By Dr. Pshtiwan Faraj

Sulaimani, Iraqi Kurdistan — 25 May 2026

Washington’s Push for a Grand Bargain Could Reshape the Middle East — and Deepen America’s Contradictions

Donald Trump is attempting to tie a potential Iran peace deal to a massive expansion of the Abraham Accords. But the strategy risks exposing deep contradictions between Israel, Gulf states, and Washington’s vision for the Middle East.

For years, American strategy toward Iran has oscillated between “maximum pressure” and military escalation. Now, U.S. President Donald Trump appears to be testing a radically different path: ending the long-running confrontation with Tehran through an uneasy geopolitical compromise while simultaneously attempting to redraw the Middle East around an expanded Abraham Accords framework.

The contradiction at the center of Trump’s emerging strategy is stark. Washington seeks to contain Iran while also negotiating with it. It wants Arab normalization with Israel while the Gaza war continues unresolved. It demands regional de-escalation while threatening overwhelming military force if diplomacy fails.

What is emerging is not a coherent doctrine so much as a transactional attempt to freeze multiple regional conflicts simultaneously before they spiral into a broader war neither Washington nor Tehran can economically sustain.

Yet beneath the diplomatic theater lies a more consequential question: Is Trump pursuing a historic regional settlement — or merely institutionalizing a fragile balance of exhaustion?

The Shape of the Emerging Iran Deal

Early signals from negotiations suggested Washington was prepared to accept a compromise that only months ago would have been politically unthinkable in the United States.

The broad outlines reportedly under discussion include:

• Partial sanctions relief for Tehran.
• International monitoring of uranium enrichment.
• Informal recognition of Iran’s regional influence.
• Prisoner exchanges.
• Gradual U.S. military de-escalation in parts of the Middle East.
• Temporary ceasefire extensions linked to wider diplomatic arrangements.

Such a framework would allow both sides to claim victory while quietly accepting strategic limitations.

Iran could portray the agreement as proof that it survived Western pressure without capitulating. The United States could present the arrangement as conflict prevention rather than retreat. But the underlying reality would be more uncomfortable for both governments: neither side possesses a realistic path toward total victory.

For Washington, endless confrontation with Iran has become strategically expensive. For Tehran, prolonged sanctions and regional conflict threaten economic exhaustion and internal instability.

The proposed compromise reflects this mutual fatigue.

Israel’s Strategic Alarm

The strongest backlash has emerged from Israel and pro-Israel political circles in Washington.

Israeli officials reportedly fear the deal would effectively provide Tehran with time — time to economically recover, rebuild regional proxy networks, and preserve elements of its nuclear infrastructure under international supervision rather than dismantlement.

From Jerusalem’s perspective, the concern is not simply nuclear enrichment levels. It is the broader normalization of Iran as a permanent regional power.

For decades, Israeli strategy relied on preventing Iran from achieving geopolitical legitimacy in the Middle East. A U.S.-Iran arrangement that tacitly accepts Iranian influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the Gulf would represent a major strategic shift.

The anxiety is intensified by the possibility that Washington may prioritize regional stabilization over Israeli escalation preferences.

This explains why reports of the negotiations triggered immediate opposition among American hawks and segments of the Israeli security establishment. To them, the deal resembles managed coexistence rather than containment.

And for Israel, coexistence with an empowered Iran has always been viewed as inherently unstable.

Trump’s Abraham Accords Expansion Strategy

Trump’s attempt to offset Israeli concerns has taken the form of a dramatic diplomatic demand: linking any Iran agreement to a massive expansion of the Abraham Accords.

The Abraham Accords, first signed in 2020 between Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain, were designed to realign Middle Eastern politics around shared security and economic interests rather than the Palestinian issue.

Trump now appears determined to transform that framework into something far larger — potentially a regional political order.

He has publicly called on countries including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan to formally join the accords as part of a broader Iran settlement framework.

The proposal reflects Trump’s long-standing belief that economic integration and elite-level diplomacy can override ideological conflict.

