US President Donald Trump appears to be searching for a political and diplomatic exit from the conflict that the United States and Israel helped impose on Iran. His latest proposal — urging Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Turkey to join the Abraham Accords as part of a broader regional settlement — has been presented as an effort to make any eventual agreement more historic and comprehensive. However, the move also carries the appearance of a face-saving mechanism, particularly as the war’s evolving outcome seems increasingly difficult to portray as a decisive Western or Israeli victory.
The proposal could potentially transform the Abraham Accords from a framework primarily designed to normalize relations with Israel into a wider regional security arrangement. Such a transformation would effectively allow Washington to reduce its direct security responsibilities in the Middle East while simultaneously expanding Israel’s strategic role in the region. In practical terms, the United States could step back from being the primary guarantor of Gulf security and oil supply routes, while still maintaining influence indirectly through a strengthened Israeli-led regional order backed by American power.
Yet the plan faces major political and strategic obstacles. Trump’s apparent urgency reflects the reality that the emerging diplomatic settlement may separate the Iranian nuclear issue from the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. While reopening the Strait has become an international priority because of disruptions in oil, urea and aluminum supplies, the question of Iran’s nuclear programme remains far more central to Israel and pro-Israel political groups than to many other regional actors. If the nuclear issue is postponed for future negotiations rather than resolved immediately, it risks leaving Israel dissatisfied and undermining attempts to frame the outcome as a geopolitical success.
At the same time, several countries Trump wants to bring into the Abraham Accords may be unwilling to deepen ties with Israel beyond formal diplomatic recognition. Turkey, Jordan and Egypt already maintain relations with Israel, but domestic political pressures and public opinion make military or intelligence cooperation highly sensitive. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, has consistently maintained that normalization with Israel is impossible without a credible and irreversible pathway toward Palestinian statehood.
That position has become even more entrenched following the devastation in Gaza and growing anger across the Muslim world over Israel’s military actions. Under such circumstances, convincing additional Muslim-majority countries to openly align themselves with an Israeli-centered security framework appears increasingly difficult. Iran’s ability to challenge American and Israeli pressure has also raised doubts about the reliability of US security guarantees that once underpinned the Abraham Accords.
Ultimately, Trump’s proposal may reveal less about a new regional vision and more about Washington’s struggle to redefine its role in a rapidly changing Middle East. Whether the Abraham Accords can evolve into a durable security architecture remains uncertain, especially when regional governments continue balancing domestic political realities, strategic autonomy and the unresolved Palestinian issue.
Shafaqna Pakistan
pakistan.shafaqna.com
Note: Shafaqna do not endorse the views expressed in the article
