Camp David Accords
1978
Following a lull in the Middle East peace process caused by the 1976 presidential elections, President Carter entered office with a burst of new energy on the subject. Through direct personal appeal, Carter was able to bring ultimate resolution to the Yom Kippur War and completely change the dynamic of the Middle Eastern question. Israel and Egypt normalized relations and a framework for Middle East peace was agreed to. Years later, this would allow for the Oslo accord, and the Jordanian–Israeli Peace Agreement. Additionally, Carter also secured the complete realignment of Egypt. Once a Nasser led hotbed of anti-Western feeling, Egypt was to become one of America’s foremost allies in the region. Sadat would pay dearly for the leadership he showed during the talks. He was assassinated by Islamic radicals in 1981.
Time: Mid War
Side: US
Ops: 2
Removed after event: Yes
As USSR
An event on the border between spacing and not spacing: none of the effects by themselves are particularly harmful, but the combination of all three is a little bit irritating. The influence is often not worth repairing: Sadat Expels Soviets will likely undo all the work you’ve done in Egypt. But Camp David Accords gives the US halfway to control, and Sadat takes them the rest of the way.
As US
A nice event, and one I try to trigger. It is especially nice when you have no influence in Egypt, since then Sadat Expels Soviets will give you Egypt instead of just putting it to 1/0. Cancelling Arab-Israeli War is a small bonus, and 1 VP is 1 VP.
Twilight Strategy 
As a side note – these two events : Camp David Accords and Sadat expels Soviets represent a very strong motivation for Soviet player to try to keep on the deck Nasser as long as possible. It is absolutely awesome when this guy manage to roll-back somehow the US spreading in Egypt … 🙂
I always feel that Nasser should be unplayable after Sadat.
It just feels wrong.
Why ? It gives an interesting “what-if” flavor in the game … 🙂
Yeah, fair enough. I agree it makes the gameplay more interesting.
It’s just that the game as a couple of “unplayable if” card interactions which roughly reflect historic themes (e.g. Iron Lady/Socialist Govs, or TDTW/Willy Brandt) but this is one of the most clear cut historical facts in the game (Nasser did come before Sadat) and the game allows it to happen. I suppose that for me, this is just one “what-if” too far! 🙂
Can not decide already with a couple of cards.. If US gets to place 1 influence in Jordan when Jordan is already having a control of USSR, does 1 influence got placed anyways?
Yes. Cards that say “place influence” ignore the 2-for-1 control rule and the adjacency rule.