Diplomacy’s mic drop moment: World in shock over Trump’s latest somersault

By Akhtar Pathan

KARACHI, Pakistan (MNTV) — Fragile mediation efforts toward a peace deal since the April 8 ceasefire, which followed 40 days of sustained U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran, have seen many twists and turns, periodic escalations and sudden diplomatic roadblocks.

But U.S. President Donald Trump’s latest somersault — demanding that all countries in the Middle East, along with Pakistan, sign the Abraham Accords with Israel — is bizarre to say the least.

Since the initial halt to the war imposed on Iran on Feb. 28, the ceasefire process has remained shaky, marked by repeated extensions, flare-ups and a diplomacy track that has had an unmistakably bumpy ride.

The demand amounts to the diplomatic equivalent of his predecessor George W. Bush’s “shock and awe” military operation in Iraq — a pressure tactic that risks further destabilizing an already volatile region.

Former Pakistani diplomats with decades of experience who spoke to MNTV said in unison that the demand is “a wrong move at the wrong time,” reflecting American weakness and lack of leverage rather than power.

They argued that Washington is unlikely to find easy takers for such a proposal in the Middle East and beyond at a time when regional states are struggling to navigate the aftermath of war and an increasingly fractured geopolitical order.

Demand bid to turn ceasefire process into ideological spectacle

Former ambassador Sanaullah believes the demand is closely tied to President Donald Trump’s oft-repeated assertion that he would never accept a bad deal. Deep down, he argues, after failing to extract meaningful concessions from Iran, Trump realizes that agreeing to end the war largely on Iranian terms would be seen by many Americans as a concession — even a defeat — before Tehran.

In that scenario, neither the claims used to justify launching the war nor the administration’s declarations of victory would retain much credibility.

The latest demand — that countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Türkiye, Egypt and Jordan sign the Abraham Accords as a condition for participating in an Iran peace framework — appears less like a coherent diplomatic initiative and more like an attempt to transform a fragile ceasefire process into a grand ideological spectacle, he contends.

He says although the move is not entirely detached from the broader question of peace in the Middle East, packaging it at this stage as part of an off-ramp strategy appears overly dramatic and politically difficult to sell. Analysts say it is neither necessary nor prudent to revive a structurally weakening accord that still faces rejection across much of the region.

Trump reveals US lacks uncontested leverage

Strategically, he argues, the demand reveals something deeper about the current state of American diplomacy and power.

Two decades ago, Washington could invade Iraq, isolate Iran, pressure Gulf monarchies and dictate the sequencing of regional diplomacy. Today, even close U.S. partners are acting more autonomously. Saudi Arabia is talking to Iran. Qatar is mediating independently. Türkiye is pursuing its own regional posture. Pakistan has refused to link Iran negotiations with normalization with Israel.

Sanaullah argues that the maximalist demand betrays insecurity rather than strength. Had Washington felt fully confident in its dominance, he says, it would likely have pursued priority issues separately and secured strategic gains incrementally.

Instead, Trump appears to be forcing together an oversized geopolitical package, hoping symbolism can compensate for declining authority, he says.

The contradiction, he argues, is stark: Washington says it urgently seeks de-escalation with Iran while simultaneously inserting the single most divisive issue in the Muslim world — normalization with Israel amid the devastation in Gaza — directly into the negotiations.

Diplomatically self-defeating, disconnected from reality

Sanaullah describes the demand as diplomatically self-defeating because it ignores political realities within the states concerned.

He contends Saudi Arabia cannot casually normalize relations with Israel under prevailing public sentiment. Pakistan’s position on Palestine remains structurally tied to domestic legitimacy and ideological identity. Türkiye’s ruling establishment would struggle to publicly embrace such a framework without severe political backlash.

The former diplomat says the proposal also exposes the limitations of the Abraham Accords themselves. The accords initially succeeded because they were transactional in nature: the United Arab Emirates gained strategic access and U.S. favor, Bahrain aligned with Gulf security priorities, Morocco received recognition over Western Sahara, and Sudan sought sanctions relief, he says.