But the initiative also reveals how disconnected Washington’s assumptions remain from regional political realities.

Saudi Arabia continues insisting that normalization with Israel requires credible movement toward Palestinian statehood — something the government of Benjamin Netanyahu strongly rejects.

Pakistan has historically linked recognition of Israel to Palestinian independence.

Qatar maintains close ties with Washington while simultaneously positioning itself as a mediator with Hamas and other regional actors.

Turkey’s relationship with Israel remains volatile despite periods of strategic cooperation.

Trump’s vision therefore collides with the fact that the Palestinian issue still retains significant political weight across Muslim-majority societies despite repeated predictions of its decline.

The Economic Logic Behind the Deal

At the heart of Trump’s diplomacy is a calculation increasingly shared across much of the region: perpetual instability is becoming economically unsustainable.

The Gulf monarchies are attempting to transition toward post-oil economic diversification. Iran faces severe sanctions pressure and structural economic decay. Israel’s prolonged mobilization imposes mounting financial burdens. The United States increasingly views Middle Eastern wars as strategic distractions from competition with China.

A limited settlement with Iran could reduce risks to global energy markets, shipping routes, and regional investment flows.

This explains why Gulf states — despite deep mistrust of Tehran — increasingly prioritize de-escalation mechanisms over open confrontation.

The region’s leaderships may not trust Iran, but many now fear uncontrolled escalation more than managed rivalry.

Trump’s proposed arrangement reflects this broader shift.

The Contradiction Washington Cannot Resolve

The central weakness of the emerging strategy is that it attempts to reconcile fundamentally incompatible goals.

Washington wants:

• Israeli security guarantees.
• Arab-Israeli normalization.
• Reduced military commitments.
• Containment of Iranian influence.
• Stability in energy markets.
• Strategic focus on Asia.

Yet these objectives frequently undermine one another.

A tougher anti-Iran posture complicates diplomacy. Concessions to Iran alarm Israel. Continued war in Gaza obstructs normalization. Pressure on Gulf states risks backlash. Military escalation threatens oil markets.

Trump’s approach does not solve these contradictions. Instead, it seeks to freeze them inside a loose regional framework held together by economic incentives and deterrence.

Whether such a framework can survive future crises is another matter entirely.

Iran’s Strategic Victory — Without Winning

Ironically, Tehran may emerge from the negotiations in a stronger position even without achieving formal victory.

If sanctions ease partially and military confrontation slows, Iran gains breathing room. Its regional networks remain intact. Its political system survives. Its economy stabilizes enough to prevent immediate collapse.

This would reinforce a broader lesson increasingly visible across the Middle East: endurance itself can become a form of strategic success.

Iran does not need to dominate the region outright. It merely needs to outlast repeated attempts to isolate it.

That reality deeply unsettles both Israel and anti-Iran factions in Washington because it signals the gradual erosion of the old “maximum pressure” consensus.

The Emerging Middle East Order

Trump’s diplomacy may ultimately reveal less about peace than about the emergence of a new regional equilibrium.

The old Middle East order — built around absolute American dominance, Arab-Israeli polarization, and the isolation of Iran — is weakening.

In its place, a more fragmented system is emerging:

• Gulf states balancing between Washington and regional autonomy.
• Iran surviving through asymmetric influence.
• Israel seeking normalization while fighting prolonged conflicts.
• Turkey pursuing independent regional ambitions.
• China and Russia expanding diplomatic space.
• The United States attempting to reduce costs without losing influence.

Trump’s proposed Iran arrangement and expanded Abraham Accords framework represent an attempt to manage this transition rather than reverse it.

The question is whether transactional diplomacy can stabilize a region still driven by unresolved ideological, sectarian, and territorial conflicts.

History suggests such freezes rarely last forever.

But for Washington, Tehran, and much of the Gulf, temporary stability may now be preferable to the escalating risks of permanent war.

#Iran #Trump #MiddleEast #AbrahamAccords #Israel #SaudiArabia #Geopolitics #USIran #GulfPolitics #WarOnTheRocks