Trump's Initiative to Expand 'Abraham': Trading the Iranian File for Normalization and the Inevitability of Regional Security

The Middle East is witnessing profound geopolitical transformations that have put traditional political theories to complex tests, especially with the ongoing tensions resulting from the war in Gaza and direct confrontations between Israel and Iran. Amidst this ambiguity, a surprising diplomatic initiative by US President Donald Trump has emerged, seeking to integrate two contradictory paths into one major deal.

Trump's new vision relies on linking the conclusion of a final agreement to end the conflict with Tehran to a mandatory condition that influential regional countries join the 'Abraham Accords'. This proposed list includes Saudi Arabia and Qatar, in addition to Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and Pakistan, in an attempt to formulate a regional architecture that guarantees Washington's interests.

Observers believe that this proposal reflects the American administration's desire to achieve a historic accomplishment that ends the drain on resources in Middle Eastern conflicts. The new approach also reveals an American conviction that any security agreement with Iran will not succeed without a broad regional umbrella that ensures its sustainability and involves major powers as guarantors.

Trump affirmed via his 'Truth Social' platform that negotiations with the Iranian side are proceeding in a positive direction, but he did not hesitate to hint at harsh options if the diplomatic path fails. This duality aims to pressure all parties to accept the proposed trade-off between military de-escalation and political gains represented by normalization.

On the ground, recent months have proven that the cost of direct confrontation is very high for the global economy, especially with the paralysis that has affected navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea. This reality has made diplomacy the only available way out for Washington to avoid sliding into a comprehensive war with no decisive victory in sight.

Despite American pressure, Gulf-Iranian relations have shown resilience in the face of escalation storms, with a mutual understanding that the security of both sides of the Gulf is structurally intertwined. This inevitability is based on common economic interests, especially with the region's countries adopting ambitious development visions that require comprehensive security stability.

Saudi Arabia considers regional stability to be the cornerstone for the success of 'Vision 2030' and attracting foreign investments, which requires a zero-problem environment. In contrast, Iran finds opening up to its neighbors a lifeline to break international isolation and alleviate the burden of economic sanctions that have exhausted the state for many years.

However, the Palestinian issue remains the most prominent structural obstacle to Trump's ambitions, as Riyadh refuses to grant the normalization card without a real political price. The Saudi leadership insists on the necessity of a permanent and irreversible path to establish an independent Palestinian state, considering it an essential condition that cannot be bypassed under any circumstances.

Analysts believe that any attempt to bypass Palestinian rights in light of the bloody scenes in Gaza will face widespread popular rejection in the Arab and Islamic worlds. The political stability and popular legitimacy of ruling regimes are closely linked to justice in resolving the Palestinian issue, making jumping over this file an uncalculated gamble.

In addition to the Saudi position, the American initiative faces a wall of rejection from countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey, which have previous relations with Israel. These countries are currently seeking to de-escalate situations and resolve crises from their roots, rather than engaging in new security alliances that might increase polarization in the Arab street.

The image of the current Israeli leadership has been severely damaged in the collective Arab consciousness as a result of military practices in the Gaza Strip and international legal pursuits. This reality has made the idea of building new strategic partnerships with the current Israeli government extremely difficult, given the high political and ethical sensitivity.

The Middle East is moving towards the necessity of establishing a local collective security system that stems from the region's own needs, away from external dictates. The success of any comprehensive settlement requires direct and sustained dialogue among the four major regional powers: Riyadh, Tehran, Cairo, and Ankara, to share security and economic responsibilities.

Past experiences have proven that relying on external promises that change with changing administrations in the White House does not provide long-term stability. Therefore, moving towards a sustainable regional system passes through the gateway of internal understandings and the recognition that security is a shared local project that cannot be imported as a ready-made commodity.

In conclusion, Trump's demand to expand the Abraham Accords as a condition for an agreement with Iran remains a strategy that suffers from a flaw in understanding the new balances. The key to stability in the region is no longer solely in Washington's hands, but lies in peaceful coexistence between Arabs and Iran and a just solution to the Palestinian issue as a mandatory prerequisite for any true peace.

Security for Riyadh and Tehran has become a single existential bloc that cannot be divided, and any attempt to re-engineer the region by force will only produce more forced interconnectedness.