trade
    area and, like Ambassador Shapiro, would allow the formation of
    a caucus in both House and Senate. I would say that we, the
    United States, allocates a fair amount of money toward Middle
    East peace more broadly, and has for many decades.
        And I would say no need to look at additional preparations,
    but perhaps ensuring those that currently exist could encompass
    the Abraham Accords. So, we spend a lot of money on supporting
    programs that nominally support peace between Israel and
    Palestine, and Israel and its neighbors, but we do not allocate
    resources toward it. So, perhaps looking at existing
    legislation, modifying it to encompass the Accords so that we
    could encourage and support the actual piece that is manifested
    in front of us
        Second is, I think, providing capabilities to our partners.
    It enables them, one, to defend themselves more appropriately,
    and reduces the burden on us. So, ultimately, I think we need
    to get to a point where we are more comfortable with
    accelerating the provision of capabilities to our partners. And
    it will send exactly the right message to them.
        But I would emphasize that trade, and energy, and the
    economic argument does provide for a strong rationale. If we
    want them to get along, they are going to have to trade with
    each other to the point where they will defend that trade
    relationship.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Manning.
        And I want to thank you for raising, indeed, there are so
    many countries that need to be addressed, and Lebanon, Syria.
    As we are thinking of the tremendous success, the Kingdom of
    Jordan. And then our hopes for the people of Iran, our
    appreciation of the women of Iran. And then West Balkans, when
    you think of countries that have come to life: Albania, North
    Macedonia. And then you go to Serbia, what a great opportunity
    for civility in a region that was unimaginable.
        And so, with that I want to proceed. And our last
    questioner will be, of course, someone extremely important
    because he is the Abraham Accords Co-Chairman Brad Schneider.
        Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, General Votel, let me go back to what you put in your
    opening remarks about the importance of U.S. leadership, and
    the question I asked earlier, the demonstration of U.S.
    commitment to the region. I can start with you, but I will ask
    the whole panel what should we be doing to demonstrate our
    commitment and leadership in the region?
        And I will give one leading aspect to it, the idea of
    coordinated defense, sharing of information, collaboration
    across systems.
        Mr. Greenway. Thank you, Congressman, or Mr. Chairman.
        These are areas in which we have extraordinary expertise
    within our military and across, across all services. And so, I
    know in helping our partners develop better shared awareness
    systems, you know, to share information among themselves as we
    have been able to do very effectively, I think is one of the
    ways that we can, we can help, help our partners become more
    resilient and more self-reliant in looking after their own
    defense.
        So, you know, sharing our lessons learned, sharing our
    practices, putting our leaders into a place where they can
    advocate for these types of approaches I think are really, are
    really important.
        I also think an area where we could provide some additional
    help is in the area of security cooperation. Candid discussions
    with our partners about the capabilities that they need and
    should be acquiring I think are extraordinarily important. And
    this, I think, has been a longtime challenge in the region. And
    so, this is an area where we can actually demonstrate some
    leadership.
        And then, finally, just the ability for us to bring people
    together, to be a convenor. We do not have to drive the whole
    conversation, but the fact of the matter is in the Middle East
    when the United States speaks it carries weight. And our
    leaders, like the CENTCOM commander, or our various
    Ambassadors, or others, really do have that level of
    credibility that they can bring people together to talk about,
    talk about the difficult challenges.
        So, this idea of a convenor I think is a really important
    way for us to demonstrate our leadership.
        Mr. Schneider. Great. Thank you.
        Mr. Greenway?
        Mr. Greenway. Thank you, Congressman.
        I would say first, it has come up before, that if we do
    not, I think, have some common agreement on how to approach the
    threat from Iran, it is going to be difficult to make progress
    across a number of other fronts, including security
    cooperation.
        We have talked about a number of issues today. But I cannot
    overemphasize the fact that this is the most pressing threat to
    all of them. What happens in the Israel-Palestine conflict
    matters to them, but not nearly to the point in which the
    immediate threat to their very survival coming from Tehran
    today is, and the desperate need for U.S. leadership in the
    response to that threat. That is a huge opportunity.
