Trump pushes expansion of Abraham Accords as condition in Iran ceasefire talks, drawing mixed regional responses

U.S. President Donald Trump has publicly linked negotiations aimed at ending the Israeli-U.S. war with Iran to a rapid expansion of the Abraham Accords, demanding that multiple Muslim-majority countries normalize relations with Israel as part of any broader peace arrangement. The push—described by Trump as “mandatory” in some accounts—has prompted pushback from key regional players, notably Saudi Arabia, which reiterated that normalization requires an “irreversible pathway” to a Palestinian state, and Pakistan, whose defence minister rejected joining the accords.

Background: What the Abraham Accords are—and why they matter now

The Abraham Accords are U.S.-brokered diplomatic agreements launched during Trump’s first term to normalize ties between Israel and several Arab states. As the New York Times explains in a separate explainer on the deals, the accords reshaped regional diplomacy by establishing formal ties between Israel and participating countries, while leaving the Palestinian issue unresolved in many of the signatories’ frameworks.

Trump is now attempting to revive and broaden that framework amid talks focused on halting hostilities with Iran and addressing wider regional security and economic disruptions, including the Strait of Hormuz, which Le Monde says remains tied to discussions about a cessation of hostilities and reopening.

Key developments: “Mandatory” normalization and specific countries named

Multiple outlets reported Trump’s insistence that Abraham Accords sign-ups be baked into any Iran-related agreement. The Hindu quoted him as saying that after U.S. efforts to “pull this very complex puzzle together,” it “should be mandatory” that countries “simultaneously” sign onto the accords. Al Jazeera English similarly reported that Trump explicitly linked the Iran negotiations to expansion of the accords.

State media TASS reported Trump said the process “should start with the immediate signing by Saudi Arabia and Qatar,” while the South China Morning Post said Trump argued an Iran deal should require additional countries—including Saudi Arabia and Turkey—to join. The Times of Israel reported Trump urged Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to sign normalization agreements, also referencing Egypt and Jordan—countries that already have longstanding peace treaties with Israel. Fox News likewise described Trump pressuring Muslim-majority nations to join if they want peace.

Separately, Middle East Eye reported Trump also set nuclear-related terms in the talks, saying Iranian uranium “must be handed over or destroyed,” framing it as part of the deal’s requirements.

Reactions and competing narratives: Saudi conditions, Pakistan’s rejection, and U.S. pressure tactics

Saudi Arabia’s position diverged sharply from Trump’s push for fast-track normalization. According to Middle East Eye, Riyadh said only an “irreversible pathway” to a Palestinian state would enable normalization with Israel—reasserting a long-stated condition that complicates any attempt to make Abraham Accords adherence an immediate deliverable.

Pakistan also signaled refusal. Middle East Eye reported Pakistan’s defence minister rejected joining the Abraham Accords, undercutting the premise that a broad coalition of Muslim-majority states can be assembled quickly.

Meanwhile, U.S. officials and allied voices continued to argue that normalization is integral to ending the conflict. Middle East Eye cited U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham saying Saudi Arabia must join the Abraham Accords to end the Israeli-U.S. war on Iran—an assertion that contrasts with Riyadh’s insistence on Palestinian-state guarantees.

International coverage varied in emphasis: Le Monde characterized Trump’s move as a “surprise pressure” campaign on Gulf states during negotiations that still had not produced a breakthrough.

Conclusion: Talks continue, with normalization emerging as a major sticking point

As of May 26, the ceasefire and broader Iran negotiations appeared ongoing, with Trump repeating “great deal or nothing” messaging in coverage such as ANSA, while Iranian officials, also cited there, indicated an agreement was not imminent and said nuclear issues had not been discussed. Across reports, one point is clear: Trump’s attempt to make Abraham Accords expansion a core condition of any Iran-related settlement has become a central—and contested—feature of the diplomacy now unfolding.