The Eastern Mediterranean has entered a new strategic phase over the past four weeks. The joint defence agreement signed in Mecca by Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and the contract under which Greece is building an integrated air defence system, the „Achilles Shield”, together with Israel, appear to belong to separate files. Seen together, however, they describe the same transformation: the states of the region no longer rely on a single alliance, but are building several layers of security at once. At the centre of this reconfiguration stands Türkiye — a NATO power, a Mediterranean actor, a state with direct interests in the Middle East and, since August, party to a defence mechanism alongside Riyadh and Islamabad.
Two military blocs on a collision course are not taking shape. The Mecca Agreement is not an alliance directed against Israel, and the Greek–Israeli programme does not mark Athens’s departure from the European or Euro-Atlantic architecture. The transformation is more subtle and, for precisely that reason, more consequential: alliances have begun to overlap, and the same state can be a partner in one theatre and a strategic competitor in another.
Türkiye can no longer be read solely through its relationship with Athens
Reducing Ankara’s regional policy to the Greek–Turkish file has become a simplification that no longer explains anything. Türkiye possesses one of NATO’s most powerful armed forces, a defence industry undergoing rapid expansion, and a genuine capacity for political and military projection from Syria and Iraq to Libya, the Caucasus, the Black Sea and the Persian Gulf. At the same time, it remains an indispensable interlocutor in the files connecting Europe, Russia and the Middle East.
On 7 August, this weight acquired a new institutional dimension. Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan signed in Mecca a joint defence agreement establishing that an armed attack against any one of the three states will be considered an attack against all — a formula close in its logic to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. According to Reuters, the document is open to enlargement, with Egypt mentioned as a possible candidate, and does not seek to replace the signatories’ existing alliances.
On 31 August, at Çırağan Palace in Istanbul, the Strategic Political and Defence Committee established under the agreement convened for the first time, bringing together the foreign ministers, defence ministers and chiefs of general staff of the three states. According to Anadolu Agency, the agenda covered military interoperability, defence-industry cooperation, counter-terrorism coordination and the framework for the mechanism’s permanent secretariat. The meeting, Xinhua reports, was held behind closed doors and was accompanied by bilateral talks.
It is important to state plainly what this agreement is not. It is neither an „Islamic NATO” nor an anti-Israeli pact. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan compared the mechanism to Article 5, while stressing that it is not directed against Iran or any particular state, Al Jazeera notes. For Riyadh, the immediate priority remains the security of the Gulf. For Islamabad, the mechanism extends a long-standing strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia. For Ankara, however, it brings something different: institutional depth beyond the Euro-Atlantic framework, without abandoning it. This is a gain in standing, not a change of camp.
Greece is deliberately fragmenting its dependencies
On the same day that the Mecca mechanism was being institutionalised in Istanbul, another element of the new architecture was being formalised in Tel Aviv. Greece and Israel signed the agreement for the „Achilles Shield”, a multi-layered air, missile and counter-drone defence system with a unified command-and-control architecture.
According to the Hellenic Ministry of National Defence, the programme carries a total budget of approximately €3.03 billion and integrates SPYDER systems for short-range engagements, Barak MX for medium-range threats and David’s Sling for the interception of ballistic missiles. The participation of Greek industry exceeds 25 percent of the total value, some €750 million, with nineteen Greek companies already involved, Greek Reporter reports. The programme received political approval on 23 July from the Government Council for Foreign Affairs and Defence, and the system is expected to become operational within a horizon of 35 months, according to ProtoThema.
The value of the contract is not, however, its most interesting feature. What matters is the architecture Athens is seeking to build. Greek Defence Minister Nikos Dendias described the programme as marking „the transition from an aggregation of weapons systems to a holistic deterrence system”, organised across five layers — sea, land, air, cyberspace and space.
More significantly, on the command-and-control segment Athens insisted on access to the source code, arguing that the Hellenic Armed Forces cannot become dependent on a supplier, not even in a relationship with the closest of allies. In other words, Greece is not merely purchasing interceptors. It is attempting to purchase national control over its defensive architecture.
This logic can only be read correctly in context. Athens is acquiring F-35 aircraft from the United States and frigates from France and Italy, within a modernisation programme estimated at some €28 billion through 2036, Al Jazeera reports. The „Achilles Shield” is not a substitute for NATO or the European Union. It is the expression of a strategy of deliberately distributed dependencies: the aircraft from Washington, the ships from Paris and Rome, the sky from Jerusalem.
Why Israel
Israel offers Greece three things at once: technology, recent operational experience in an environment dominated by missiles and drones, and the possibility of building an integrated architecture relatively quickly. In recent years, Israeli air defence systems have accumulated a volume of real-world use that few other industries can invoke.
There is also a political dimension. Cooperation between Greece, Cyprus and Israel has deepened steadily over the past decade through joint exercises, energy projects and security cooperation. This evolution is followed closely in Ankara, in a space where Türkiye holds its own legitimate security interests and its own long-established legal positions concerning maritime delimitation, Cyprus and the demilitarisation regime applicable to certain islands in the Aegean Sea.
