Riyadh: Bringing together Saudi Arabia, Trkiye, and Pakistan-countries with substantial military, economic, and strategic influence-the Mecca Agreement highlights a growing belief that the region should take more responsibility for its security amid rising instability. This instability is attributed largely to Israel's military actions in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran.
According to TRTworld.com, analysts suggest that the agreement marks a significant shift in Middle Eastern geopolitics. Rather than targeting a specific adversary, the pact seeks to establish a flexible defense framework that allows member states to enhance military cooperation while maintaining their existing diplomatic relationships. Oral Toga, an expert at the Center for Iranian Studies, notes that this framework's omission of naming an adversary is intentional, allowing each member to retain its current alliances.
The agreement arises amid a broader reassessment of regional security, particularly after the Iran-US confrontation and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Recent events have demonstrated the limitations of relying on external powers for long-term security, leading to renewed interest in indigenous defense cooperation. The agreement's flexible design has been welcomed by Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar, though Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have yet to publicly endorse it.
Experts like Ozgur Korpe of Trkiye's National Defence University argue that the agreement's adaptability is precisely what makes it appealing to other countries. The Mecca Agreement is perceived as a platform open to actors sharing a vision of stability rather than an exclusionary structure. Analysts expect potential participation to occur cautiously, with countries weighing their existing security and diplomatic partnerships before committing to this new defense arrangement.
The agreement's design has sparked questions about whether Saudi Arabia, Trkiye, and Pakistan plan to expand the partnership. Analysts believe expansion is likely as the agreement's institutional framework develops. Qatar is considered a strong candidate for joining, given its close ties with Trkiye and its role as a mediator between Washington and Tehran. Saira Bano, an assistant professor at Thompson Rivers University, emphasizes that the agreement should be seen as an emerging mechanism of regional strategic coordination rather than a NATO-style military alliance.
Analysts agree that the primary objective of the pact is to help Middle Eastern powers assume greater responsibility for their security. Luciano Zaccara, a Doha-based political analyst, notes that while the agreement contains a collective security principle similar to NATO's Article 5, it is not a Middle Eastern version of the alliance. The pact's emergence after the Iran-US confrontation should not be viewed solely through the prism of Tehran.
Mahjoob Zweiri, an expert on Middle Eastern politics, suggests that the agreement sends distinct messages to both Iran and Israel, with Israel expressing concern over the potential alliance between Saudi Arabia, Trkiye, and Pakistan. Iran, on the other hand, sees the agreement as part of a broader effort to strengthen a regional security order less dependent on outside powers. Mohammed Eslami, a political scientist, believes that Iran could potentially become part of the framework in the future.
Ultimately, the Mecca Agreement represents an early attempt to reshape the Middle East's security order around regional actors rather than external powers. As Saira Bano notes, the agreement's significance lies in its potential to create a more autonomous security architecture among influential Muslim-majority states, marking a transformation in the regional order.