Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan signed a defense agreement known as the “Mecca Agreement” on Aug. 7.
Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan described the agreement as “the culmination of a shared desire to unite efforts to confront threats affecting the region’s security and stability.”[1]
He thus emphasized that the agreement was a joint measure against regional threats.
Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said the agreement, which he described as “historic,” would serve as a “shield of peace” for generations and “bring prosperity to the three countries and the wider Muslim world.”[2]
President Tayyip Erdoğan said “the agreement is based on the principle of collective deterrence and should not be interpreted as an alliance targeting another state,” stressing that it was “open to the participation of all brotherly countries.”[3]
Under the agreement, an attack on one of the three countries will be regarded as an attack on all of them.
The Saudis say “this agreement does not represent any inclination to create a military axis or a sectarian/religious bloc.”[4] They thus imply that the alliance does not target Iran or Israel.
Yet this provision alone elevates it beyond an ordinary defense cooperation agreement into a regional defense pact.
So whom does this defense pact regard as a threat, and against whom is it joining forces?
Deliberate ambiguity over the target
It is striking that the nature and target of the agreement have been left ambiguous in statements by the three countries’ leaders and in the joint statement issued.
The Mecca Agreement is defined as a mutual defense agreement aimed at deterring regional threats; yet it is immediately emphasized that it does not target another state.
It is entirely understandable that the defense pact formed by three Sunni countries allied with the United States has deliberately left its target ambiguous.
This deliberate ambiguity alone shows that the agreement will serve no purpose other than boosting Saudi morale and making money for Türkiye and Pakistan. The inability to provide an official answer to the questions below is concrete proof of this.
- Whom do these three Sunni countries allied with the United States see as a common threat?
- If these three countries do not regard another state as a threat, why are they forming a mutual defense pact aimed at deterrence?
- How will a mutual defense agreement signed by three countries, with no clear target, bring prosperity to the Islamic world?
How official media view the agreement
Saudi Arabian media, unsurprisingly, emphasized the importance of the agreement. They published no articles taking a critical view of it.
In Pakistan, too, the agreement was exalted through concepts such as “Islamic unity.” However, when the agreement came onto the agenda in March, the newspaper Dawn drew attention to Pakistan’s close relations with Iran and stressed that the agreement should not harm Pakistan-Iran relations.[5]
Türkiye’s palace media, meanwhile, manipulated issues left ambiguous by official authorities with highly irrational arguments to provide domestic political support to the government.
There was a mutual defense agreement directed at common threats, and months before it was signed, the palace media listed those common threats and claimed that “Greece, Israel and India were in great panic.”[6]
The palace media must have assumed that an average person would not ask the following questions:
Greece may be a threat to Türkiye, but why would the Saudis and Pakistan see Greece as a threat?
India may be a threat to Pakistan, but why would Türkiye and Saudi Arabia see India as a threat?
After all, India has trade volume of $10 billion with Türkiye and $5 billion with Saudi Arabia.
The issue of Israel is so clear that it requires no evidence.
The strongest response by these three US-allied countries to Israel’s atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon was condemnation.
The positions they took during the war launched by the United States and Israel against Iran on Feb. 28 also show that these three US-allied countries cannot form a defense pact targeting Israel.
Indeed, the Saudis supported the United States and Israel during the war against Iran by allowing their bases to be used. Türkiye and Pakistan remained close to the Saudi position.
Türkiye confined itself to calling it “a violation of international law,” without including any expression of condemnation for the attack on Iran. It described Iran’s attacks on US bases in the region as “unacceptable.”[7]
Pakistan, meanwhile, “conveyed to Iran at the highest level that attacks on Saudi Arabia are attacks on Pakistan.”[8]
The US-approved ‘Sunni Axis’
Despite the reality outlined above, the palace media went a step further, saying that the alliance of these three US-allied countries was directed against the United States and Israel, and made the following claims:
“At a time when growing threats by the United States and Israel against Iran have once again confronted the Middle East with the danger of chaos, Türkiye, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the region’s important military powers, took steps to establish a trilateral defense partnership.”[9]
According to another claim by the palace media, the “Sunni Axis” formed by Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan was directed at Israel and had in fact been approved by the United States, which now preferred Türkiye over Israel.
