While former President Donald Trump expresses unwavering confidence that Saudi Arabia is poised to join the Abraham Accords and normalize relations with Israel, a recent Middle East conference painted a starkly different picture from the perspectives of Lebanon and Syria. Officials from both nations, considered potential future entrants by some, indicated that significant hurdles remain, signaling a challenging path to broader regional alignment.
Trump’s Optimistic Vision: MBS on Board, Two-State Solution Debatable
President Trump recently reiterated his prediction about Saudi Arabia’s accession during a „60 Minutes” interview, asserting his belief that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, with whom he shares a personal relationship, is „gonna join” the Accords. This, Trump suggested, could happen with or without the establishment of a two-state solution for Palestinians.
„I think we will have a solution. I don’t know if it’s gonna be two-state. That’s gonna be up to Israel and other people, and me,” Trump told the American TV program. He linked potential normalization to his administration’s stance on Iran, claiming: „But look, the main thing is you could’ve never had any kind of a deal if you had a nuclear Iran. And you essentially had a nuclear Iran. And I blasted the hell out of ’em.”
Despite Trump’s certainty, Saudi officials have yet to publicly comment on these latest remarks. However, both officials and experts have previously emphasized multiple times that a two-state solution remains a prerequisite for any prospective normalization with Israel.
Broad U.S. Calls for Alignment: „A New Hybrid” in the Middle East
Trump’s latest push followed closely on the heels of a broader call from senior U.S. officials at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Manama Dialogue in Bahrain, urging several Middle Eastern nations to join the Accords.
„We’ve heard President Trump and Vice President [JD] Vance speak just last week about their hope that the Abraham Accords will continue to grow and expand to allow for a true, lasting regional stability and peace,” stated U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard during her opening keynote.
Echoing this sentiment, U.S. Ambassador to Turkey and Special Envoy to Lebanon and Syria Tom Barrack urged regional states to „align” with Israel. Barrack specifically called for Lebanon to engage in direct talks with Israel, asserting: „It’s clear that Israel has become a dominant ally in this repositioning of the chessboard of what happens in the Middle East and the Abraham Accords, at least for what we have in front of us, seems to be the road that everybody needs to jump on. We’re building a new hybrid, and that new hybrid has to come from alignment. Rather than thinking that you’re going to fight them [Israel] at the moment, is to align with them.”
Lebanon’s Legal Dilemma: A Barrier to Dialogue
Despite the U.S. optimism, some Middle Eastern officials at the conference did not sound particularly hopeful about their capitals’ near-term participation.
From the Lebanese side, the sole official to speak during public panels was Minister of Interior Ahmad Al-Hajjar. While he didn’t directly address the question of Lebanon joining the Abraham Accords, Al-Hajjar highlighted a critical impediment: it is currently illegal under Lebanese law for Lebanese citizens to communicate with Israelis. This legal hurdle underscores the profound difficulty any normalization talks would face.
Syria’s Cautious Stance: Security Over Normalization Amidst Tensions
Another nation eyed for potential entry into the Accords is Syria, especially following the deposition of longtime dictator Bashar al-Assad. The nation’s new president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, has publicly discussed some form of security arrangement with Israel, though not going as far as some U.S. lawmakers claim in suggesting Syria would be open to joining the Accords.
At the Manama Dialogue, Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad Hassan al-Shaibani reiterated this cautious position, sharply criticizing Israel’s military actions in Syria. „With regards to the [Abraham Accords] with Israel, this is something that has not been discussed. And this is not new. We have already said this. There is a provocative case in Syria. We have Israeli provocative attacks on a daily basis in Syria,” al-Shaibani stated. He was likely referring to the Israeli invasion of southern Syria to support the Druze community and recent Israeli strikes on Damascus after Al-Sharaa took office.
Al-Shaibani clarified Syria’s immediate goal: „Today we have negotiations that want to reach a security agreement that, of course, does not affect the 1974 agreement, nor accept a new de facto situation in the south for Israel. So we want to have an agreement that allows Syria to rebuild itself.” The 1974 agreement, signed in Geneva, committed Syria and Israel to refrain from military actions against each other, a framework Syria seeks to preserve while negotiating for its future stability and reconstruction.
The conference thus revealed a significant divergence between the U.S. vision for an expanded Abraham Accords and the complex, deeply entrenched political and legal realities facing potential new signatories in the region.
