Amid the sensitive and complex negotiations between Iran and the United States, Donald Trump’s recent tweet regarding the need for the countries of the region, and even Iran!, to join the “Abraham Accords” is a significant and unmistakable sign of Washington’s attempt to alter the very nature of any potential agreement with Tehran. In these remarks, Trump effectively elevates the Iran file into a component of a broader project aimed at redesigning the geopolitics of the Middle East; a project whose ultimate objective is to consolidate a regional security order favored by the United States and Israel.
What makes this tweet important is not merely its content, but also its timing. At a point when clear indications of progress toward an understanding are visible and the region appears to be moving toward a relative easing of tensions, Trump suddenly raises the issue of bringing the countries of the region into the Abraham Accords in order to dramatically increase the “political cost of an agreement.” This is precisely where his real intention can be discerned: raising the ceiling of American demands at the very moment when the prospects for an agreement are improving.
From the outset, the Abraham Accords were never simply a diplomatic agreement between several Arab states and Israel. In reality, the accords constituted the central pillar of the project the Trump administration designed during its first term to shape a “new Middle East”, an order in which Israel would become a normalized and officially recognized actor within the Arab world’s security and economic architecture, while the primary axis of regional threat perception would shift from the Palestinian issue toward Iran. Trump is now attempting to revive that same project on a broader scale, but this time with one crucial difference: he wants Iran itself, in some form, to be incorporated into this order.
Of course, Trump knows perfectly well that the Islamic Republic of Iran will not join the Abraham Accords, nor will it enter into a process of normalization with Israel. Such a scenario is incompatible not only with the ideological foundations of the Islamic Republic, but also with Iran’s domestic political environment and the realities on the ground across the region. Therefore, the main issue is likely not Iran’s actual accession, but rather the use of this maximalist demand for other purposes.
Trump’s first objective should be understood in the context of diplomatic bargaining. Much like in many of his economic and commercial negotiations, he seeks to shape the negotiating environment in his favor by putting forward sweeping, and at times unrealistic, demands. In essence, he is attempting to raise the “ceiling of negotiations” so that even if he ultimately secures fewer concessions, the outcome can still be portrayed as a major achievement. When the discussion revolves around bringing the countries of the region into the Abraham Accords, then any agreement with Iran, any degree of de-escalation with Arab states, or even any form of joint security mechanism in the Persian Gulf can be presented by the United States as a significant success.
Trump’s second objective is managing pressure from Israel and hardline currents in Washington. Any agreement with Iran, especially one involving sanctions relief, would face fierce opposition from segments of the Republican Party, pro-Israel lobbying groups, and neoconservative circles. By tying an agreement with Iran to the Abraham Accords, Trump is effectively attempting to reassure these factions that any potential deal would not only pose no threat to Israel, but could in fact serve to consolidate Israel’s geopolitical standing as well. In other words, he seeks to frame an agreement with Iran not as “granting concessions to Tehran,” but as part of a broader American-Israeli security project in the region.
His third objective is to reaffirm American leadership over the regional order. The reality is that the Middle East has entered a phase of strategic realignment in recent years. The rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia under Chinese mediation, Russia’s expanding role in regional equations, the Gaza war, and the crisis of legitimacy surrounding Israeli policies all point to the weakening of America’s traditional monopoly over regional management. Trump wants to demonstrate that it is still Washington that can serve as the “architect of the grand agreement”, an agreement shaped not merely between Iran and the United States, but among a broader constellation of regional actors.
From this perspective, his remarks should be viewed as an attempt to politically appropriate the idea of “regional peace.” Trump understands well that if he can simultaneously place the Iran file, Arab-Israeli relations, and regional security into one overarching framework, he can present himself as the president who managed the Middle East’s most complex crisis. For him, this would represent not only a historic achievement, but also valuable political and personal capital.
At the same time, this very strategy could become the greatest obstacle to an agreement. The history of Iran-US negotiations has shown that whenever talks move beyond limited technical issues and venture into broader identity-based, ideological, and geopolitical questions, the likelihood of failure increases. If a potential agreement remains focused on nuclear issues, sanctions, and certain security considerations, progress remains possible. But if the United States attempts to transform it into a project for redefining Iran’s political and regional identity, the path toward an agreement will become exceedingly difficult.
Trump’s tweet should therefore be understood less as a sign of an immediate operational plan and more as part of a strategy of pressure, bargaining, and regional order engineering. He seeks to use the opportunity created by negotiations with Iran to revive a project that began during his first term: constructing a Middle East in which Israel is no longer a controversial actor, but rather the official center of the region’s security order. The central question, however, is whether the region, and Iran in particular, is willing to bear such a cost. And it is precisely here that the true complexity of the coming negotiations begins.
What historical experience demonstrates is that Iran, in the arena of diplomacy and negotiated exchange, resists American overreach with meticulous care and unyielding caution. The dream of achieving a comprehensive peace agreement with Israel, so long as Iran remains a central regional actor, is a dream that cannot be realized. Trump knows this as well. Yet by raising the issue in the heat of negotiations, he seeks to justify his own strategic failures during the 40-day war and manufacture achievements for both the United States and Israel.