The palace media’s thesis is as follows:
“As US President Donald Trump’s ties with Türkiye grow, this is sparking debate in Israel. The Israeli press has begun to embrace the idea that Trump is strengthening the Turkish-Sunni axis while Israel is being sidelined.
Whereas the United States formed regional alliances centered on Israel in previous periods, it is now backing the Turkish-Saudi-Pakistani axis by expanding its influence through Syria, Iraq and Lebanon.”[10]
So, if America’s preference for the Sunni Axis over Israel had caused panic in Israel months earlier, what is the situation in Israel after the Mecca Agreement?
The palace media describes it as follows:
“The Israeli press, using the phrase ‘what we feared has happened,’ says, ‘Tel Aviv circles believe that Türkiye will be strengthened by this alliance and see it as a major threat to Israel.’”[11]
There has not yet been an official statement from the United States or Israel on the Mecca Agreement. However, the Atlantic Council, one of the mainstream think tanks highly influential in Washington’s foreign policy and security circles, does not view the agreement as an anti-US alliance.
It even argues that Pakistan’s contribution to regional burden-sharing may be welcomed by the Trump administration.
According to Atlantic Council experts, rather than being a NATO-like alliance, the Mecca Agreement is an indicator of the emerging multipolar security order in the Middle East and South Asia.
The agreement could lead to Saudi Arabia developing partnerships that would reduce its dependence on the United States, Pakistan gaining greater weight in the regional security architecture, and an expansion of Türkiye’s economic, diplomatic and military influence.[12]
Is the Sunni Axis in conflict with Israel or Iran?
The Sunni Axis is not a concept that emerged with the Mecca Agreement. It is an alliance whose need was voiced in connection with Iraq in 2005, put into practice in Syria in 2011, and which won its first concrete victory on Dec. 8, 2024.
Countries in the region that supported the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 began accusing America in 2005 of handing Iraq to Iran. This was because the political processes that began in Iraq in 2005 made Iraqi political groups allied with Iran decisive.
The new situation in Iraq caused concern and anger in all countries in the region allied with the United States.
The new situation in Iraq was also a source of concern for the United States, because it had failed to create the “model state” it envisioned in Iraq, marking the end of the Greater Middle East Project (GMEP).
Jordan’s King Abdullah, described as the CIA’s regional governor, called Iran’s growing influence in Iraq, after Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, a danger and warned of a “Shiite Crescent.”
The concept of the “Shiite Crescent” was a unique gift for both the United States and its allies in the region. Sectarian sensitivities could be incited and a “Sunni Axis” targeting Iran could be created against the Axis of Resistance targeting Israel.
The GMEP’s strategic goal was to establish a regional order led by Israel. The transformation and fragmentation of regional countries into failed states collapsed by ethnic and sectarian conflicts became possible through the “Arab Spring,” the GMEP’s updated version in 2011.
Creating an anti-Iranian Shiite Iraq was one of the GMEP’s objectives in Iraq. The United States and the Sunni Axis failed to achieve this by separating Iraq from Iran. But they led the proxy war against Syria during the 2011 “Arab Spring” and won victory on Dec. 8, 2024.
The Sunni Axis’ victory in Syria gave Israel the courage to take the final step toward regional leadership. It could sustain the comprehensive attack it launched on Oct. 1 for 60 days and, on Nov. 27, sought a ceasefire from Lebanon, which it had entered only a few kilometers into and left without being able to hold its ground.
Nov. 27, 2024, was also the date when forces under Colani’s command in the Sunni Axis began their march on Damascus.
Dec. 8, when the Sunni Axis declared victory in Damascus, became the greatest strategic gift to Israel. After that date, Israel permanently occupied more territory in Syria than in Gaza. It began to control Daraa, Quneitra and the Damascus countryside on the ground as it wished. It launched war against Iran and even bombed Qatar on the pretext of Hamas.
