Abraham Accords at the center of Trump’s Iran strategy

United States (U.S.) President Donald Trump has once again placed the Abraham Accords at the center of his Middle East strategy, this time by attempting to connect the expansion of Arab-Israeli normalization with ongoing negotiations aimed at ending the confrontation with Iran. In a series of statements and social media posts, Trump called on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan to join the accords collectively, arguing that such a move could transform a potential agreement with Tehran into a historic regional settlement.

At the heart of the debate lies a fundamental question: can the Abraham Accords still serve as a framework for regional peace and cooperation, or have current conflicts rendered further normalization politically unattainable?

The Abraham Accords and their strategic origins

The Abraham Accords were first brokered during Trump’s first term in office in 2020. The agreements normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, beginning with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain, before Morocco and Sudan followed. Their name was chosen to emphasize the shared Abrahamic heritage of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

The accords represented a major departure from decades of Arab diplomatic policy, which had generally conditioned normalization with Israel on the establishment of a Palestinian state. Instead, the agreements prioritized bilateral economic, technological, and security cooperation while largely sidelining the Palestinian issue.

From Washington’s perspective, the accords served multiple strategic purposes. They strengthened a regional alignment favorable to the U.S., enhanced security cooperation against Iran, encouraged intelligence sharing, and promoted economic integration among U.S. allies. They also created new opportunities in trade, tourism, cybersecurity, energy, and defense cooperation.

For Israel, the agreements broke long-standing regional isolation and opened direct diplomatic and commercial channels with influential Arab states. For Gulf countries, normalization offered access to Israeli technology, intelligence capabilities, and closer ties with Washington.

Trump’s new diplomatic gamble

Trump’s latest initiative goes beyond simply expanding the accords. He is attempting to directly link Arab-Israeli normalization with negotiations over Iran and the future security architecture of the Middle East.

According to his statements, Trump envisions a broader regional coalition that could include not only additional Arab and Muslim-majority countries, but potentially even Iran itself should a comprehensive agreement emerge. He portrayed such an arrangement as a transformative moment capable of bringing unprecedented stability and economic prosperity to the region.

The strategy appears designed to accomplish several objectives simultaneously. First, it seeks to reassure Israel and pro-Israel constituencies in Washington that any diplomatic engagement with Iran would not come at the expense of Israeli security. Second, it aims to pressure regional states into aligning more openly with the United States against Tehran. Third, it attempts to frame any future Iran agreement as part of a larger geopolitical success story rather than merely a ceasefire arrangement.

Trump’s approach also reflects his longstanding preference for transactional diplomacy. Rather than addressing individual conflicts separately, he is attempting to combine multiple disputes into a single regional framework centered on U.S. mediation and strategic leverage.

Saudi Arabia remains the key challenge

Among all the countries Trump mentioned, Saudi Arabia represents the most consequential and difficult potential addition to the Abraham Accords.

Normalization between Riyadh and Israel would dramatically alter the political landscape of the Middle East. As the custodian of Islam’s two holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia occupies a uniquely sensitive religious and political position in the Muslim world. Any decision to establish formal ties with Israel carries enormous symbolic significance.

However, Saudi leaders have consistently maintained that normalization cannot occur without credible progress toward Palestinian statehood. The Gaza war has further complicated matters by intensifying public anger across the Arab world over Israel’s military operations and the humanitarian crisis affecting Palestinians.

Trump’s demand that Saudi Arabia and Qatar lead a new wave of normalization therefore faces serious obstacles, particularly at a time when regional tensions remain extremely high.

Regional resistance and skepticism

The response to Trump’s proposal has been cautious at best. Pakistan quickly rejected any suggestion that it was obligated to join the accords, while analysts across the region questioned whether current circumstances make such expansion realistic.

Several of the countries Trump named already maintain diplomatic relations with Israel. Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, while Jordan followed in 1994. Turkey has recognized Israel since 1949 despite periodic political tensions. Consequently, Trump’s proposal appears aimed less at establishing first-time relations and more at creating a visible regional bloc centered on normalization.

Critics argue that attempting to combine the Iran negotiations with the Abraham Accords risks overcomplicating already fragile diplomatic efforts. Many regional governments are currently focused on containing escalation rather than pursuing politically controversial normalization initiatives.

Moreover, Iran’s official position toward Israel remains fundamentally hostile. Tehran continues to reject Israel’s legitimacy and supports armed groups opposed to Israeli policies. The notion that Iran itself could eventually join the Abraham Accords therefore appears highly improbable under current conditions.

Domestic pressure inside the United States

Trump also faces resistance at home. Several Republican lawmakers and conservative figures have expressed concern that any agreement with Iran could allow Tehran to preserve elements of its nuclear infrastructure or expand its regional influence.

Senators such as Ted Cruz and Roger Wicker warned against concessions that might strengthen Iran economically or strategically. Others, including Lindsey Graham, supported linking an Iran agreement to wider regional normalization, viewing it as a way to reinforce Israeli security and regional integration.

This domestic debate highlights the political balancing act Trump is attempting to perform: negotiating with Iran while simultaneously presenting himself as firmly committed to Israel and regional deterrence against Tehran.

Hence, while the Abraham Accords remain one of the most significant diplomatic developments in the modern Middle East, their future expansion may ultimately depend less on American pressure and more on whether regional leaders can reconcile normalization with the political realities created by continuing conflict and instability.