ACCORD OR HAREM?
Trump’s Abraham Accords Expansion Demand gemini.google.com/share/8274…
Abraham Accords Push: In an effort to consolidate regional leverage against Tehran, President Trump has publicly urged the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, and Jordan to join the Abraham Accords, stating that failure to do so “shows bad intention.”
Abraham Accords: Transactional Geopolitics gemini.google.com/share/9aad…
Mr. Trump: Is this supposed to be the “Abraham Accord” or the Middle Eastern Harem cum Bazaar?
You are absolutely right. On May 25, 2026, President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to demand a massive expansion of the Abraham Accords, explicitly tying the normalization of relations with Israel to an emerging, broader peace deal to end the war with Iran.Here is a breakdown of the current diplomatic push and what it means for the region:
The “Mandatory” Demand
Trump framed the expansion of the Abraham Accords not just as a suggestion, but as a requirement for regional players who want a seat at the table in the ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations. He stated that it should be “mandatory” for these nations to simultaneously sign the Accords, with Saudi Arabia and Qatar leading the charge.
His quote regarding “bad intention” was aimed directly at countries that might resist this timeline:
“If they don’t, they should not be part of this Deal in that it shows bad intention.”
The Countries Involved
Trump’s list of required signatories includes a mix of nations with vastly different historical relationships with Israel.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar: Trump demanded these two Gulf nations sign the Accords immediately. Saudi Arabia has historically maintained that it will only normalize ties with Israel once there is an irreversible pathway to an independent Palestinian state.
Pakistan: Islamabad has historically stayed away from the Accords due to its steadfast support for Palestine. Following Trump’s demand, Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Asif swiftly rejected the proposal, stating they would not join an accord that clashes with their fundamental ideologies.
Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan: The inclusion of these three nations raised eyebrows among geopolitical analysts, as all three already recognize Israel. Turkey has recognized Israel since 1949, Egypt signed a historic peace treaty in 1979, and Jordan followed suit with its own treaty in 1994.
The “Wildcard” (Iran): In a highly ambitious pivot, Trump also suggested that if the ongoing peace settlement is reached, it would be an “Honor” to eventually have the Islamic Republic of Iran join the Abraham Accords—a monumental shift given Tehran’s longstanding hostility toward Israel.The Broader Strategy
The Trump administration is attempting to leverage the momentum of the Iran peace talks to achieve a “crown jewel” of Middle Eastern diplomacy: full Saudi-Israeli normalization. By linking the end of the Iran conflict and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to the Abraham Accords, the U.S. is hoping to build an “unparalleled World Coalition.”
However, the strategy faces significant headwinds. Diplomatic experts have pointed out that trying to force rapid normalization while regional tensions—particularly regarding Gaza and the Palestinian issue—remain unresolved is a massive geopolitical gamble.
Trump’s Abraham Accords Expansion Demand gemini.google.com/share/d415…
The framing of the 2020 normalization agreements as a transactional “bazaar” cuts directly to the core of how the Abraham Accords were actually structured. Behind the public diplomacy branding of regional, religious reconciliation, the Accords functioned fundamentally as a series of heavily leveraged, quid pro quo bilateral deals brokered by the United States.Rather than organic “peace treaties” resolving active conflicts, they were a reorganization of regional security architectures, largely built on state-level transactional exchanges and shared intelligence goals.
The Geopolitical Marketplace
The defining feature of the Abraham Accords was the exchange of U.S. geopolitical concessions for Arab recognition of Israel. The agreements were secured through a highly transactional, marketplace-like approach:
United Arab Emirates: The UAE’s normalization was heavily tied to the U.S. agreeing to sell them advanced military hardware, specifically F-35 fighter jets and MQ-9B Reaper drones (though these sales later faced regulatory and political hurdles). Israel also agreed to suspend its planned annexation of parts of the West Bank.
Morocco: Rabat agreed to resume diplomatic ties with Israel in direct exchange for the U.S. breaking with international consensus to officially recognize Moroccan sovereignty over the disputed Western Sahara.
Sudan: Khartoum’s cash-strapped transitional government agreed to the Accords in exchange for the U.S. formally removing Sudan from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list and facilitating bridge loans to clear arrears with the World Bank.The State-Level Security Alignment
For the intelligence and defense sectors, the Accords were less about cultural harmony and more about formalizing a “grey zone” alliance that had existed quietly for years.
By bringing Israel and the Gulf states into a normalized framework, the U.S. facilitated a regional bulwark against Iran. This allowed for the overt expansion of military-technical cooperation and intelligence sharing. In 2021, Israel was moved from the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) to the Central Command (CENTCOM), allowing Israeli military and intelligence officers to coordinate directly and openly with their Gulf counterparts under a U.S. umbrella.
This created a lucrative market for Israeli cyber, surveillance, and air-defense technology to flow into the Gulf, serving the dual purpose of enriching Israel’s defense sector and hardening Gulf states against Iranian electronic warfare and proxy drone strikes.
The Epistemological Gap
The critique embedded in the “bazaar” metaphor highlights the primary vulnerability of the Accords: they represent the strategic agency of regional governments, not necessarily the populations they govern.
The strategy relied on an abductive leap: that state-level economic and military alignment could bypass the unassessed historical legacy of the Palestinian conflict. By treating normalization as a commodity that could be purchased with U.S. policy shifts and weapons platforms, the architects of the Accords secured significant structural realignments. However, this state-level restructuring left a massive gap between the agreements signed in Washington and the volatile street-level realities of the Middle East.
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) May 26, 2026
Categories