On May 25, 2026, US President Donald Trump shocked the world — Muslim world in particular — when he proposed that more Muslim nations sign up the Abraham Accords as a precondition for a broader political settlement in the Middle East.
It was an incredibly surprising and polarising move. Nobody had anticipated that an effort to end the Iran war could be linked to the expansion of what has effectively become new American-led security architecture for the region.
This is why everyone was left bewildered when Trump floated the idea during a conference call with leaders of several Muslim allied nations. There was hushed silence when he “requested” that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey join the Abraham Accords en masse as a mandatory condition of an Iran deal.
“Are you still on the line?” Trump quipped, breaking the silence, underscoring the awkward reaction his idea had generated among the participants.
But while Trump had this up his sleeve, the world expected him to announce progress on an Iran deal. Instead, he opened a can of worms, reinforcing widespread perceptions of his impulsive and unpredictable approach to foreign policy.
Trump’s Abraham Accords push has “absolutely no linkage with the Israeli aggression against Iran, which is illegal, unjust, and unwarranted — and which is being carried out in consonance with US policy,” says Mushahid Hussain Sayed, former chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The bewildering move particularly placed Pakistan — already playing a delicate mediating role between the US and Iran — in a diplomatically awkward and politically sensitive position both at the regional and domestic levels. It made no sense to drag a country into the polarising pact when it is neither a party to the conflict nor anything but a neutral mediator.
The move reflected trademark Trump mood swings and lack of clear thinking, as he also included Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey, in his “mandatory request” even though these countries already have diplomatic relations with the Jewish state.
“President Trump’s narrative is so inconsistent that we really don’t know what the thrust of the Iranian deal is,” says Dr Huma Baqai, an international relations expert. “He talks about the Abraham Accords in one breath, the Strait of Hormuz in the next, then enriched uranium, and then the Board of Peace. The credibility and shelf life of his narrative have diminished until his next statement,” she adds.
Many wonder what triggered Trump’s puzzling move. Some analysts believe it was an attempt to incentivise Israel to accept his Iran deal while also appeasing Republican hawks opposed to any negotiated end to the conflict.
“All President Trump was trying to do was distract attention from the criticism he had begun to face from the right-wing of his own party, as well as from Israel, over the Iran deal that everyone — including members of his own administration — was saying was imminent,” says Dr Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan’s former ambassador to the US, UK and UN. “So when this criticism began, Trump effectively deflected it by issuing a tweet about other countries being asked to join the Abraham Accords.”
Some analysts, however, argue that Trump is seeking to complete an agenda left unfinished from his first term in office: reshape geopolitical alignments in the Middle East in a bid to integrate Israel and further isolate Iran.
Whatever Trump’s objective, the question is: why do the Abraham Accords matter?
For over 70 years, the Israel-Arab relations were defined by conflict and political hostility following the creation of the Jewish state in 1948. This led to a series of wars between the two sides in 1948, 1967, 1973, and 1982 further entrenching the Palestinian question as the central issue in Arab political discourse.
Only Egypt and Jordan broke from this pattern, respectively in 1979 and 1994, through peace treaties with Israel mediated by the United States. These, however, remained exceptions rather than the beginning of a broader regional political reconstruction.
However, shifting geopolitical and economic realities have changed the regional calculus in recent years. The export of Iranian politico-religious ideology and its growing influence through allied groups and militias across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen has deepened security concerns in Gulf capitals.
“The proxy network Iran had created, or the Axis of Resistance as it was called, had become a source of concern not just for Israel and the US, but also for Arab states, especially the Gulf states,” says Dr Baqai.
“So this proxy network — be it Hezbollah, Hamas, or the Houthis — was emerging as a major source of concern. The way to counter it was to shift from the ideological construct of the conflict to a more geopolitical, security-oriented, growth-driven, and technologically pivoted solution. And that is where the Abraham Accords served all of those ends,” she adds.
At the same time, ideology took a back seat as Gulf states started to reduce their dependence on oil, prioritising economic diversification, technological advancement, and investment-led development, leading to a gradual recalibration of foreign policy priorities.
Dr Lodhi believes the Iran factor may have been overstated, arguing that the real driving force was the “enticements and incentives” offered by President Trump.
