First attempt to put the Mecca agreement into practice: what is the real strategy behind the arrangement that says ‘an attack on one is an attack on all three’?
By M. Riyaz Hashmi
New Delhi: Pakistan, Türkiye and Saudi Arabia will seek to take their new defence agreement beyond a political declaration today in Istanbul. This is the first meeting of the Strategic Political and Defence Committee established under the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement. The meeting will bring together the foreign ministers, defence ministers, and top military officials of the three countries. Türkiye’s Foreign Ministry has officially confirmed the meeting. Pakistan will be represented by Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif, and Army Chief and Chief of Defence Forces Field Marshal Asim Munir.
The meeting is important because the agreement signed in Mecca on August 7 is now, for the first time, taking institutional shape. The most important provision of the agreement is that an armed attack on any one of the three countries will be considered an attack on all three. The real question now is: How will this political commitment be implemented at the military level?
First, understand what the Mecca agreement actually is
On August 7, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif signed the agreement. Its stated objective is to strengthen the three countries’ collective deterrence capability and defence cooperation. Its most important provision is collective defence—an armed attack on one member will be considered an attack on all three.
Today’s test: moving from a ‘treaty’ to a ‘system’
It is easy to write into an agreement that an attack on one country will be considered an attack on all. The difficult part is deciding what the other two countries will actually do if an attack takes place.
That is why the Istanbul meeting is important, not simply because the leaders of the three countries will be present, but because of its potential agenda. Strengthening defence capabilities, coordination between the armed forces, cooperation in the defence industry, joint production, research and technological cooperation, and counterterrorism could be among the key issues. If a roadmap emerges after the meeting for joint military exercises, intelligence sharing, defence production, and a permanent institutional mechanism, only then can it be considered a meaningful step towards a real security system.
But is this an alliance like NATO?
Not entirely. The concept of collective defence is similar to Article 5 of NATO, but NATO has a decades-old system of shared command, joint military planning, military exercises, and permanent institutions. The Pakistan-Türkiye-Saudi arrangement is still at an early stage. According to the IISS, the agreement establishes a principle of cooperation in the event of an attack, but the nature and scale of assistance have not been defined in advance.
Therefore, calling it an ‘Islamic NATO’ at this stage would be more of a political interpretation than a factual conclusion.
Their capabilities are different, but complementary
The real strength of the agreement lies in the combination of the three countries’ different capabilities. Pakistan has nuclear capability and significant military strength. Türkiye is a NATO member with a rapidly developing defence industry and military technology. Saudi Arabia has vast economic resources, energy power, and a strategically important position in the Gulf. The IISS has also viewed the agreement as bringing together three important middle powers—nuclear-armed Pakistan, economically powerful Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye with its strong military and defence industry.
The big question: Who gets what from this?
- Pakistan: Expansion of its military and strategic role.
- Türkiye: Expansion of defence technology, production and potential access to a large market.
- Saudi Arabia: An opportunity to strengthen its defence capabilities and self-reliance.
In broad terms, the equation is about Pakistan’s military capability, Türkiye’s technology, and Saudi Arabia’s economic strength. If the three countries begin jointly developing drones, missiles, air-defence systems, electronic warfare capabilities, warships, or other military technologies, the impact of the agreement will not remain limited to a military alliance. It could also move towards the creation of a shared defence industry.
What is the real strategy? Not an alternative to the US, but an additional security support
Saudi Arabia has long depended on the US security system. But changing security dynamics in West Asia have encouraged Riyadh to look for additional options for its security.
That is why it would also be incorrect to describe the Mecca agreement as an anti-US alliance. Saudi Arabia continues to maintain highly important security and economic relations with the United States. It can more accurately be viewed as an additional layer of security. According to the IISS analysis, the agreement reflects the growing desire among regional countries to strengthen their own collective deterrence capabilities.
Why is Türkiye important? Not just its military, but its ability to make weapons
Türkiye’s role makes the agreement particularly significant. It is not only a military power but also a country with rapidly growing domestic capabilities in drones, missiles, naval platforms, and other defence technologies.
Saudi Arabia wants to develop its domestic defence capabilities, and defence-industry cooperation with Türkiye and Pakistan could be important for that objective. Developing joint defence-industrial capabilities among the three countries could become one of the more practical areas of cooperation.
The most sensitive question: Is Iran the target?
The three countries have not described the agreement as an alliance against any particular country. But its timing is extremely important. The ongoing conflict involving Iran in West Asia and attacks affecting Gulf countries have increased regional security concerns. The current regional tensions are an important part of the backdrop to this new collective security framework. Even so, it would be premature to call it directly an ‘anti-Iran military alliance’. Türkiye has its own diplomatic and economic relations with Iran, while Saudi Arabia has also sought to reduce tensions with Tehran in recent years. In other words, Iran is certainly part of the equation, but perhaps not the entire objective.
The Israel and US questions are equally important
The security interests of the three countries are not completely identical. Türkiye’s regional priorities differ from those of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Saudi Arabia’s primary concerns are Gulf and energy security; Pakistan’s priority is South Asia and its own military security; while Türkiye’s strategy is also linked to NATO, Syria, Iraq, the Mediterranean and its wider regional influence. That is both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness of the agreement. The credibility of any joint military agreement is not tested in peacetime, but during a crisis. If one country faces a missile attack, will the other two immediately provide military assistance? Will intelligence be shared? Will joint air defence be activated? Will troops be deployed, or will the response remain limited to political support? That is the biggest question for the future of the Mecca agreement.
What does this agreement mean for India?
India cannot ignore this agreement, but viewing it only through the Pakistan lens would also be a mistake.
Pakistan is India’s strategic rival. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is an important energy, investment and economic partner for India. India’s relations with Türkiye have been more complicated. For New Delhi, therefore, the real challenge will be to strengthen its strategic and economic relationship with Riyadh, while also keeping a close watch on growing military ties between Pakistan and Türkiye. After today’s meeting, four things will be particularly important: Will a permanent secretariat be established? Will joint military exercises be planned? Will concrete defence-industry projects be agreed upon? And will arrangements for intelligence and military information sharing move forward?
If a concrete roadmap emerges in these areas, the Mecca agreement will have taken a step beyond a political declaration towards becoming a real security mechanism. If not, ‘an attack on one is an attack on all three’ will, for now, remain primarily a political message of deterrence.
And that is why today’s Istanbul meeting is more than just another meeting.
It is the first test of whether Pakistan, Türkiye, and Saudi Arabia have merely signed a defence agreement or have begun building a new collective military power.
