The framework that once seemed poised to reshape the Middle East appears to have stalled.
In the years since the Abraham Accords quietly rewrote the map of Arab-Israeli relations, the Trump administration has returned to that same diplomatic well — only to find it transformed by war. The Gaza conflict, with its staggering human toll, has made what was once a calculated regional realignment feel, to many Arab governments and Muslim-majority nations, like an act of moral abandonment. The ambition to expand Israel's formal recognition across the Arab world now collides with a political landscape that the original accords were never designed to survive.
- The administration is pressing Arab states to join the UAE and Bahrain in formally recognizing Israel, betting that economic and security incentives can overcome a region still burning with conflict.
- The Gaza war has fundamentally changed the math — Arab leaders who might once have quietly followed suit now face domestic publics that view normalization as betrayal, not pragmatism.
- Pakistan and other Muslim-majority nations have drawn a clear line: no normalization while Palestinians remain under siege, giving the opposition a global religious and political weight that trade deals cannot easily counter.
- American allies and regional observers are openly questioning whether the administration's Middle East strategy is coherent at all, pointing to contradictions in its Iran policy as evidence of a vision without a compass.
- The diplomatic momentum that made the original accords possible has stalled — and whether Washington will adapt its approach or simply push harder into the headwind remains the defining open question.
The Trump administration has set its sights on expanding the Abraham Accords — the 2020 framework that brought the UAE and Bahrain into formal recognition of Israel — by persuading additional Arab states to follow. The goal is to deepen Israel's place in the regional order and tilt Middle Eastern geopolitics toward American interests. But the world the administration is navigating looks nothing like the one in which those original accords were signed.
When the UAE and Bahrain broke with decades of Arab consensus in 2020, the accords were celebrated as a new model: one that bypassed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in favor of economic cooperation, security partnerships, and a shared wariness of Iran. The Trump team took considerable credit, and the framework became a cornerstone of its Middle East legacy.
The Gaza war, which began in October 2023, has since transformed the political terrain. The humanitarian catastrophe it has produced — mass casualties, displacement, relentless imagery of suffering — has hardened Arab public opinion against any government seen as warming to Israel. What was once a diplomatic opening has become, for many Arab leaders, a political trap.
Pakistan and other Muslim-majority nations have made their position explicit: normalization is off the table while Palestinians continue to suffer. The moral and religious weight of that position carries far more force than the economic arguments that underpinned the original accords. Arab governments that once might have quietly followed the UAE's lead now face domestic pressure that makes such a move genuinely costly.
Skepticism has spread beyond the region. American allies and outside observers have begun questioning whether the administration's approach is grounded in current reality, particularly given what many describe as a contradictory Iran strategy running alongside it. The expansion of the Abraham Accords — once a plausible next chapter — now appears caught between Washington's ambitions and a Middle East that has moved on without it.
The Trump administration has embarked on an ambitious diplomatic campaign to expand the Abraham Accords—the framework that brought the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain into formal recognition of Israel in 2020—by persuading additional Arab states to follow suit. The goal is straightforward: to deepen Israel's integration into the regional order and, by extension, to reshape Middle Eastern geopolitics in ways favorable to American interests. But the ongoing conflict in Gaza has created a political environment that makes this expansion far more difficult than the original accords were to negotiate.
When the Abraham Accords were first signed, they represented a significant diplomatic breakthrough. The UAE and Bahrain became the first Arab nations in nearly three decades to formally recognize Israel, breaking what had been a near-universal Arab position of non-recognition. The accords were presented as a new model for regional peace—one that sidestepped the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and instead focused on economic cooperation, security partnerships, and shared interests in countering Iranian influence. The Trump administration took considerable credit for brokering the deals, and the framework became a centerpiece of its Middle East policy.
Now, as the administration seeks to replicate that success with other Arab nations, it faces a fundamentally altered landscape. The war in Gaza, which began in October 2023 and has resulted in massive civilian casualties and displacement, has become a lightning rod for Arab public opinion. Across the Muslim world, the humanitarian toll of the conflict has generated intense anger and resentment toward Israel and, by extension, toward any Arab government seen as normalizing relations with it. What was once a diplomatic opportunity has become, for many Arab leaders, a political liability.
The skepticism extends beyond the Arab world. American allies and regional observers have begun to question whether Trump's approach is realistic or even serious. Some view it as a bold gamble that could reshape the region; others see it as a fantasy disconnected from current realities. The administration's simultaneous pursuit of what observers describe as a puzzling Iran strategy has only added to doubts about the coherence of its broader Middle East vision. If the administration cannot articulate a clear path forward on one major regional issue, critics ask, how credible is its push on another?
Pakistan and other Muslim-majority nations have emerged as particular obstacles. These countries, which represent hundreds of millions of Muslims globally, have signaled that they will not support further normalization efforts while the Gaza conflict remains unresolved and Palestinians continue to suffer. The religious and political dimensions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict carry weight in ways that the economic and security arguments underlying the Abraham Accords do not. For many in the Muslim world, recognizing Israel while Palestinians face displacement and loss is not a pragmatic diplomatic move—it is a betrayal.
The momentum that carried the original accords forward has dissipated. Arab governments that might once have considered following the UAE and Bahrain's lead now face domestic pressure that makes such a move politically costly. Public opinion in Arab countries has hardened against normalization. Regional media and civil society organizations have mobilized opposition. The calculation that made the first accords possible—that the benefits of economic and security cooperation with Israel outweighed the political costs—no longer holds in the same way.
What remains unclear is whether the Trump administration will adjust its strategy in light of these headwinds or continue to push forward with the same approach. The administration has shown willingness to pursue controversial diplomatic initiatives, but it has also shown a tendency to abandon efforts when they prove difficult. The expansion of the Abraham Accords will likely test both its patience and its ability to read a changed regional mood. For now, the framework that once seemed poised to reshape the Middle East appears to have stalled, caught between the ambitions of American diplomacy and the hard realities of a region in conflict.
Citas Notables
The Trump administration is attempting to execute a 2020 diplomatic playbook in a fundamentally altered 2026 regional landscape— Regional observers and analysts
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why would Arab states even consider normalizing with Israel right now, given what's happening in Gaza?
Because the original accords weren't really about solving the Palestinian question—they were about economic ties, security cooperation against Iran, and a kind of regional realpolitik. But Gaza changed the political math. Public anger is real, and Arab leaders can't ignore it without risking their own legitimacy.
So the Trump administration is out of step with the moment?
Not just out of step—they're trying to execute a 2020 playbook in 2026. The conditions that made the first accords possible no longer exist. The humanitarian crisis has made normalization feel like complicity to millions of people.
What about the countries that already signed? Are they regretting it?
The UAE and Bahrain have benefited economically and strategically, but they're also facing domestic criticism they didn't anticipate. They're caught between their commitments and their populations' feelings about Palestine.
Is there any path forward for the administration?
Only if they address Gaza directly—if there's a ceasefire, a reconstruction effort, some visible progress toward Palestinian statehood. Without that, asking Arab states to normalize with Israel is asking them to ignore their own people's moral objections.
And if they don't address it?
Then the accords framework becomes a relic of a different era. The administration will have to choose between doubling down on a failing strategy or pivoting to something that acknowledges the region as it actually is.