For the United States and Israel, the countries of the region are divided into three groups: those that do not surrender, those that obey, and those that serve.
Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Sanaa government in Yemen are subjected to war because they do not surrender. Though the Sunni Axis obeys, it sometimes falls short in service.
Failed states such as Syria and Lebanon, meanwhile, provide service. In return for recognizing al-Qaeda leader Colani, for whom it had placed a $10 million bounty, as Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, the United States obtains service from Jozef Aoun and Nawaf Salam by giving them the seat of power.
The function of the Mecca Agreement
The Mecca Agreement is the Sunni Axis’ first official defense pact. It therefore inevitably has a target based on the Sunni Axis’ geopolitical reality and threat perception. Why that target cannot be Israel can be understood by looking at the Sunni Axis’ relations with the United States.
Its stance against anti-Israel resistance and its conduct in Iraq and Syria since 2005 show that the Sunni Axis’ conflict with the Axis of Resistance is much stronger.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the Mecca Agreement, described as the Sunni Axis’ defense pact, will not produce deterrence against the Axis of Resistance either. Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan do not share a common perception of threat toward all components of the Axis of Resistance.
Saudi Arabia may see Iran as a priority threat and may be in a de facto war with Yemen and the Iraqi resistance, but these are not Pakistan’s or Türkiye’s problems.
While the Saudis openly cooperate with the United States to disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon, Türkiye sees Hezbollah as the only armed barrier between itself and Israel and is not receptive to this. The Saudis and Türkiye have similar differences in their approaches to the Palestinian resistance.
An agreement that reassures no friends and frightens no enemies
The Mecca Agreement does not have the capacity to deter either Israel or the Axis of Resistance among its hypothetical targets. But what might each side seek from this agreement, which reassures neither friends nor frightens enemies?
The objectives of Saudi Arabia, which hosted the agreement, can be summarized as follows:
- Strengthening its hand against the Axis of Resistance,
- Reducing its dependence on the United States, which cannot even protect itself against Iranian attacks.
- Acquiring allies in the Gulf region after America to balance Iran.
The Saudis are seeking to rebuild their central role in the region through projects such as new trade routes via Oman and the Hejaz Railway, as alternatives to initiatives such as the India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC), a joint project of Israel and the Emirates.
Pakistan seeks the following through this agreement:
- To become a decisive actor in the security architecture that will emerge in the post-America period.
- Regional prestige; Pakistan is known as a country “without identity,” struggling with domestic problems and having remained passive in global projects. This pact offers Pakistan an opportunity to regain a place on the geopolitical map.
- To make the Saudis more dependent on it in security terms,
- To ease its economic crisis with approximately $5 billion in financial assistance it will receive from the Saudis,
- To carve out a new strategic role for itself by linking the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), through Oman and Saudi Arabia, to a broader regional network via this pact, after Pakistan was sidelined by projects such as IMEC,
Unlike for the Saudis, balancing Iran is not a priority objective for Pakistan. There is no conflict between the two countries; on the contrary, they have very strong social and political ties. Pakistan and Iran also have potential for cooperation in the energy sector.
For this reason, Pakistan is not expected to become an active part of an anti-Iran front.
Türkiye’s objectives can be summarized as follows:
- To acquire new markets for its defense industry,
- To have a say in the security architecture that will take shape in the Gulf after the United States,
- To strengthen its position in energy and trade networks.
The Turkish press suggests that this pact could serve as a balancing factor against Israel’s regional expansionism.
Türkiye, meanwhile, sees Israel gaining strength in Syria, where it has significant influence through the Colani regime. It may calculate that this pact could help prevent Israel’s expansion.
Conclusion
Although the Mecca Agreement is presented to the public with the rhetoric of “regional peace and stability,” its deliberately ambiguous definition of its target and the three countries’ deep military and economic ties with the United States overshadow this objective.
This alliance does not have the capacity to deter not only Israel but also the Axis of Resistance.
The ambiguity over the agreement’s target helps the three countries consolidate their domestic political legitimacy and strengthen their positions at the regional negotiating table.