“Yes, the Iran factor may have played a part, but I think it was an alibi, because the UAE had a longstanding secret relationship with Israel. It was nothing new for the UAE — except that it became public and formalised,” she says. “When these secret relations began, Iran was not a factor. Therefore, I think the Iranian factor is completely exaggerated, and what really mattered was what these countries got from the United States.”
Washington and Tel Aviv saw an opportunity to break the decades-old consensus within the Muslim world, particularly in the Middle East, on the Palestinian issue. Although secret negotiations had begun in 2019, it was on September 15, 2020, that the Abraham Accords were signed at the White House, establishing formal diplomatic relations between Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain. Morocco and Sudan later joined the process.
These countries were lured in with different economic, security and diplomatic incentives. “The UAE got (F35) fighter aircraft and promises of technological cooperation. Morocco got recognition of its sovereignty over Western Sahara. Bahrain received the promise of greater military and economic cooperation. And Sudan got debt relief,” says Dr Lodhi. “In each case the payoffs were different, but they were payoffs. These countries basically sold their soul for these incentives.”
Named after the shared patriarch revered in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the Abraham Accords were widely seen as a radical shift in Middle Eastern diplomacy, opening avenues for economic cooperation, aviation links, and technological partnerships.
The ostensible beneficiary of the accords was Israel, but the initiative was equally beneficial for the United States, which sought to reshape the oil-rich Middle East amid a dramatic erosion of its influence in the strategically important region. If that is the objective, analysts argue, Trump’s project will remain a pipe dream.
“The era of US dominance is ending in the Middle East. The US is not in a position to reshape the region, even if it wants to. It was not even in that position when it was the sole superpower, and that capacity has further diminished after its war in Iran,” says Dr Lodhi. “America and Israel, the world’s two most powerful militaries, bombed Iran but failed to gain the upper hand against a militarily weaker country. So how can anyone argue that the US is reshaping the Middle East? The United States no longer has the power to do so.”
The Palestinians condemned the Abraham Accords. They felt betrayed — and rightly so.
“It was a betrayal by those Arab countries that signed up to these accords. It was a betrayal because the consensus, not just in the Arab world but across the Muslim world, was that there could be no recognition of Israel until a Palestinian state was established, with Al-Quds, or Jerusalem, as its capital. This firm position was reflected in OIC resolutions — not one, but scores of them,” says Dr Lodhi.
Dr. Baqai believes the move by the four Muslim countries fundamentally recast the Palestinian issue by narrowing its scope. “It [Abraham Accords] somehow changed the entire thrust of the conflict. What was originally an Arab-Israeli conflict became, with the Abraham Accords, an Israel-Palestine conflict,” she adds. “It was elitist, imposed, and exclusive, and in some ways reflected what Israel wanted in the region, as it largely excluded Palestinian sensitivities and concerns.”
Nonetheless, the controversial project did not unravel despite regional wars and political upheavals. Instead, discussions emerged about possible expansion, including interest from the Ahmed alSharaa-led Syria following the collapse of Bashar al Assad regime in 2024 and renewed diplomatic engagement involving the United States.
However, the Abraham Accords couldn’t garner public support in Arab countries, especially amid Israeli brutalities against Palestinians. Efforts to expand normalisation, including a potential Saudi-Israel deal, were also put on hold.
“Economic progress, growth, and technological advancement are important and highly attractive. But justice and growth must go hand in hand,” says Dr Baqai. “Otherwise, it reverses, backfires, or becomes self-defeating. It also fails to gain the ownership of the people of the land — and that is exactly what is happening in West Asia today. Even if the ruling elites support these accords, the street does not; the people do not.”
Early optimism faded quickly. The expected economic and political dividends have remained uneven, while Trump’s signature project polarised the Gulf states and deepened divisions within the region over the Palestinian question.
Then came Israel’s ruthless military campaign in a ghettoised, brutalised, and dehumanised Gaza Strip. Tens of thousands of Palestinians, mostly women and children, were killed; hundreds of thousands were maimed; and more than two million were displaced as Israeli carpet-bombing left the enclave in ruins, reducing it to rubble.
Israel disregarded global outcry, defied international institutions, and flouted international law, continuing its military campaign despite allegations of “genocide”, “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity”. Israel’s military operations in South Lebanon, Syria, Qatar, and Iran exposed it as a rogue expansionist state, dramatically altering regional security perceptions.
