The agreement signed by Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan should not be read merely as a promise of mutual defence. Its configuration suggests a more subtle function: raising the cost of escalation without closing off the channels of dialogue. The absence of a common adversary from the text is not a weakness of the agreement. It may in fact be the very mechanism that makes it work.
On 7 August 2026, Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman, Türkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif signed the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement in Mecca. The official declaration published by the Saudi Press Agency sets out the central principle: an armed attack against any one of the three states is to be regarded as an attack against them all. The same formula appears in the official Pakistani communication.
The wording inevitably recalls NATO’s collective defence, and Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan himself drew the comparison. The difference, however, is fundamental. The support is not publicly described as automatic, and its nature and scope are to be determined through case-by-case consultations. More importantly, according to Reuters, Fidan specified that the pact does not identify a common adversary in writing.
That last clarification may be the key to the entire construction.
A defence pact built without a common enemy
Classical military alliances tend to start from a shared threat sufficiently powerful to convert individual security into a collective concern.
In Mecca, the mechanism appears reversed.
Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan begin from three different strategic geographies and nonetheless accept the same defence clause.
For Riyadh, the most immediate threats stem from the deterioration of the Gulf security environment, from Iran, from networks aligned with Tehran, and from Yemen. A day before the signing of the pact, a senior Saudi official warned, according to Reuters, of the risk of coordinated attacks on the Kingdom’s energy infrastructure, airports and ports.
Pakistan operates within a different deterrence system, centred first and foremost on India. Türkiye, in turn, is anchored in NATO and simultaneously manages Russia, the Black Sea, Syria, the Caucasus, the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East.
The pact does not eliminate these differences. It superimposes them.
Mecca may be less an alliance prepared to wage a single war and more a mechanism designed to make it more costly to launch several different ones.
Deterrence does not necessarily entail military intervention
A mutual-defence clause produces effects before the first aircraft takes off.
For an adversary, the question is no longer only the military capability of the state it intends to strike. It becomes necessary to estimate the reaction of the other members, and the fact that this reaction is not exhaustively defined introduces additional uncertainty.
Support may mean intelligence, air defence, munitions, logistics, force deployments, naval cooperation or diplomatic pressure. Fidan indicated that the concrete response will be decided through consultations, which reduces automaticity but keeps the spectrum of options open.
In deterrence theory, uncertainty is not always a flaw. If a potential attacker cannot precisely calculate the scale of the response, the anticipated cost of escalation rises.
Mecca, however, adds a more unusual element: the partners of the threatened state may simultaneously be interlocutors of the adversary. This is the difference between an alliance built exclusively for confrontation and a mechanism that can, under certain conditions, also produce de-escalation.
Pakistan already demonstrates this dual function
The Pakistani case is the clearest.
In September 2025, Islamabad and Riyadh had already signed the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement. The official Pakistani communication established that aggression against one would be treated as aggression against both states.
In 2026, the agreement produced concrete military effects. According to Reuters, Pakistan deployed to Saudi Arabia approximately 8,000 troops, JF-17 aircraft and an air-defence system, in a mission with genuine combat capability.
At the same time, Islamabad has become the principal mediator in the US–Iran conflict. According to reporting by Al Jazeera, the April ceasefire was reached following the direct intervention of Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, in the hours before the expiry of an American ultimatum, and Islamabad subsequently hosted the first direct US–Iran talks since 1979. Even in August, Tehran continued to insist, according to Al Jazeera, that discussions with Washington could take place only through Pakistani mediation.
This overlap is essential. Pakistan can militarily support Saudi Arabia without ceasing to speak with Iran. The same state can contribute both to raising the cost of an attack and, simultaneously, to constructing the diplomatic exit from the conflict.
It is here that the Mecca pact begins to depart from the simplified image of a new military bloc.
Türkiye brings strength, industry and access to the pact
Türkiye illustrates the same logic through a different set of instruments.
Ankara joins the agreement a month after the NATO Summit of 7–8 July, at which the Alliance reaffirmed Article 5 but also placed greater emphasis on transferring more of the responsibility for defence to European allies and Canada. The Ankara Summit Declaration speaks explicitly of the increased responsibility of allies and of investments in air and missile defence, unmanned systems, intelligence and industrial production.
Türkiye fields the second-largest army in NATO. But in the Mecca equation, the industrial dimension may count as much as sheer military mass.
Ankara has built in recent years a defence industry capable of producing drones, naval platforms, munitions, military electronics and missile-defence systems, and NATO chose the Turkish capital itself for its 2026 forum dedicated to industrial production and cooperation.
This position confers on Türkiye a dual role. It is not only a member of an alliance that provides security. It can become, in parallel, a supplier of capabilities to other regional architectures.
The military dimension cannot, however, be separated from the diplomatic one. In April, Atlas News Romania observed that Ankara’s relevance in simultaneous crises stemmed precisely from its capacity to keep open channels that other actors had lost: with Washington through NATO, with Moscow, with Kyiv and with actors in the Middle East. Developments around Mecca do not cancel this function. They extend it from diplomacy into deterrence.