For the Saudis, the search for security partners alternative to the United States against Iran; for Pakistan, economic salvation and geopolitical influence; and for Türkiye, the expansion of defense-industry markets and an effort to establish an indirect balance against Israeli influence in Syria stand out.
However, fundamental differences in the three countries’ threat perceptions prevent the pact from developing into a concrete military operational capability.
The Mecca Agreement therefore remains merely a document that “reassures neither friends nor frightens enemies.”
Sources
[1] AA, Aug. 7, 2026, Saudi foreign minister says defense pact with Türkiye, Pakistan reflects deep strategic ties — https://mobil.aa.com.tr/en/politics/saudi-foreign-minister-says-defense-pact-with-turkiye-pakistan-reflects-deep-strategic-ties/4021264
[2] Dawn, Aug. 8, 2026, Pakistan joins Saudi Arabia, Turkiye in ‘all for one’ pact — https://www.dawn.com/news/2021421
[3] AAJTV, Aug. 8, 2026, Saudi official: Defence pact not aimed at any country — https://english.aaj.tv/news/330466953/saudi-official-defence-pact-not-aimed-at-any-country
[4] Republic, Aug. 7, 2026, An Attack On One Is An Attack On All: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan Forge Defense Agreement — https://www.republicworld.com/global-news/an-attack-on-one-is-an-attack-on-all-saudi-arabia-turkey-pakistan-forge-defense-agreement-2026-08-07-134253
[5] Dawn, March 7, 2026, Allow Notifications Pakistan signals support to Saudi Arabia while treading carefully with Iran amid Gulf escalation — https://www.dawn.com/news/1979437/pakistan-signals-support-to-saudi-arabia-while-treading-carefully-with-iran-amid-gulf-escalation
[6] Star, Jan. 15, 2026, First official statement from nuclear-armed Pakistan: Defense agreement with Türkiye on the way — https://www.star.com.tr/dunya/nukleer-guce-sahip-pakistandan-ilk-resmi-aciklama-geldi-turkiye-ile-savunma-anlasmasi-yolda-haber-1990621/
[7] Directorate of Communications, March 1, 2026, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan: The US and Israeli attack on Iran clearly violates Iran’s sovereignty. Iran’s attack on Gulf countries is also unacceptable (1TV) — https://www.iletisim.gov.tr/turkce/dis_basinda_turkiye/detay/recep-tayyip-erdogan-abd-ve-israilin-irana-yonelik-saldirisi-iranin-egemenligini-acikca-ihlal-etmektedir-iranin-korfez-ulkelerine-yonelik-saldirisi-da-kabul-edilemez-1tv
[8] Geonews, July 18, Pakistan tells Iran Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia are its ‘red line’: report — https://www.geo.tv/latest/673636-pakistan-tells-iran-houthi-attacks-on-saudi-arabia-are-its-red-line-report?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[9] Star, Jan. 17, 2026, Alliance set to change the regional balance from 3 countries including Türkiye! Draft text completed — https://www.star.com.tr/dunya/turkiye-dahil-3-ulkeden-bolgede-dengeleri-degisecek-ittifak-taslak-metin-tamam-haber-1990938/
[10] Haber7, Feb. 3, 2026, Zionists’ fear of revenge: Strengthening of the Turkish-Sunni axis has created tension in Israel! — https://www.haber7.com/dis-politika/haber/3601281-siyonistlerin-intikam-korkusu-turk-sunni-ekseninin-guclenmesi-israilde-gerilim-yaratti?utm_source=chatgpt.com
[11] Star, Aug. 8, 2026, “Mecca Agreement” alarm: What we feared has happened — https://www.star.com.tr/dunya/mekke-anlasmasi-alarmi-korktugumuz-basimiza-geldi-haber-2032841/
[12] Atlantic Council, Aug. 7, 2026, Why Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey just signed a defense pact — https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/why-saudi-arabia-pakistan-and-turkey-just-signed-a-defense-pact/?utm_source=chatgpt.com