WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said on May 25 he has asked Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt and Jordan to join the Abraham Accords en masse as he pursues a negotiation aimed at ending the war with Iran.
Trump wrote on Truth Social that he spoke on May 23 with leaders of those countries, along with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, already signatories and “mandatorily” requested immediate accession to the accords. He framed the appeal as part of a broader effort to assemble a wide regional coalition tied to any agreement reached with Tehran.
Pakistan publicly rejected the proposal; other governments contacted have not issued public responses. Observers say a favourable reception is unlikely in many Muslim-majority states because of strong public opposition to Israel over its military campaign in Gaza. A Pakistani source familiar with the matter told Reuters that Islamabad sees no obligation to comply and that the Abraham Accords and Iran negotiations are distinct issues that should not be conflated.
Trump said some leaders he spoke with might have reservations, but he expected most to be “ready, willing, and able” to back a settlement that would, in his words, make the Iran deal “a far more Historic Event.” He offered no details suggesting a deal with Iran is imminent, only that talks were “proceeding nicely.”
The request highlights the sensitivity of formal ties with Israel across the region. Saudi recognition in particular would represent a landmark shift because of the kingdom’s role as custodian of Islam’s holiest sites and its insistence that Palestinian statehood be addressed as part of any normalization. Egypt, Jordan and Turkey already maintain diplomatic relations with Israel, though those relationships have been strained since the Gaza war began.
Supporters of linking the Abraham Accords to an Iran agreement welcomed the idea as a way to deepen regional integration and economic cooperation. Senator Lindsey Graham praised the concept as creating “a powerhouse for economic opportunity.” Critics argue the strategy risks muddling two separate diplomatic objectives and may overpromise what a fragile deal could deliver. Dr Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group said the approach trades one unrealistic expectation for another, suggesting it may not anchor a durable new Middle East order.