“The Abraham Accords have been buried in the debris of the Gaza genocide,” says Mushahid. “It was supposed to be about peace. Israel is about war, occupation, aggression, genocide. The crimes that have been committed by the Israeli state under the arch criminal Benjamin Netanyahu have no precedent in human history since World War II,” he adds. “Let’s say Fatiha on [demise of] these so-called Abraham Accords because they have brought nothing but death, devastation, and destruction to the Middle East, particularly to the people of Palestine and the Muslims of Iran.”
Israel’s “genocidal” war in Gaza reignited Palestinian centrality in regional politics, overshadowing earlier narratives focused on economic integration and technological cooperation. Saudi Arabia, widely viewed as the key potential addition to the accords, rejected Trump’s calls for normalisation with Israel, reiterating its principled stance on the issue.
“The US tried very hard before and after the Gaza genocide to convince the Saudi ruler to join the Abraham Accords, but the Saudis were as clear as crystal. They said there is no way they will do that until there was a credible path to a Palestinian state,” says Dr Lodhi.
Pakistan also reaffirmed its commitment to the Palestinian cause, quelling a media guessing game. Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar publicly said during his recent US visit that Islamabad will not normalise relations with Israel unless an independent Palestinian state is recognised.
Dr Lodhi says that Pakistan’s position has been very clear and principled for decades. It wasn’t shaped by the Gaza war. “Pakistan stands by its principle. And what is the principle? The principle is no recognition of Israel until the establishment of an independent, contiguous Palestinian state with Al-Quds and Jerusalem as its capital,” she adds.
Countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar absolutely reject this flawed and wrong logic of President Trump, adds Mushahid. However, he notes that Pakistan’s position predates the existence of Pakistan as it was formulated by our founding fathers “who saw through the ugly face of Zionism”.
“Our position is not linked with some Arab or Muslim states. Our policy is a standalone policy based on a commitment to Palestinian self-determination, a state of Palestine in which Jerusalem is the capital, and it is not based on political expediency or geopolitical considerations of the moment,” he says.
Pakistan, he adds, talks about universal principles, UN resolutions, and international law. These clearly call for the end of Israeli occupation of all occupied Palestinian territories, including the West Bank and Gaza, and a return to pre-1967 borders. Israel, meanwhile, is an expansionist, militarist, irredentist state, which is bent on expanding its borders through the flawed notion of greater Israel.
Analysts say the Abraham Accords were aimed at sidelining the Palestinian issue and further isolating Iran. However, the move backfired, as a growing number of European nations, including France, Norway, Spain, Ireland, and Slovenia, have recognised the state of Palestine. Iran, meanwhile, has emerged as a major regional power.
“The Abraham Accords were meant to bury the Palestinian conflict. What has happened in 2025 and 2026 has revived the Palestinian issue. Despite the fact that so much destruction has happened in Gaza, the ‘two-state solution’ is back on the table. This has completely changed the dynamics of the situation,” says Dr Baqai.
On the other hand, American-Israeli efforts to isolate Iran diplomatically and squeeze it economically appear to have fallen flat. The Islamic Republic is reshaping the security dynamics of the Persian Gulf by challenging the combined military might of the US and Israel, along with their regional allies, and by leveraging its strategic position in the Strait of Hormuz.
The American-Israeli efforts are “almost into reverse engineering now because Israel is isolated, Israel is disliked, Israel is exposed as an aggressor, and as someone who violates all norms of international relations,” says Dr Baqai. “The security architecture of West Asia is undergoing a transition. It will never be what it used to be.”
Trump’s pendulum swings on Iran — whether driven by incentives for a deal favourable to Israel, appeasement of Republican hawks, deflection of domestic criticism, or a broader attempt to realign regional geopolitics — whatever the objective, the Abraham Accords push has been widely construed, even among allies, as a quintessentially transactional approach that seeks to leverage global crises for geopolitical gain.
Analysts argue that normalisation efforts cannot succeed without addressing the core dispute over Palestinian statehood. Iran’s evolving posture, rising Israeli militarism, declining US leverage, and shifting Arab public opinion have made further expansion of the Abraham Accords politically costly, while existing members are beginning to recognise a deeper reality: normalisation cannot be engineered through deals alone. It requires legitimacy, and legitimacy remains anchored in unresolved questions of sovereignty and statehood.
from Latest News, Breaking News & Top News Stories | The Express Tribune https://ift.tt/3zGVITP
from Latest News, Breaking News & Top News Stories | The Express Tribune https://ift.tt/3zGVITP