Trump’s Push for Abraham Accords Expansion: A Strategic Gamble with Uncertain Returns

As former President Donald Trump ties the Abraham Accords to any future Iran deal, Middle East allies—including key U.S. Partners—are skeptical. Here’s why his gambit could backfire.

— ### Why the Abraham Accords Matter—and Why Expanding Them Is Complicated The Abraham Accords, brokered in 2020, marked a historic shift in Middle East diplomacy by normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab nations, including the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco. The agreements were framed as a counter to Iran’s regional influence, offering economic and security benefits in exchange for diplomatic recognition of Israel. Now, Trump is reviving the idea, linking expanded Abraham Accords to any potential Iran nuclear deal. His argument? More Arab states should join to isolate Tehran further. But Middle East analysts and diplomats warn that forcing the issue could alienate U.S. Allies who see the accords as a pragmatic, not mandatory, step. — ### The Strategic Logic Behind Trump’s Move Trump’s latest push stems from two key geopolitical calculations: 1. Isolating Iran – The U.S. Views Iran as the primary destabilizing force in the region, backing militant groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen. – Expanding the Abraham Accords could theoretically create a broader coalition against Iranian influence, similar to the Arab-Israeli normalization deals of the 1990s. 2. Leveraging Israel’s Security Concerns – Israel has long argued that regional normalization reduces its strategic isolation. – Trump’s framing suggests that without broader Arab participation, Israel’s security guarantees in any Iran deal could be weakened. However, enforcing this as a “mandatory” condition risks undermining the accords’ voluntary nature, which was a cornerstone of their success. — ### Why U.S. Allies Are Pushing Back Despite Trump’s rhetoric, key Arab states and Israel itself are wary of being pressured into expanding the accords. Here’s why: #### 1. The Accords Were Never About Iran—They Were About Economics – The UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco joined primarily for economic benefits, including trade deals, investment opportunities, and technology transfers. – Saudi Arabia, the region’s most influential state, has yet to normalize relations with Israel, and its calculus remains tied to domestic politics, oil markets, and Iran’s nuclear program—not U.S. Demands. #### 2. Forced Expansion Could Backfire – Diplomatic fatigue: Arab states have already faced criticism for “abandoning the Palestinian cause.” Forcing them into a new alignment without addressing core grievances (like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) could spark backlash. – Israel’s hesitation: While Israel supports broader normalization, it does not want to be seen as a U.S. Pawn. Publicly linking the accords to an Iran deal could undermine Israel’s independent diplomatic strategy. #### 3. The Iran Deal Is Already a Hard Sell – Even without Trump’s conditions, reviving the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) is politically fraught. – Hardliners in Tehran reject any negotiations under U.S. Pressure. – European allies (France, Germany, UK) are divided on how to proceed. – Israel and Saudi Arabia oppose any deal that doesn’t address Iran’s missile program and regional interventions. – Adding a mandatory Abraham Accords expansion could derail talks entirely, as Arab states may see it as a U.S. Attempt to prioritize Israel’s interests over their own security concerns. — ### What Could Happen Next? #### Scenario 1: Limited Expansion (Most Likely) – Saudi Arabia may eventually normalize relations with Israel—but only if: – Iran’s nuclear program is fully contained. – A comprehensive Middle East peace deal (including Palestinian statehood) is on the horizon. – Economic incentives (like a Saudi-Israel free trade agreement) are secured. – Other Gulf states (Oman, Qatar) may engage in backchannel diplomacy but won’t rush to sign public accords. #### Scenario 2: Stalemate and Diplomatic Isolation – If the U.S. demands more signatories without addressing Arab concerns, key allies may quietly resist. – Turkey and Qatar could exploit the divide, positioning themselves as mediators rather than participants. – Israel’s public support for the U.S. could weaken if it feels pressured into a corner. #### Scenario 3: A Broader Regional Coalition (Unlikely for Now) – A new “Arab-Israeli security pact”—similar to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative—could emerge, but only if: – The U.S. offers long-term security guarantees to Arab states. – Palestinian statehood is seriously discussed (even as a long-term goal). – China and Russia don’t undercut U.S. Influence in the region. — ### Key Takeaways: What This Means for the Middle East | Issue | Trump’s Stance | Reality Check | Abraham Accords Expansion | “Mandatory” for Iran deal participants | Arab states see this as voluntary, not obligatory. | | Iran Deal Negotiations | Tied to normalization | Europe and Arab states prefer separate tracks to avoid alienating Tehran. | | Saudi-Israel Relations | Expected to join soon | Riyadh’s timeline depends on Iran, not U.S. Demands. | | Palestinian Factor | Ignored in Trump’s push | Any normalization without Palestinian progress risks backlash. | | China’s Role | Not mentioned | Beijing is quietly courting Arab states, offering alternatives to U.S. Deals. | — ### FAQ: What You Need to Know #### 1. Can the U.S. Really force Arab states to join the Abraham Accords? No. While the U.S. Has significant influence, Middle East diplomacy relies on mutual benefit, not coercion. Arab states will only normalize relations on their own terms—primarily for economic and security gains, not under U.S. Pressure. #### 2. Will Saudi Arabia join the Abraham Accords? Possibly, but not yet. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has hinted at potential normalization, but only if: – Iran’s nuclear ambitions are fully addressed. – Palestinian statehood is part of the long-term discussion. – Economic and military benefits (like U.S. Security guarantees) are locked in. #### 3. How does this affect the Iran nuclear deal? Trump’s linkage could complicate negotiations because: – Iran rejects any deal tied to regional alliances (see: 2018 withdrawal from JCPOA). – Arab states may see it as a U.S. Attempt to shift focus away from Iran’s nuclear program to broader geopolitical demands. #### 4. What’s the alternative to Trump’s approach? A step-by-step strategy where: – The U.S. separates Iran deal talks from normalization demands. – Economic incentives (like a Saudi-Israel trade deal) are offered independently. – Palestinian statehood is kept as a long-term goal to avoid alienating Arab public opinion. — ### The Bottom Line: A High-Risk Gamble Trump’s push to expand the Abraham Accords as a condition for any Iran deal reflects his transactional approach to diplomacy—where leverage is the primary tool. However, Middle East alliances are built on trust, not ultimatums. For now, the most likely outcome is limited expansion, with Saudi Arabia moving cautiously and other Gulf states engaging selectively. If the U.S. overplays its hand, it risks isolating itself just as Iran and regional rivals like Turkey and Qatar position themselves as alternative partners. The real test will be whether diplomacy can balance security concerns with economic and political realities—or if Trump’s gambit becomes another casualty of the region’s complex power dynamics. —