Here a difference of nature emerges. Europe can supply high-performance platforms. The United States can supply next-generation air technology. But neither NATO nor the principal European capitals construct their regional policy on the premise of a confrontation between two allies of the Alliance. Israel occupies a different position, at a moment when its relationship with Türkiye is passing through a sensitive phase. Neither Athens nor Jerusalem officially defines the cooperation as directed against Ankara — yet the additional political weight exists, and is perceived as such.
Syria, not the Aegean, is where the risk has become operational
The most important element for understanding regional risk lies not in the Aegean Sea but in Syria. The Israeli strike on the Abu al-Duhur air base on 18 August took place against the background of reports of a possible Turkish military presence. Ankara denied that any Turkish personnel had been deployed at the base, Reuters reports, while Damascus confirmed that no Turkish deployment there had been planned.
The episode does not indicate an intention of direct confrontation. It does indicate how close the operating zones of the two states have become. Prevention channels exist — Azerbaijan continues to mediate between Ankara and Jerusalem, according to the Jerusalem Post, and Washington worked, after the incident, on an additional mechanism for defusing the situation. That several such channels are required, however, says more about the density of the situation than their absence would.
In such an environment, the strategic problem is no longer intention but interpretation. A radar classifies a platform. A unit shifts position. A vessel alters course. A command does not know, in real time, the intention of the other side. A few minutes can matter more than a few months of diplomacy.
The Aegean remains the most sensitive file
On 2 September, two days after the signing in Tel Aviv and the meeting in Istanbul, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan returned to the military regime of certain islands in the Aegean Sea, in remarks to journalists on his return from Kyrgyzstan following the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit.
The Turkish President called on Greece to abandon what Ankara considers a mistaken course regarding the arming of islands with demilitarised status, and warned that Türkiye’s prudent approach should not be mistaken for weakness. Asked what Ankara would do should the process continue, he replied that Türkiye would „do what is necessary”, while also stressing that relations with Athens should rest on the basis of good neighbourliness, according to the account given by Greek Reporter.
The divergence is long-standing and well documented on both sides. Ankara and Athens maintain different legal interpretations of the obligations applicable to different categories of islands, including the effects of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty and the 1936 Montreux Convention. Neither position is new, and neither has been abandoned.
What is new is the technological context. The decisive question for the next stage is not what Greece is purchasing, but where the components will be deployed. If the first batteries are installed on the mainland and in the territorial depth, the strategic effect remains manageable. If advanced air defence or counter-drone systems were to be placed on islands over which Ankara and Athens hold divergent interpretations regarding the demilitarisation regime, a military procurement would quickly become a diplomatic file. This is probably the most important variable to watch over the next 12 to 18 months.
Mecca does not bring the Gulf into the Aegean
The simplest reading — and the most mistaken — is to interpret these developments as the formation of two camps. Türkiye has a defence agreement with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan; Greece is building a dome with Israel; therefore two blocs would be emerging.
Regional reality does not work that way. Saudi Arabia is not Israel’s adversary in the sense such a geometry would presuppose, and Riyadh’s priority remains the security of the Gulf. Pakistan does not become, through this agreement, an actor in Aegean disputes. And Türkiye has stated explicitly that the mechanism is not directed against any particular state and does not substitute for NATO.
In a hypothetical Greek–Turkish crisis, the relevant test would not be the appearance of Saudi or Pakistani forces in the Aegean Sea — a scenario that follows from no publicly available element. The test would be strictly diplomatic: how a possible Turkish request for political solidarity would be interpreted in Riyadh and Islamabad. In international crises, silence sometimes carries almost the same weight as a declaration.
Egypt is the next variable. Cairo maintains solid relations with Greece and Cyprus on energy and maritime files, while its relationship with Ankara has undergone a substantial process of consolidation in recent years. Hakan Fidan has described Egypt as a natural partner of the mechanism, and its accession has been publicly raised as a possibility. Any such enlargement should not, however, be read automatically as a repositioning against anyone. It would rather confirm the region’s underlying trend: states are simultaneously building security relationships that intersect without cancelling one another out.
The risk is not war. It is the incident of interpretation
The baseline scenario for the coming years is not open confrontation, but a tense and progressively more militarised equilibrium. Greece will implement the „Achilles Shield” and continue its modernisation. Türkiye will further develop its defence industry and its regional partnerships. Israel will extend its security relationships in the Eastern Mediterranean. Riyadh and Islamabad will seek to turn the Mecca Agreement into a functioning mechanism. None of these directions leads, in itself, to conflict.
The problem arises at the points where the architectures touch. A battery deployed at a location sensitive to Ankara. A Turkish platform detected by a new system with automated classification procedures. A naval approach read differently by two commands. A Syrian incident in which Turkish and Israeli interests once again come within a few decisions of one another.
The more capable the systems become, the shorter the reaction time. The denser the partnerships, the greater the number of spectators to each incident who must decide whether they remain spectators.
Türkiye is the hinge of this transformation not because it seeks a regional confrontation, but because it has become important enough that almost every new security architecture around it must take Ankara into account. The Eastern Mediterranean, therefore, is not rearming along separate files. It is rearming in mirror image.
And the real risk does not lie in the declared intentions of capitals. It lies in the ever-shorter distance between their deterrence systems.
Read also
From Ankara to Seoul. How Reciprocity Is Becoming the New Contract of American Alliances
