As Israeli forces continue operations in Syrian territory, a public rebuke from President Donald Trump-the incursions are “counterproductive”-exposes the fault lines in America’s Middle East strategy. Yet in Netanyahu’s defiant response, maintaining that Israel will not retreat one step from territories it occupies, a deeper reality lies: even as the administration pursues an audacious diplomatic endgame, which might reshape the region, the limits of Washington’s influence extend to its closest regional ally.
Behind closed doors, three strategic imperatives reportedly drive US policy in the Middle East. All of them are fraught with contradictions that may forge a historic peace or ignite new conflict between America’s own allies.
The Abraham Accords: From achievement to ambition
the crown jewel of Trump’s Middle East policy remains the Abraham Accords-the 2020 normalization agreements that established diplomatic relations between the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco and Israel. Now, administration officials are eyeing an even more ambitious expansion: bringing Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria into the fold.
“The Abraham Accords represented a paradigm shift in how we think about Middle East peace,” says Dr.martin Indyk, former US Ambassador to Israel. “But expanding them to include Syria and Saudi Arabia would be transformative on an entirely different scale.”
READ: UN chief: Israel committed war crimes in Gaza
According to diplomats, Syria’s inclusion is considered indispensable political cover for the real prize: Saudi Arabia. “You cannot ask Saudi Arabia to normalize with Israel while Damascus remains outside the framework,” says Dr. Cinzia Bianco, a Gulf analyst at the European Council on Foreign relations. “syria provides the Arab legitimacy that makes Saudi participation politically palatable.”
But there is a essential problem with that approach. How can Washington persuade Syria to sign a peace treaty with Israel when Israeli forces are occupying Syrian territory? The contradiction has not gone unnoticed by regional observers. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan recently observed that “you cannot build peace on continued occupation,” a view shared in most Arab capitals.
The Turkey-Israel tinderbox
Perhaps more urgent than the Accords’ expansion is Washington’s race to prevent open conflict between two of its most important regional allies, namely Turkey and Israel. The deterioration in the relations between Ankara and Tel aviv has accelerated dramatically,with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan warning that Turkey might intervene militarily if Israeli actions in Gaza continue.
“The nightmare scenario for Washington is a shooting war between Turkey and Israel before January 2029,” says Dr. Soner Cagaptay, director of the Turkish Research Programme at The Washington Institute.”Such a conflict would shatter NATO’s southern flank and fundamentally alter the regional security architecture.”
The tension is palpable.Recent israeli operations in Syria, partly to counter Iranian weapons transfers but also to secure buffer zones, have brought Israeli forces closer to areas where Turkish troops maintain a presence. The potential for miscalculation is enormous.
Khaled Elg
Keep reading