DUBAI: US President Donald Trump urged several Muslim countries this week to join the Abraham Accords recognising Israel as part of a deal with Iran, but the plan appears doomed to failure, experts say.

The surprise demand came on Monday at the height of the latest negotiations with Tehran and hours before an American strike on southern Iran piled pressure on a fragile ceasefire.

Trump, apparently eying a grand bargain to calm the turbulent Middle East, named five countries that already have relations with Israel, along with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar _ which are considered highly unlikely to take such a step.

It was unclear whether the president really believes the countries will join.

Analysts said he may be trying to demonstrate support for Israel or seeking a political win to justify an unpopular war.

Analysts think the US president could be trying to show support for Israel or aiming for a political victory to justify the Iran war

What are Abraham Accords?

Washington brokered the Abraham Accords during Trump’s first term, seeking to build bridges between Israel and the Arab world.

The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco were signatories, establishing diplomatic, economic and security ties. A fourth country, Sudan, is yet to formalise relations.

The present Trump administration has pushed hard to expand the grouping.

Non-Arab Kazakhstan, which has already recognised Israel, agreed to join last November.

What did Trump say?

After a conference call with leaders and senior officials from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Turkiye, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar and Bahrain, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that all eight countries should join the Accords.

“It will be a document respected like no other that has ever been signed, anywhere in the world,” he wrote, calling for the “immediate signing” by Saudi Arabia and Qatar “and everybody else should follow suit”.

Why is it unrealistic?

Arab sentiment towards Israel hardened during the Gaza conflict as Israel’s bombardment since Oct 2023 left more than 70,000 Palestinians dead.

“For most of the states named, the political cost of signing up under current conditions would be prohibitive,” H.A. Hellyer, senior fellow at the Royal United Services Institute and Center for American Progress, said.

“Gaza is ongoing, annexation of the (occupied) West Bank is accelerating, Israeli forces remain in southern Lebanon, the Golan is occupied.”

Yossi Mekelberg, a Middle East expert at London-based think-tank Chatham House, said it was “no more than a sweetener for Israel, and most likely won’t happen”.

“Why would these countries reward (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu after so much destruction in the region and to their interests?” he asked.

“For Saudi Arabia there is no incentive to join the Abraham Accords, in the current circumstances,” said Mekelberg.

“If they decide about normalisation, they would like to do it on their own accord, not the Abraham Accords.” Barbara Leaf, a diplomat during Joe Biden’s presidency, said: “I do not expect any of the Arab/Muslim states whose leaders spoke to President Trump on May 23 to move towards normalisation with Israel right now.”

What’s behind the announcement?

Some analysts said Trump may have made the announcement to pacify Israel as he pursues a deal with Iran.

He may also be trying to engineer a positive outcome from the war to head off critics at home, they added.

It was “an American attempt to convince Israel and hardline factions within Washington that war, pressure, and escalation have produced political gains worth building upon”, Abdulla Bandar Al Etaibi, assistant professor of International Relations at Qatar University, posted on X.

“The US administration needs a narrative showing that escalation was not meaningless, and that the end result has reshaped the regional environment,” he added.

Hellyer speculated whether the announcement was aimed at deliberately halting the deal with Iran, which is opposed by some US allies.

“What is striking is that (the Abraham Accords plan) has any traction in Washington at all,” he added.

“That tells you a great deal about how disconnected the (Washington) DC policy conversation remains from regional political calculus.”

Published in Dawn, May 27th, 2026