Middle East nations have at least since the Obama era largely been left to their own devices (more than in the past), and operate happily that way. They're not looking to the US or anyone for approval.
Almost six years later, Mr Obama has approved military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and now Syria.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) estimates the Obama administration has launched more than 390 drone strikes in five years across Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia – eight times as many approved during the entire Bush Presidency.
Obama making decisions on his own doesn't have anything to do with middle east nation's interest in US approval for their own actions.
I'm addressing what those middle east nations choose to do and who they consult with, get 'approval' from / etc.
What? That's exactly what it means.
The simple fact is we have very little justification to criticize the actions of other nations when we cannot even go an Administration without attacking another nation.
2) Why is the US not allowed to "attack[] another nation"? esp given it was a response to attacks on American/coalition personnel?
As alliances shift in the middle east it's not surprising that Israel would be involved. Relations / tensions are pretty wild in the Middle East. I think 'unlikely' alliances are almost inevitable, and maybe not as unlikely as we think. There area lot of strangely conflicting incentives out there.
I think whatever horse trading happened behind the scenes was likely more valuable than PR.
Israel's usually pretty opaque military and other actions allow for a lot of unexpected partnerships.
The Abraham accords are the legacy of the Trump admin and I think it’s a very good one.