Riyadh has taken a calculated bet that building visible security partnerships, even imperfect ones with a poor regional track record, is less risky than continuing to depend on an American security umbrella that has twice failed to respond when Saudi territory was struck. Whether that bet pays off will be determined by what Turkey and Pakistan actually do the next time Riyadh is under attack.
When Saudi Arabia’s oil processing facilities at Abqaiq and Khurais were struck in September 2019, Washington sent Patriot batteries rather than retaliation. Similarly, when Iranian missiles hit Saudi territory again during Operation True Promise 4 in March 2026, no American counter-strike followed. The Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, signed at Al-Safa Palace on August 7, 2026, by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, is Riyadh’s answer to a lesson accumulated across seven years.
While American security guarantees remain available, they remain on discretionary terms that no longer qualify as guarantees in any militarily meaningful sense. The three signatories have declared an ambition to produce regional security locally rather than import it from Washington, and they have chosen a collective defence clause modelled loosely on NATO’s Article 5.
The 2019 attacks demonstrated that Washington would defend Saudi territory but would not punish Iran on Riyadh’s behalf. The September 2025 Israeli strike on Hamas negotiators in Doha extended that lesson: Washington’s security umbrella did not guarantee immunity from Israeli action either, and the Saudi-Pakistani Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement was signed eight days later. When the United States and Israel opened combat operations against Iran on February 28, 2026, and Iranian retaliation struck every Gulf state, the case for extending the bilateral arrangement into a broader framework became difficult to resist. The Mecca Agreement is best read as the second stage of a security realignment that Gulf states began before the Iran war and accelerated because of it.
Complementarity without Integration
Each signatory brings the arrangement something the others need. Pakistan contributes six decades of institutional military presence in the Kingdom, along with manpower depth neither Riyadh nor Ankara can match. Its status as the Islamic world’s only nuclear-armed state adds implicit deterrent weight, though Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif stated in September 2025 that the nuclear dimension was formally excluded. Turkey contributes combat-tested forces and a defence-industrial base that has already moved from political alignment to commercial integration with both partners, through active naval construction contracts with Islamabad and its largest recorded arms export to Riyadh in 2023; Saudi Arabia supplies the financial depth and geographic centrality that give the arrangement its strategic rationale.
Complementary capabilities become useful only when they can be used together, and by that measure the agreement is barely a starting point. The three states share no borders. Iraq, Syria, and Jordan separate Ankara and Riyadh; Islamabad and Riyadh by the breadth of Iran or the sea passage around it; and the direct air routes connecting all three cross Iranian or otherwise contested airspace. Their armed forces operate on incompatible equipment stacks with no common data links, no shared identification protocols, no status-of-forces agreements, and no combined headquarters.
The Regional Record
Collective defence arrangements have not fared well in West Asia. The Baghdad Pact of 1955, assembling Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom along the Northern Tier, dissolved when Iraq’s 1958 revolution removed Baghdad. It renamed itself CENTO, relocated to Ankara, and expired in 1979 without ever activating a defence obligation on behalf of any member. Pakistan fought two wars with India during CENTO’s existence and received no alliance assistance in either. The Arab League’s 1950 Joint Defence and Economic Co-operation Treaty established a unified command provision, but that was never operated as written across four subsequent conflicts. The GCC’s Peninsula Shield Force, established in 1984, has been deployed only once in four decades for a politically consequential purpose.
In April 2015, that limitation was visible. When Saudi Arabia asked Pakistan to join its military intervention in Yemen, Pakistan’s parliament voted unanimously to stay neutral in the Yemen war, capturing a structural condition the Mecca Agreement did not remove. Partners with their own borders, their own economies, and their own domestic politics read collective defence obligations narrowly when the costs are real. Pakistan shares a 900-kilometer border with Iran and cannot afford to fight it on Riyadh’s behalf, and Turkey maintains economic and diplomatic channels with Tehran that it will not close for the same reason. While the agreement adds institutional visibility to pre-existing bilateral arrangements, it does not extend the underlying commitment in a meaningful sense.
