By Maram Mazen Hatam
In a pivotal political moment, former U.S. President Donald Trump has returned to the forefront of Middle Eastern affairs, attempting once again to reshape the region in line with his long-standing strategic vision. His recent visit to the region coincided with the Arab Summit in Baghdad, adding symbolic and political dimensions that cannot be overlooked—especially amid signs of renewed American efforts to redirect alliances and relations in the Middle East.
The announcement of lifting sanctions on Syria came as a surprise to many, but it carries deeper implications. This move reflects not only a shift in the American approach toward Damascus but also signals the beginning of Syria’s gradual integration into the emerging regional order, shaped around what has come to be known as the "Abraham Accords." It aligns with Trump’s broader vision of expanding Arab normalization with Israel, now aiming to include states that were previously outside the scope of such agreements.
Since the signing of the first Abraham Accords in 2020, Trump has pushed to broaden the framework to encompass key regional players such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. While some Gulf states have shown readiness to join or strengthen ties with Israel, Trump’s renewed call for normalization comes at a time of clear political repositioning in the region. Saudi Arabia now plays a central role in this equation, exerting influence that extends far beyond its borders and shaping major regional dynamics.
Saudi Arabia is currently the cornerstone of the U.S. strategy in the Middle East, especially as the traditional roles of other powers wane. Its foreign policy today stands as a proactive and influential force, capable of negotiation and imposing terms on sensitive issues—from Yemen to Syria, and potentially normalization with Israel. The Trump administration recognizes Riyadh’s importance as a key mediator in any initiative to restructure regional relations, including on the Syrian front.
Syria today is navigating a transitional phase spanning five years—an intended timeframe to rehabilitate state institutions and recalibrate its regional and international relations. A key question looms: will Syria join the Abraham Accords?
On one hand, normalization with Israel presents complex historical and political challenges, particularly in light of Iran’s strong presence in Syria and Damascus’ affiliation with the “Axis of Resistance.” On the other hand, the U.S. drive to integrate Syria into a new regional architecture could apply pressure to redefine long-held positions, including relations with Israel.
The Golan Heights remains one of the most significant symbolic and political barriers to any potential rapprochement with Israel. Occupied by Israel since 1967 and unilaterally annexed in a move unrecognized by the international community, the Golan remains a central symbol of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Although the U.S. under Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan, its legal status is still considered invalid under international law, as per UN Security Council resolutions.
Should Syria opt to engage with the Abraham Accords, its stance on the Golan Heights will become a litmus test for the credibility of the normalization process and the seriousness of its stakeholders in addressing core historical disputes. Will Syria agree to normalize in exchange for promises to revisit the Golan’s status? Or will the issue be sidelined, as has been the case with other critical files in past agreements?
A potential resolution of the Golan issue—either through return to Syrian sovereignty or via transitional international administration—may emerge as part of a comprehensive settlement, particularly if the ultimate aim is Syria’s full inclusion in a new regional framework. Thus, Syria’s path toward normalization, if it happens, will depend on navigating complex arrangements, with the Golan front and center. This will also reveal whether the Abraham Accords are merely a political tool for normalization, or a serious platform for resolving the root causes of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Trump’s visit, which took place during the Arab Summit in Baghdad, was notably detached from direct engagement with the Iraqi government. In fact, he made disparaging remarks about Baghdad, calling it "the worst," reflecting lingering tensions between Iraq and the Republican administration. This raises important questions about Iraq’s position in the normalization process: is it being deliberately sidelined, or is its exclusion a temporary tactic pending internal or regional shifts?
In my view, these developments cannot be separated from a broader project to restructure the Middle East in line with the logic of "flexible alliances" that transcend traditional rivalries. The lifting of sanctions on Syria is not merely a political gesture toward the Assad regime, but also a strategic maneuver to contain Russian and Iranian influence in Damascus. Washington understands that keeping Syria out of the Arab and Abrahamic fold could prolong resistance dynamics that may complicate long-term American interests.
Within this context, Saudi Arabia is pursuing a more mature and effective foreign policy—balancing its leadership in the Arab and Islamic worlds with pragmatic strategies to protect its national security and regional stature. If Syria does indeed join the Abraham Accords, it would signal a major overhaul of regional political consciousness, embracing a new form of realism that moves beyond ideological confrontation.
As for Iraq, it remains in a delicate position—caught between external pressures and internal aspirations. Being excluded from Abraham Accord discussions or neglected in Trump’s rhetoric does not necessarily equate to total marginalization. Rather, it may signal a phase of reassessment of Iraq’s role, especially amid ongoing political instability.
In conclusion, the Middle East is undergoing a rapid transformation. Trump’s return is a clear indication that the dynamics of the post-Abraham Accords era are far from settled. On the contrary, they have entered a more complex phase—one that demands shared Arab awareness and political will, not mere reaction, to shape the future.
Comments