Donald Trump has floated a proposal that many would call audacious: inviting Iran to join the Abraham Accords and formally make peace with Israel. The very nation that has long labelled Israel the “Little Satan” could theoretically sit at the same negotiating table as countries that once normalised relations with Tel Aviv. The suggestion arrives amid ongoing tensions and years of proxy conflicts between Israel and Iran, making it both bold and fraught with risk.
The Abraham Accords, launched in 2020, united Israel with Sunni Arab states primarily as a counterbalance to Iran. The UAE and Bahrain broke decades of Arab consensus to sign the deals in Washington, Morocco gained US recognition of its sovereignty over Western Sahara, and Sudan joined in exchange for debt relief and removal from the US terrorism blacklist. For Israel, these accords brought diplomatic recognition, embassies, trade deals, and intelligence cooperation.
Iran was intentionally excluded, denouncing the accords as a betrayal and branding the signatories as traitors. The entire framework relied on isolating Tehran, making its exclusion central to the agreements. Yet Trump now proposes exactly the opposite: inviting the country that the accords were designed to exclude into the fold.
In September 2025, alongside Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump made this announcement, just months after Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and weeks after discussions on Gaza peace. The timing was striking, highlighting the audacity and potential volatility of such a move.
The challenges are immense. Iran’s revolutionary ideology is deeply anti-Israel, embedded in its government, military, education, and public discourse. Any participation in the Abraham Accords would require Tehran to reverse decades of doctrine, propaganda, and regional militancy. The Revolutionary Guard Corps, which thrives on anti-Israel activities, and the unresolved nuclear issue further complicate the path forward. Israel, in particular, insists on strict inspections and limits on Iran’s nuclear program before engaging in negotiations.
If Trump were successful, the implications for West Asia would be profound. Hezbollah and Hamas could lose crucial support, and Sunni Arab states might respond with a mix of optimism and caution. However, the plan could also fail spectacularly, with Iran participating merely as a stalling tactic or a means of subversion.
Trump’s proposal challenges decades of entrenched hostility, posing a question central to Middle East politics: can longstanding enmity be overcome through necessity, diplomacy, and economic incentives? Depending on the outcome, it could mark either the century’s greatest diplomatic triumph or its most dramatic failure.
