US President Donald Trump has urged several Arab and Muslim-majority countries to join the Abraham Accords, a framework aimed at normalizing diplomatic relations with Israel, as part of broader efforts to secure a peace agreement involving Iran.
In a post on his social media platform Truth Social on Monday (May 25), Trump said he had spoken with leaders from multiple countries and argued that a coordinated push to expand the accords should be a central component of ongoing diplomatic negotiations in the Middle East.
“After all the work the United States has done to try to piece together this very complex puzzle, it should be mandatory that all of these countries, at a minimum, simultaneously sign onto the Abraham Accords,” Trump wrote, according to AFP.
The former president named Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Bahrain as countries he believes should join the agreement or move toward formal normalization with Israel. He added that most of these countries were, in his view, already in a position to move forward with such commitments.
“They should be ready, willing, and able to make this Iran deal a far more historic event than it otherwise would be,” he said, framing the potential expansion of the accords as part of a larger regional settlement.
Trump also suggested that the process should begin with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, arguing that their participation would encourage other countries to follow. He further indicated that even Iran, Israel’s long-standing regional adversary, could theoretically become part of the agreement framework, although such an outcome would represent a major geopolitical shift.
The Abraham Accords, first introduced during Trump’s presidency, established formal diplomatic normalization between Israel and several countries that had historically not recognized it. The initiative was heavily promoted by Washington as a landmark diplomatic achievement, particularly with the inclusion of several Arab and Muslim-majority states.
However, the accords have remained controversial across parts of the Middle East, largely because they did not directly address the Palestinian question. Countries such as Saudi Arabia have repeatedly stated that the establishment of an independent Palestinian state remains a key condition for any formal normalization of relations with Israel.
The renewed push comes as the United States and Iran continue efforts to negotiate an end to a conflict that escalated on February 28. The talks have centered on competing demands, with Washington seeking strict limits on Iran’s nuclear program while Tehran insists on maintaining its right to enrich uranium under international agreements.
Trump has repeatedly emphasized the importance of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, framing it as a central objective of US foreign policy in the region. Iran, meanwhile, has maintained that its nuclear activities are peaceful and insists on recognition of its sovereign rights under global nuclear frameworks.
The latest remarks highlight Trump’s broader vision of linking regional normalization with broader security arrangements involving Iran, Israel, and Arab states. His proposal reflects an attempt to merge diplomatic normalization with security guarantees in a region where longstanding rivalries continue to shape political alignments.
While diplomatic discussions remain ongoing, significant obstacles persist, particularly regarding Palestinian statehood, regional security concerns, and mutual distrust between Iran and Israel. Despite these challenges, Trump’s comments signal continued efforts by some political actors in Washington to expand the Abraham Accords beyond their original scope.
The White House and the State Department have not issued immediate additional clarification regarding Trump’s remarks, while regional governments mentioned in his statement have also not publicly responded in detail.
As negotiations with Iran continue and regional tensions remain high, the future of the Abraham Accords and their potential expansion remains uncertain, dependent on whether competing political and security demands can be reconciled in a broader diplomatic framework.
