Two Real Estate Agents Negotiating a War: When Deals Replace Diplomacy in the Middle East
As business networks, billion-dollar investments, and the Abraham Accords reshape the region, diplomacy risks being replaced by transactions.
Author- Mohammad Arif Khan, Middle East affairs expert
US-Iran War: Two real estate developers are effectively negotiating business in the middle of a regional crisis, when what is required is diplomacy for peace. That is the perception increasingly shaping the Middle East. What should be a calibrated effort in conflict resolution now resembles a high-stakes deal, where leverage, access, and returns appear to outweigh consensus and long-term stability.
The region is no longer being handled through traditional diplomacy alone. It is being re-engineered through deals, capital flows, and elite alignments. Influence is traded, access is monetized, and stability is increasingly tied to investment logic. At the centre of this shift stand Donald Trump, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and real estate investor Steve Witkoff—figures rooted in business rather than diplomacy. For critics, this composition raises a fundamental concern: is this a strategy for peace, or a preference for dealmaking in a conflict zone?
Kushner’s trajectory helps explain the model. Before politics, he operated within Kushner Companies, managing high-value real estate assets. In the White House, he became a key architect of Middle East policy, helping broker the Abraham Accords in 2020. These agreements normalized relations between Israel and Arab states such as the UAE and Bahrain. While widely seen as a breakthrough, they also marked a strategic shift, decoupling normalization from resolving the Palestinian issue. Kushner’s approach emphasized direct leadership engagement, economic incentives, and strategic alignment over traditional diplomatic sequencing.
Kushner’s role also carried a personal dimension. As an Orthodox Jew with long-standing familial and ideological ties to Israel, he brought a perspective closely aligned with Israeli strategic interests. While that alignment does not by itself define policy, it added another layer to an already unconventional diplomatic approach, where personal worldview, political access, and dealmaking instincts converged.
After leaving office, Kushner returned to business, launching Affinity Partners. In July 2022, the firm secured a $2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, despite reported internal reservations. The significance was not just financial, it reinforced the perception that political proximity can translate into economic opportunity.
Steve Witkoff represents a parallel dynamic. A long-time real estate developer and close associate of Trump, he has operated within the same high-value property ecosystem for decades. His proximity to decision making circles and involvement in broader regional conversations further underscore the growing role of business figures in geopolitical engagement. While not a formal diplomat, his presence reflects a wider shift toward deal-driven influence.
The Abraham Accords marked the inflection point. For decades, Arab-Israel normalization had been linked to Palestinian statehood. The Accords broke that link, introducing a new framework: normalization without resolution, economic alignment over political settlement, and elite agreements over public consensus. The UAE and Bahrain moved first not only due to aligned incentives but also because their centralized systems allowed tighter control over domestic response. In contrast, countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar face more complex religious and political dynamics, increasing the risk of backlash.
The result was not just normalization, it was a template. Diplomacy began shifting from resolving disputes to structuring partnerships.
This transactional doctrine rests on a simple premise: everything is negotiable. Personal relationships gain weight over institutions, financial incentives rival ideology, and speed often overrides process. Supporters argue this approach delivers faster results. Critics warn it weakens transparency and blurs the line between public policy and private interest.
The financial dimension of this shift is increasingly visible. Between 2023 and 2024, Trump-linked real estate projects expanded across the Gulf, including developments in Saudi Arabia reportedly valued at around $10 billion, alongside projects in Oman and Qatar. These are not isolated ventures, they reflect how commercial interests are embedding themselves within the same geography where strategic decisions are being made.
The shift is also evident in language. Discussions around post-war Gaza have included references to redevelopment potential, even describing it as a “real estate bonanza.” This signals a reframing: crisis becomes opportunity, territory becomes an asset, and reconstruction becomes an investment strategy. In such a framework, peace risks becoming a secondary outcome.
Taken together, a clear pattern emerges. The Abraham Accords created the political foundation. The $2 billion investment signaled financial convergence. The wave of real estate expansion demonstrated commercial integration. The involvement of figures like Kushner and Witkoff reinforces the perception that business logic is shaping geopolitical engagement.
This model delivers speed and visible outcomes. But it is also fragile. By bypassing public legitimacy, sidelining unresolved conflicts, and tying stability to shifting economic interests, it creates a structure that can unravel as quickly as it forms.
The Abraham Accords proved that deals can deliver breakthroughs. They also exposed a structural risk: what is built on incentives can collapse when those incentives change.
There is no denying the appeal of dealmaking. It simplifies complexity and accelerates decisions. But geopolitics is not real estate. Nations are not assets, populations are not stakeholders, and peace cannot be reduced to a balance sheet.
The real question is no longer whether this model works, it clearly does, for now. The deeper question is whether a peace built on transactions can endure when the deals change. Because in the end, agreements driven by aligned interests, financial or strategic are only as stable as the incentives that sustain them.