Trump, however, now appears to be transforming the accords from pragmatic bilateral arrangements into a broader civilizational alignment test, and it fundamentally changes their character — from diplomacy into ideological submission, he says.

This is why he sees the demand as disconnected from reality. Iran negotiations are fundamentally centered on sanctions, security in the Strait of Hormuz, nuclear thresholds, regional militias, energy flows and ceasefire mechanisms. They are not organically tied to Arab-Israeli normalization, he argues.

The move also reflects growing anxiety in Washington about the postwar regional balance. The recent Iran conflict demonstrated several uncomfortable realities for the United States: Iran survived both militarily and politically, Israel failed to impose decisive strategic outcomes alone, Gulf economies proved vulnerable, and regional states increasingly preferred mediation over confrontation. Meanwhile, China and Russia remained influential external poles even without direct intervention, he concludes.

In that context, he says, the revival of the Abraham Accords appears aimed at reconstructing an American-centered geopolitical architecture — reassuring Israel, placating pro-Israel constituencies in Washington and preserving the image of U.S. centrality in the Middle East.

The broader message, he argues, is that states are increasingly being pushed to align within rival geopolitical camps rather than pursue flexible diplomacy. That dynamic is encouraging middle powers — including Gulf states, Pakistan, Türkiye and Egypt — to adopt hedging strategies instead of full alignment.

In short, Sanaullah says, the latest “somersault” may say more about the broader transition underway in global politics. The United States still possesses enormous military, financial and technological power, but its ability to impose political consensus across the Middle East is no longer automatic.

At best, Washington can still influence the chessboard. It can no longer fully command every player.

‘Wrong demand at the wrong time’

Former ambassador Javed Hafeez described the proposal as “a wrong demand at the wrong time.”

“Asking Arab and Islamic countries to normalize with Israel after so many atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank is ironic,” he said, adding that Trump had embarrassed both himself and the United States by making a sudden and ill-advised demand without fully thinking through its implications.

“Diplomacy is not conducted by shooting off the hip,” Hafeez said. “It should be a well-thought-out process. The U.S. is a great country and must make greater use of its soft power.”

He recalled the 1956 Suez crisis, when Washington condemned the bombing of Egypt by Israel, Britain and France after the nationalization of the Suez Canal.

“Current U.S. foreign policy has lost much of its moral content,” he said. “The foreign policy of a great country like the United States should not be dictated by another country that remains highly controversial because of its expansionist policies and dismal human rights record.”

‘There will be no easy takers’

Former ambassador Masood Khalid argued that despite setbacks on both political and military fronts during the latest U.S.-Iran confrontation, the United States remains a superpower and continues to behave like one.

“As a result, its swing behavior should not come as a surprise, particularly because President Trump is prone to changing his stance frequently,” he said.

Khalid said Washington increasingly appears hubristic and power-driven, acting in disregard of international norms and United Nations Charter principles while paying little attention to the instability such policies generate globally.

At the same time, he said, the world is changing. The unipolar moment is over, and Washington now recognizes the limits of its power. The rise of China and the emergence of influential middle powers have altered the global landscape.

According to Khalid, the Iran-U.S. conflict has exposed divisions within Atlantic and Gulf security alliances and raised serious questions about America’s reliability as a security guarantor.

“Once the dust settles, there will be considerable introspection and review of current security mechanisms, particularly among Gulf allies,” he said, adding that new regional groupings and sub-groupings could emerge.

Trump’s call for countries to sign on to the Abraham Accords, he argued, “will have no easy takers.”

“Unless Palestinian rights are protected, any durable arrangement is unlikely,” Khalid said. “Arab states will not be on the same page in accepting the Abraham Accords. If a solution is imposed, it could endanger peace in West Asia and lead to an even more fractious Middle East.”