        And I agree with Ambassador Shapiro that it seems the ship
    has sailed. It is an opportunity, then, for us, I think, to
    stake a claim in partnership with our allies in the region. And
    that would allow us to convene from a position of strength,
    which I think they all and we want.
        Second, I would say our support for Israel is critically
    important during this time. The rest of the region watches us
    incredibly closely. They cannot be more pro-Israel than we are.
    That does not mean unequivocal or without conditions. It does
    mean if there is daylight between the capitals, there will be
    huge daylight between their capitals.
        Second, I would say that building support abroad, which we
    have talked about actually matters a great deal, and adds
    additional leverage and other partners in this expanding and
    supporting the Accords.
        And, last, I would say they always ask this question. We
    ask them to commit resources toward each other and toward the
    region. They ask us what have we committed to the Abraham
    Accords? And the answer to that question is we really haven't
    at all.
        And I think that there is room for us to do it. And I'm not
    saying that we need to find resources. I am saying we could
    look at existing resources and apply them more effectively to
    support the Accords. And that to date has not yet occurred.
        Mr. Schneider. OK, thank you.
        I will give you the last word, Ambassador Shapiro. Before I
    give it to you I do want to go back to a conversation earlier
    where you were asked about two States. And I do not think
    anyone is talking about a two-State solution on the horizon. It
    is not going to be a second State where it is a terrorist
    State. That is a non-starter.
        And as you said, Mr. Greenway, the greatest threat, the
    existential threat is a nuclear Iran. And I agree that the ship
    has sailed on past agreement. We need to make sure that Iran
    understands that we are looking forward and will never allow
    Iran to have a nuclear weapon. But we are also looking at a
    place where we are pursuing peace in the region.
        So Ambassador Shapiro, I give you the last word.
        Mr. Shapiro. Thank you, Congressman.
        I think the narrative that sometimes pervades in the region
    of a U.S. withdrawal, or a U.S. absence, or the U.S. pivoting
    to other regions is rather exaggerated. It is true, of course,
    that three consecutive presidents of very different characters
    and Administrations have all demonstrated different ways. The
    American people are not looking for new major military
    entanglements in the region, but we are still there. CENTCOM is
    still the main convenor and still the main partner for all
    these countries as we are now involved in it.
        I think President Biden made a very courageous decision and
    the right decision to travel to the region last summer, knowing
    he would get some criticism for going and meeting with the
    Saudis, but as a way of indicating to all of these countries
    that we may have had some disagreements, and we may have, at
    times, different views about what the right approach is on a
    given problem, but the United States is committed to that
    partnership, is committed to ensuring that the partners have
    the ability to defend themselves but, also, that we are there
    as an ultimate backstop.
        But then, of course, we also have expectations that they
    will act in ways that are consistent with core U.S. interests
    when it comes to China, when it comes to Russia, when it comes
    to oil markets.
        So, being a good, faithful partner that expects the flow of
    that partnership to go in both directions I think is critically
    important.
        And, finally, I would just add that I do think that when
    you get to moments like the current one where there is a
    deterioration between Israelis and Palestinians, that can be
    destabilizing for Jordan, that can be difficult to Egypt, that
    can be a source of tension between Israel and new partners, and
    prevent progress between Israel and partners that haven't yet
    joined with them.
        And there, too, showing that the United States is invested
    in that, cares, tries to improve the situation long before it
    is possible to actually negotiate it toward a solution so that
    Israelis and Palestinians, but also everyone in that circle,
    broader circle that is affected by those events, sees some U.S.
    commitment and investment trying to improve the situation also
    adds to our leadership capability in the region.
        Mr. Wilson. And, again, thank you, Congressman Brad
    Schneider, for your vision to create the bipartisan Abraham
    Accords Caucus.
        And another point that you just made is so important, and
    that is that it is bipartisan, that there be every effort, any
    effort, every effort that could possibly be made for Iran not
    to achieve nuclear weapons. What a threat that would be to
    world stability. And, so, it is bipartisan truly here in
    support of every effort to block the ability of Iran to have
    nuclear weapons.
        With that, I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable
    testimony and the members for their questions. The members of
    the subcommittee may have some additional questions for the
    witnesses. And we will ask you to respond to those in writing.
        And with this, we are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:57 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                 ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]