The Abraham Accords red herring

US President Donald Trump’s apparent about-face — signaling on Saturday that a framework agreement with Iran was within reach, only to dash those hopes on Monday by introducing an outrageous new condition — has left negotiators, analysts and global markets in disarray. No one expected the reversal to be linked to an issue unrelated to the stalemate that has left the strategic Strait of Hormuz closed for more than a month, triggering a global energy crunch and threatening a worldwide recession.
In a Truth Social post half an hour before midnight on Saturday, Trump wrote that he had called a number of regional leaders and told them that “an agreement has been largely negotiated, subject to finalization between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran,” adding that the Strait of Hormuz would be opened. He noted a separate call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that, he said, “went very well.”
What happened after that optimistic post is subject to speculation. But on Monday afternoon, as Iranian negotiators were in the Qatari capital, Doha, to put the final touches on the framework agreement, Trump posted a lengthy statement introducing a stunning new condition: that all regional countries involved should “simultaneously sign onto the Abraham Accords.” The list included Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkiye, Egypt, Jordan and Bahrain. Then, as if that were not enough, he added that Iran itself should sign the accord — before concluding that he had asked his “representatives to begin, and successfully complete, the process of signing these countries into the already historic Abraham Accords.”
Trump’s turnaround was clearly a reaction to harsh criticism from senior Republican lawmakers who saw the emerging deal as US capitulation to Iran and a betrayal of Israel. Critics, including hawkish senators Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz, expressed disappointment, while others said Trump was on course to adopt an agreement worse than Obama’s 2015 JCPOA — the very deal Trump withdrew from in 2018, promising to force Iran to accept his own terms.
It is widely believed that Netanyahu was able to dissuade Trump and convince him to introduce the Abraham Accords condition to fumble the deal. Not only did he succeed in changing Trump’s position, but he also secured White House endorsement for an Israeli decision to escalate attacks on Lebanon. On Tuesday, Israel unleashed a series of lethal and indiscriminate strikes across multiple targets in the south of the country.
According to news reports, the draft framework agreement calls for ending the war, a renewed ceasefire, lifting the economic blockade and embargo, opening the Strait of Hormuz from both sides, releasing $25 billion in frozen Iranian assets, and entering into negotiations lasting between 30 and 60 days to resolve the nuclear file. Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Trump’s negotiators with Iran, are reported to have given initial approval to a draft or framework proposal. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, on a foreign tour when the bombshell landed, had to defend the president’s statements while keeping the door open for a deal. 

The Saudi position has been clear and consistent for years: Normalization with Israel must be linked to a credible path to Palestinian statehood.

Osama Al-Sharif

Rubio said significant progress had been made on a framework aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, and suggested the world could soon hear “good news” — while cautioning that Washington would either reach “a good agreement” or have to “deal with it another way.” Trump himself has since appeared to shift back toward the proposed deal, saying he now accepts that highly enriched uranium — a major bone of contention — would be “destroyed” in Iran under supervision.
Insisting that regional countries sign the Abraham Accords immediately is a red herring that either reflects ignorance of the region’s complex realities or is a deliberate attempt to distract from the predicament Trump has created for himself — waging a war without good reason and now struggling to extract himself from it.
The Arab position on normalizing ties with Israel has long rested on the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, introduced by the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and adopted unanimously. The Saudi position, in particular, has been clear and consistent for years: Normalization with Israel must be linked to a credible path to Palestinian statehood. In November 2025, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said Riyadh “wants to be part of the Abraham Accords,” but only with a “clear path” to a two-state solution. Saudi officials have repeatedly tied any normalization to an independent Palestinian state with 1967 borders and East Jerusalem as its capital.
The Trump administration knows this position perfectly well. To try to force the hands of regional leaders into rewarding Israel — at a moment when Netanyahu is bragging about a new Middle East shaped according to Israeli interests, and when he is overseeing the physical dismemberment of Palestinian territory in a bid to bury statehood for good — is not just unrealistic. It is insulting.
The Abraham Accords have been a dismal failure on their own terms. They have empowered Israel further, and today Israel occupies all of the West Bank, Gaza, and parts of Syria and Lebanon, without committing to ending its occupation or allowing Palestinians the right of self-determination. Israel is committing genocide and has become an apartheid state, dehumanizing more than 5 million Palestinians. Asking Arab and Muslim nations to normalize relations with such a state, while that state simultaneously bombs Lebanon and entrenches its grip on Palestinian land, is a demand no government in the region can meet.
Trump’s audacious proposal has been met with silence and indifference across the region — and that silence speaks volumes. His flip-flopping has become a trademark of his approach to a crisis largely of his own making. But the stakes are too high for this to continue. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed, global energy markets remain rattled, and the specter of worldwide recession grows darker by the day.
Returning to war against Iran will will achieve nothing. Diplomacy is the only way forward — even if that means accepting terms of a deal that critics will inevitably compare unfavorably to Obama’s. The president who tore up the JCPOA and promised something far better now faces a stark choice: swallow his pride and close a deal, or keep listening to the voices pushing him back toward confrontation. The region — and the world — cannot afford the latter.

• Osama Al-Sharif is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman.
X: @plato010