Trump’s Abraham Accords demand leaves Middle East stunned

Trump’s call – President Trump’s proposal to expand the Abraham Accords as part of any U.S. deal to end the war with Iran has met with bemusement across the Middle East and South Asia—because many of the countries he named already recognize Israel, while others show little i

For a moment, the message sounded simple—almost managerial. In a social media post. President Trump suggested the United States would orchestrate a deal to end the war with Iran. and that countries across the Middle East and South Asia would then join an agreement known as the Abraham Accords to establish relations with Israel.

He even framed it as something like an obligation. “It should be mandatory,” he wrote. But when the list of countries appeared—Egypt. Jordan and Turkey on one side. Saudi Arabia. Qatar and Pakistan on the other—the reaction in the region wasn’t agreement. It was silence. And, in places, confusion so sharp it felt personal.

Half of the countries Trump named already have relations with Israel. The others, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan, do not—and regional observers said there was little indication they would move toward recognition anytime soon.

The war referenced in Trump’s framing matters too. It is the conflict that the United States and Israel initiated by bombing Iran on Feb. 28, according to the account. For many in the region. the question became less about the end of fighting and more about why that outcome would translate into a push for new diplomatic recognition—particularly for states like Qatar. which. the article notes. had lobbied “desperately to prevent the war in the first place.”.

“It’s just bizarre,” said Yoel Guzansky, a senior fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University in Israel. “What’s the connection between a deal with Iran and that? I’m honestly puzzled.”

Two Western diplomats in the region said that no one was taking the idea seriously. speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss diplomacy. When asked to explain the connection between peace negotiations with Iran and expanding the Abraham Accords. a White House spokeswoman did not answer directly. Instead, she referred to remarks made by Trump on Wednesday, when he suggested that U.S. agreement on a deal with Iran could be made contingent upon countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar agreeing to recognize Israel.

“I think those countries owe it to us,” Trump said. “I’m not sure we should make the deal, if they don’t sign.”

The Saudi and Qatari governments did not respond to requests for comment.

The proposal lands on a broader political landscape the region has long been reluctant to simplify. Under the Abraham Accords—brokered by the first Trump administration in 2020—the United Arab Emirates. Bahrain and Morocco agreed to establish diplomatic relations with Israel. American politicians have often portrayed the pact as a major diplomatic achievement and frequently called it a “peace deal.”.

But scholars from the region say that label is misleading. They argue there has never been a war between Israel and Bahrain or the Emirates, and that the deals bypassed the central conflict between Israel and the Palestinians by declaring harmony between parties that were not fighting.

Since then, the accords have produced openings for expanded trade, security cooperation and tourism between the countries that signed them. The Emirates, described in the account as the Arab architect of the accords, has grown especially close to Israel. Yet the article also describes how the accords did not usher in a new era of regional peace—and how the Emirates’ warm ties have increasingly made it an outlier.

For Israel. the “crowning” of the Abraham Accords. the article says. would be normalization with Saudi Arabia—described as the largest Arab economy and home to Islam’s holiest sites. Saudi Arabia does not formally recognize Israel, and successive U.S. administrations have made it their goal to change that.

But few in the region consider that possibility likely right now. Over the past couple of years. Saudi officials have consistently predicated ties with Israel on the creation of an independent state for Palestinians. Israel’s current government. described as the most right-wing in the country’s history. vehemently opposes establishing a Palestinian state and is unwilling to even discuss a pathway to one.

“Saudi Arabia will not be rushed into a historic decision that ignores Palestinian statehood,” said Salman al-Ansari, a Saudi political analyst. “Saudi Arabia’s commitment to a two-state solution is not a slogan, and it is not a bargaining chip.”

Trump’s wording. in the article’s portrayal. made the effort sound less like a request and more like a directive. He said: “It should start with the immediate signing by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and everybody else should follow suit. If they don’t, they should not be part of this Deal in that it shows bad intention.”.

Even the idea of bringing Iran into the accords was floated. “Wow, now that would be something special!” he wrote.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who recently slammed the potential deal with Iran, echoed the logic in a separate post. Calling it “simply brilliant,” Graham wrote: “I expect our Arab allies to embrace this.”

If taken at face value. analysts said those statements suggested a lack of grasp on political dynamics in the Middle East. In the account. Israel’s wars in Gaza. Lebanon and Iran since the deadly Hamas-led attack on Israel in October 2023 are described as making association with Israel more toxic across parts of the region. The more American officials push normalization as an imposition rather than as part of a mutually beneficial deal. Abdulaziz Alghashian told the account. the more it becomes “unpalatable.”.

Under the Biden administration. the Saudi crown prince had been seeking substantial incentives from the United States in exchange for establishing ties with Israel. Those incentives included access to American nuclear technology and a U.S.-Saudi defense pact. Alghashian. in the article. said the possibility that Trump’s “mandate” could be seen as a non sequitur led him to think the Abraham Accords might be “the only clear strategy the U.S. has in the region.”.

For Israel, the linkage is also complicated by what has already been set in motion. A deal with Iran appears shaky at best. the article says. and fighting has continued to flare as diplomats negotiate details. In Israel. Trump’s linkage between an Iran deal and expansion of the Abraham Accords met what the account describes as “baffled silence.”.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not reacted publicly to Trump’s pronouncement. and analysts said a phased Iran deal would most likely be hard for Netanyahu to swallow. If expanding the Abraham Accords was intended as some kind of sweetener. the article says. the Israeli prime minister is not showing it.

When asked about the Abraham Accords becoming part of any Iran deal—or whether Netanyahu discussed the idea with Trump—the Israeli government responded with a statement saying only that “Israel is keen on expanding the circle of peace. which will be most beneficial to all signatories of the Abraham Accords.”.

With Israeli elections expected this fall and Netanyahu’s political future on the line. the article says the prospect of Saudi Arabia or other Muslim-majority states offering him a prize grows even more remote. Guzansky put it bluntly: “Those countries won’t take a step before the elections in Israel and before seeing what the deal with Iran yields… We are still in such a fog of war.”.

Trump’s outreach did not stop at the Middle East. He suggested that Pakistan—described in the account as having mediated between the United States and Iran to end the war—should join the accords.

In Pakistan, officials and analysts greeted that call with a flat refusal. Pakistan does not recognize Israel, and the article says its passports explicitly state that holders are barred from traveling there.

Pakistan’s defense minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, said on local television that joining the accords would clash with the country’s “fundamental ideologies.”

Pakistani analysts in the account said Trump’s statement might have been aimed at pleasing parts of his domestic audience—particularly Iran hawks who view a potential deal with the Iranians as a disappointment—and they described the proposal as a distraction from the peace negotiations between the United States and Iran. Maleeha Lodhi. a former Pakistani ambassador to the United States and the United Nations. said: “Trump may be trying to divert attention with his Abraham Accords statement. but it is a poor effort at that.”.

In the end. the article describes the post as leaving Trump an offramp—raising questions about why he made the proposal in the first place. Trump wrote that “it may be possible” for some of the countries he named to have “acceptable reasons” for not recognizing Israel. For the rest of the countries. he said they should be ready to join in. and that doing so would make his settlement with Iran “a far more Historic Event than it would. otherwise. be.”.

The bafflement across the region. laid bare through the countries already involved. the countries unlikely to budge. and the political timelines ahead. hangs over the negotiations like an unanswered question: if the goal is peace with Iran. why should the price—at least in Trump’s framing—include recognition of Israel in places that have no appetite for it?.

Abraham Accords Israel Iran Trump Saudi Arabia Qatar Pakistan Netanyahu Lindsey Graham Middle East diplomacy two-state solution