Former U.S. President Donald Trump announced on Monday that any potential agreement with Iran would be contingent on expanding the Abraham Accords—a framework of normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states brokered during his administration—to include additional countries, specifically naming Saudi Arabia and Turkey as key additions.
The declaration, made in a social media post, framed ongoing negotiations as “proceeding nicely” while effectively linking Iran’s diplomatic re-engagement to a broader regional realignment. Trump’s condition underscores his continued influence in shaping Middle East diplomacy, even as his administration has formally ended. The demand for Saudi and Turkish participation reflects a strategic effort to deepen Israel’s regional alliances before addressing Iran’s nuclear and security concerns.
Trump’s intervention comes as indirect talks between the U.S. And Iran have resumed under the Biden administration, aimed at reviving the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear deal from which Trump withdrew in 2018. While the Biden administration has pursued a return to the JCPOA without preconditions, Trump’s public stance introduces a layer of complexity, potentially complicating negotiations by introducing a new set of demands.
Saudi Arabia, which has historically maintained a cautious stance on formal ties with Israel, has in recent months signaled openness to deeper engagement, particularly as tensions with Iran have escalated. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has previously indicated that any normalization with Israel would require progress on the Palestinian issue, a position that aligns with broader Arab consensus. However, Trump’s explicit linkage to an Iran deal adds urgency to Riyadh’s calculations, as Saudi officials have privately acknowledged the need to balance relations with both Tehran and Jerusalem.
Turkey, meanwhile, has pursued a more independent foreign policy in the region, maintaining ties with both Israel and Iran while positioning itself as a mediator. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has historically opposed normalization with Israel without a resolution to the Palestinian conflict, though Ankara has engaged in limited economic cooperation with Jerusalem. The prospect of Ankara joining the Abraham Accords—if at all—would require a significant shift in Turkish policy, one that would likely face domestic and regional resistance.
The Biden administration has not yet responded to Trump’s statement, though White House officials have previously dismissed calls to expand the Abraham Accords beyond the current signatories—United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco—as a distraction from the core objective of preventing Iran from advancing its nuclear program. A senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, emphasized that “the focus remains on a diplomatic path that addresses Iran’s nuclear ambitions, not on expanding agreements that were designed for a different set of priorities.”
Trump’s intervention also highlights the ongoing rivalry between his administration’s approach and that of the Biden White House. While the former president’s diplomacy centered on transactional deals and regional alliances, the current administration has prioritized a more incremental, multilateral approach to Iran, one that includes European allies and regional partners like Iraq and Oman. The contrast in strategies raises questions about the coherence of U.S. Policy in the Middle East, particularly as both administrations compete for influence in the region.
For now, the immediate impact of Trump’s statement remains unclear. Saudi and Turkish officials have not publicly commented on the proposal, and Iranian representatives have not indicated whether they would engage with such a precondition. The next steps in the indirect talks between the U.S. And Iran are scheduled for later this week, with no indication that Trump’s remarks will alter the planned discussions. However, the introduction of a new diplomatic variable—one tied to a former president’s agenda—adds an element of unpredictability to an already delicate process.
