Why Donald Trump’s Drive to Broaden the Abraham Accords Is Unlikely to Succeed

Former president Donald Trump has renewed a campaign to expand the Abraham Accords – the 2020 normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states – but diplomats and regional experts say the idea faces substantial, structural impediments. The initial accords produced measurable bilateral benefits for the signatories, yet scaling that model across the wider Middle East would require resolving deep-rooted political grievances, reconciling competing regional agendas and convincing cautious Gulf capitals to accept far-reaching arrangements. Absent those shifts, expansion efforts risk remaining rhetorical rather than transformational.

From Narrow Wins to Wider Hurdles: What the Abraham Accords Actually Achieved

The Abraham Accords, which led to formal ties between Israel and a handful of Arab countries beginning in 2020, delivered practical outcomes: new diplomatic channels, commercial agreements, tourism links and cooperation in sectors such as technology and energy. Four Arab governments moved to normalize relations in that initial wave, producing visible milestones – direct flights, business delegations and joint investment initiatives. But those bilateral gains did not erase the central political disputes shaping regional politics, most notably the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For many actors across the Arab world, normalization without a credible, parallel advance on Palestinian rights remains politically fraught.

Key Barriers to Broadening Normalization

1. Palestinian Exclusion and Political Backlash

Palestinian leaders and large swaths of public opinion in the Arab world have rejected piecemeal normalization that sidelines their core demands for statehood and sovereignty. Any further expansion that fails to incorporate a clear Palestinian track risks provoking domestic unrest and eroding the legitimacy of governments that pursue deals without Palestinian consent.

2. Gulf Capitals Want More Than Symbolic Steps

Potential partners – especially Saudi Arabia – have indicated they would require robust and enforceable concessions before formal relations with Israel. Those conditions typically include dependable security arrangements, verifiable economic benefits and progress on Palestinian political rights. Middle Eastern governments increasingly demand comprehensive packages rather than ad hoc agreements that create optics but little structural change.

3. Israeli Domestic Politics Undermine Reliability

Frequent shifts in Israel’s governing coalitions and the prominence of polarizing domestic debates make long-term commitments politically precarious. Governments that can be undone by coalition splits or cabinet reshuffles are poor anchors for agreements that other capitals and publics must trust will endure.

4. Regional Competition and External Shocks

Tehran’s opposition to normalization, rivalries among Arab states, and external patrons with competing agendas add layers of instability. Events such as proxy clashes, energy shocks or sudden diplomatic rifts can quickly alter calculations and make states less willing to risk reputational or security exposure for nascent deals.

Why Surface-Level Deals Fail: Legitimacy, Security, and Durability

Observers argue that agreements lacking three elements – meaningful Palestinian participation, enforceable security guarantees, and a stable Israeli partner – will struggle to survive domestic scrutiny and regional pressures. Without those pillars, new accords are vulnerable to reversal and may function only as temporary headlines rather than a durable realignment of regional relations.

• Legitimacy gap: Deals that ignore Palestinian political agency invite condemnation and popular protests that can destabilize governments at home.
• Security gap: Gulf states and other regional actors seek guarantees that any normalization will not undermine their defense posture or provoke new threats.
• Durability gap: Political turnover in Israel or partner states can void commitments made by previous administrations.

Policy Options to Give Normalization a Fighting Chance

Analysts who see potential for expansion emphasize that any credible strategy must move from symbolic gestures to binding, verifiable arrangements and inclusive diplomacy. Three broad recommendations recur in policy discussions:

1. Design Multilateral Security Frameworks

Instead of bilateral assurances, prospective normalization should be tied to multistate security mechanisms – treaty-style commitments, joint monitoring, and rapid-response protocols – that reduce the risk of unilateral backtracking and provide reassurance to nervous regional actors.

2. Create Phased, Conditional Incentives

Broad recognition or access to economic markets should be offered in stages, contingent on concrete benchmarks: measurable governance reforms in Palestinian institutions, demonstrable steps to reduce incitement and agreed security cooperation at the local level. Phased incentives make progress verifiable and rewards proportional to commitments, lowering the temptation to renege.

3. Integrate Palestinians into the Process

Meaningful Palestinian participation is both a political necessity and a practical way to stabilize any regional bargain. That can take the form of parallel economic compacts, confidence-building measures (e.g., security coordination, municipal cooperation pilots), and a credible path toward political negotiations that addresses sovereignty concerns.

Practical Steps and Examples

Instead of sweeping proclamations, policymakers could prioritize small, concrete measures that build trust: joint disaster-response exercises, cooperative infrastructure projects, and coordinated anti-smuggling efforts. In past normalization rounds, such practical initiatives – new flight routes, business partnerships and tourism links – produced visible benefits and constituencies in favor of continued engagement. Scaling those pilots through international monitoring and multilateral financing could broaden their political durability.

What to Watch

Several variables will determine whether any renewed push to expand the Abraham Accords moves beyond rhetoric:

• U.S. diplomatic consistency: Perceptions of American reliability affect Gulf decisions. Shifting U.S. posture or partisan polarization can undermine confidence in long-term guarantees.
• Responses from Riyadh and Abu Dhabi: Saudi decisions remain the pivotal prize; their demands for security and Palestinian progress set the market for others.
• Palestinian willingness to engage: Even limited, verifiable cooperation on security and governance would change the political math in neighboring capitals.
• Regional security incidents: Escalations with Iran or between rival proxies could quickly stall diplomatic momentum.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s calls to accelerate and expand the Abraham Accords encounter entrenched political, diplomatic and strategic headwinds. The early successes of 2020 produced bilateral advantages, but they did not resolve the underlying disputes that determine regional alignment. Without enforceable security architectures, phased incentives tied to clear benchmarks, and genuine Palestinian engagement, wider normalization is likely to produce episodic announcements rather than lasting reintegration. Policymakers who wish to move beyond headlines must trade showmanship for durable, multilateral frameworks that address both security fears and political grievances.