ये भी पढ़ें- Tense Pause or Prelude to War? US-Iran Faceoff Turns Into High-Stakes Waiting Game
Author- Mohammad Arif Khan, Middle East affairs expert
US-Iran War: Two real estate developers are effectively negotiating business in the middle of a regional crisis, when what is required is diplomacy for peace. That is the perception increasingly shaping the Middle East. What should be a calibrated effort in conflict resolution now resembles a high-stakes deal, where leverage, access, and returns appear to outweigh consensus and long-term stability.
The region is no longer being handled through traditional diplomacy alone. It is being re-engineered through deals, capital flows, and elite alignments. Influence is traded, access is monetized, and stability is increasingly tied to investment logic. At the centre of this shift stand Donald Trump, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and real estate investor Steve Witkoff—figures rooted in business rather than diplomacy. For critics, this composition raises a fundamental concern: is this a strategy for peace, or a preference for dealmaking in a conflict zone?
Kushner’s trajectory helps explain the model. Before politics, he operated within Kushner Companies, managing high-value real estate assets. In the White House, he became a key architect of Middle East policy, helping broker the Abraham Accords in 2020. These agreements normalized relations between Israel and Arab states such as the UAE and Bahrain. While widely seen as a breakthrough, they also marked a strategic shift, decoupling normalization from resolving the Palestinian issue. Kushner’s approach emphasized direct leadership engagement, economic incentives, and strategic alignment over traditional diplomatic sequencing.
Kushner’s role also carried a personal dimension. As an Orthodox Jew with long-standing familial and ideological ties to Israel, he brought a perspective closely aligned with Israeli strategic interests. While that alignment does not by itself define policy, it added another layer to an already unconventional diplomatic approach, where personal worldview, political access, and dealmaking instincts converged.
After leaving office, Kushner returned to business, launching Affinity Partners. In July 2022, the firm secured a $2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, despite reported internal reservations. The significance was not just financial, it reinforced the perception that political proximity can translate into economic opportunity.
Steve Witkoff represents a parallel dynamic. A long-time real estate developer and close associate of Trump, he has operated within the same high-value property ecosystem for decades. His proximity to decision making circles and involvement in broader regional conversations further underscore the growing role of business figures in geopolitical engagement. While not a formal diplomat, his presence reflects a wider shift toward deal-driven influence.
The Abraham Accords marked the inflection point. For decades, Arab-Israel normalization had been linked to Palestinian statehood. The Accords broke that link, introducing a new framework: normalization without resolution, economic alignment over political settlement, and elite agreements over public consensus. The UAE and Bahrain moved first not only due to aligned incentives but also because their centralized systems allowed tighter control over domestic response. In contrast, countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar face more complex religious and political dynamics, increasing the risk of backlash.
The result was not just normalization, it was a template. Diplomacy began shifting from resolving disputes to structuring partnerships.
This transactional doctrine rests on a simple premise: everything is negotiable. Personal relationships gain weight over institutions, financial incentives rival ideology, and speed often overrides process. Supporters argue this approach delivers faster results. Critics warn it weakens transparency and blurs the line between public policy and private interest.
The financial dimension of this shift is increasingly visible. Between 2023 and 2024, Trump-linked real estate projects expanded across the Gulf, including developments in Saudi Arabia reportedly valued at around $10 billion, alongside projects in Oman and Qatar. These are not isolated ventures, they reflect how commercial interests are embedding themselves within the same geography where strategic decisions are being made.
The shift is also evident in language. Discussions around post-war Gaza have included references to redevelopment potential, even describing it as a “real estate bonanza.” This signals a reframing: crisis becomes opportunity, territory becomes an asset, and reconstruction becomes an investment strategy. In such a framework, peace risks becoming a secondary outcome.
Taken together, a clear pattern emerges. The Abraham Accords created the political foundation. The $2 billion investment signaled financial convergence. The wave of real estate expansion demonstrated commercial integration. The involvement of figures like Kushner and Witkoff reinforces the perception that business logic is shaping geopolitical engagement.
This model delivers speed and visible outcomes. But it is also fragile. By bypassing public legitimacy, sidelining unresolved conflicts, and tying stability to shifting economic interests, it creates a structure that can unravel as quickly as it forms.
The Abraham Accords proved that deals can deliver breakthroughs. They also exposed a structural risk: what is built on incentives can collapse when those incentives change.
There is no denying the appeal of dealmaking. It simplifies complexity and accelerates decisions. But geopolitics is not real estate. Nations are not assets, populations are not stakeholders, and peace cannot be reduced to a balance sheet.
The real question is no longer whether this model works, it clearly does, for now. The deeper question is whether a peace built on transactions can endure when the deals change. Because in the end, agreements driven by aligned interests, financial or strategic are only as stable as the incentives that sustain them.
ये भी पढ़ें- Tense Pause or Prelude to War? US-Iran Faceoff Turns Into High-Stakes Waiting Game