Regional and Extra-Regional Implications
The agreement changes what Tehran, Jerusalem, and Washington must assume about the consequences of a strike on Saudi territory, even if it does not change what the signatories would actually do in response. At the opening of the Iran war, heightened partnership with Islamabad allowed Riyadh to shape ceasefire negotiations and manage escalation with Tehran more effectively than it could have as a solitary Gulf actor. Israel now has to price the possibility of coordination among Turkish military capabilities, Saudi financial weight, and Pakistani nuclear latency that it previously assessed separately. Iran, whose regional position has strengthened since 2020, faces a more complicated strategic environment without confronting a formally declared adversary. Washington need not read the arrangement as a strategic setback; it could align with the Trump administration’s preference for regional burden-sharing among partners who remain individually close to the United States.
Conclusion
The Mecca Agreement is, at its core, a political signal wearing the clothes of a military commitment, and the gap between the two is what matters most. Riyadh has taken a calculated bet that building visible security partnerships, even imperfect ones with a poor regional track record, is less risky than continuing to depend on an American security umbrella that has twice failed to respond when Saudi territory was struck. Whether that bet pays off will be determined by what Turkey and Pakistan actually do the next time Riyadh is under attack, whether that comes from the Houthis, from Iran directly, or from a South Asian crisis that pulls Islamabad’s attention elsewhere. Until that moment arrives, the agreement is best understood as a statement of direction rather than a guarantee of protection.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author solely. TheRise.co.in neither endorses nor is responsible for them. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.
References
- Baker Institute for Public Policy. “The US Response to Attacks on Persian Gulf Oil Infrastructure and Strategic Implications for Petro-States.” October 29, 2019. https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/us-response-attacks-persian-gulf-oil-infrastructure.
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “How Gulf States Are Reinterpreting National Security Beyond Their Land Borders.” August 1, 2024. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/08/how-gulf-states-are-reinterpreting-national-security-beyond-their-land-borders-abdullah-baabood.
- Al Jazeera. “Can Pakistan Juggle US-Iran Mediation with Saudi Defence Commitments?” April 14, 2026. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/14/can-pakistan-juggle-us-iran-mediation-with-saudi-defence-commitments.
- Chatham House. “Saudi Arabia and Pakistan’s Mutual Defence Pact Sets a Precedent for Extended Deterrence.” September 23, 2025. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/09/saudi-arabia-and-pakistans-mutual-defence-pact-sets-precedent-extended-deterrence.
- Foreign Policy. “The Dangerous, Delicate Saudi-Pakistan Alliance.” April 1, 2015. https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/01/the-dangerous-delicate-saudi-pakistan-alliance-yemen-iran/.
- Naval News. “Istanbul Shipyard Launched First Babur-Class Corvette for Pakistan Navy.” August 16, 2021. https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/08/istanbul-shipyard-launched-first-milgem-class-corvette-for-pakistan-navy/.
- Atlantic Council. “Drones and More: Turkish Defense Cooperation Trends in the Air.” June 25, 2024. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/ac-turkey-defense-journal/drones-and-more-turkish-defense-cooperation-trends-in-the-air/.
- Brookings Institution. “Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America, and the Future of the Global Jihad.” Chapter One. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/deadlyembrace_chapter.pdf.
- Avalon Project, Yale Law School. “Joint Defense and Economic Cooperation Treaty of the League of Arab States, 1950.” https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/arabjoin.asp.
- Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Peninsula Shield Force.” https://www.britannica.com/topic/Peninsula-Shield-Force.
- The Washington Post. “Defying Saudis, Pakistani Lawmakers Vote to Stay Out of Yemen.” April 10, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2015/04/10/6dc494fc-df62-11e4-a500-1c5bb1d8ff6a_story.html.
- Al Jazeera. “Caught Between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Can Pakistan Stay Neutral for Long?” March 7, 2026. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/7/caught-between-iran-and-saudi-arabia-can-pakistan-stay-neutral-for-long
About the author
Venkatakrishnan Asuri is an undergraduate student at the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras. His interests include South Asian security, Chinese studies, and India’s neighbourhood. His works have appeared in platforms, such as CNN News18, the Deccan Herald and the Deccan Centre for International Relations.