Türkiye can thus offer a partner military capabilities without automatically forfeiting diplomatic access to the actor on the other side of the crisis — a combination more useful for preventing a war than a simple ranking of armies would suggest.
Saudi Arabia is not abandoning Washington
There is also an interpretive error the pact risks producing: the notion that Riyadh is building an alternative to the United States.
The evidence points elsewhere. In November 2025, Mohammed bin Salman and Donald Trump signed the Strategic Defense Agreement. The White House described the accord as a deepening of the strategic partnership, and the American document speaks explicitly of burden-sharing, of the development of Saudi capabilities and of the US role as a regional security enabler.
The Mecca pact does not therefore appear in place of the American guarantee. It appears on top of it — as it does, in different forms, for Türkiye and for Pakistan as well.
For that reason, the new structure should be viewed not as the product of a rupture with Washington, but rather as the result of the maturing of a policy that the United States itself is asking of its allies: more regional capability, more responsibility and less operational dependence on direct American intervention. This calculus can generate a regional security layer that Washington does not fully control, without that layer being anti-American.
From mediation to deterrence
The power of a pivot state comes from the fact that it cannot be bypassed.
Until now, this utility was visible primarily in negotiation: pivot states kept open the channels between actors who could no longer or no longer wished to speak directly. Atlas News Romania analysed this mechanism in „The Era of Pivot Powers” and, subsequently, in the concrete case of the negotiations around the Strait of Hormuz, where Pakistan, Türkiye and Egypt had become mediation actors precisely because they could speak simultaneously with Washington and Tehran.
Mecca suggests an additional stage. If the same states are now also bound by security obligations, their role no longer begins after a crisis erupts. It can begin before.
An actor intending to strike Saudi Arabia must factor in Pakistan and Türkiye. But Islamabad and Ankara are not merely potential providers of military support — they are also states that maintain their own channels with Tehran. In a hypothetical Asian crisis, Riyadh is not only Pakistan’s ally: Saudi Arabia has its own economic and diplomatic relations with India and its own access to Washington. In a hypothetical Turkish crisis, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia bring other relationships, other channels and other capabilities.
The result is an unusual geometry: the very ties that threaten to broaden the costs of war can also create the diplomatic infrastructure needed to contain it. Here may lie the preventive value of the pact — a hypothesis that only a real crisis can test.
Deterrence through diplomatic interdependence
In an alliance built exclusively around an adversary, the relationship is predominantly binary: attack and response.
In a structure composed of pivot states, the relationship can become triangular. The attacked member requests support. The partners raise the potential cost for the aggressor. But the same partners can preserve political access to the aggressor and negotiate the way out of escalation.
That is why the absence of a common adversary from the Mecca document should not be read automatically as weakness. Had the pact explicitly named Iran as an adversary, Pakistan and Türkiye would forfeit part of their ability to communicate with Tehran. Had it been built around India, Saudi Arabia would needlessly turn an important relationship into an antagonistic one.
By avoiding the designation of an enemy, the pact preserves the diplomatic freedom of its members while simultaneously creating the political obligation not to remain indifferent if one of them is attacked. It is a fragile equilibrium — but it is precisely this equilibrium that may allow the structure to function simultaneously as a mechanism of deterrence and as an instrument of calm.
R4 could turn the trilateral into a regional mechanism
This is where Egypt enters.
Fidan confirmed the existence of the R4 format — Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt — and indicated that the pact is open to expansion, with Cairo the obvious candidate once certain technical matters are resolved. The negotiations that led to the Mecca agreement took nearly three years, and the structure is to have a ministerial committee and a general secretariat headquartered in Saudi Arabia.
Should Egypt join, the significance of the structure changes once again. Cairo brings the Suez Canal, the Red Sea, one of the most important Arab armies, the strategic relationship with the United States and its own track record of mediation in regional conflicts — and it already appeared, alongside the other three, in the geometry of the mediators of the Hormuz crisis.
We no longer have merely the coincidence of capitals appearing successively in diplomatic files. We have the same geometry — Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Pakistan, Egypt — repeated in negotiations, in political coordination and now in security. This is not yet sufficient to speak of a consolidated regional alliance. It is, however, sufficient to raise the question of whether these states are attempting to build a level of security between the local crisis and the direct intervention of the great powers.
A regional layer between conflict and the great powers
For decades, the Middle East operated on a logic in which major escalations quickly ended up within Washington’s zone of responsibility. The United States guaranteed, deterred, mediated or intervened.
Mecca does not eliminate this system. But it may introduce a layer ahead of it.
An attack on a member could first activate the other members of the pact: militarily, to reduce vulnerability; diplomatically, to halt the widening of the conflict; politically, to construct a negotiating formula. Washington remains in the background, with strong relationships with all three capitals, but need no longer necessarily be the first and only organiser of the response.
In this sense, the pact can be simultaneously compatible with the American interest in burden-sharing and with the regional interest in autonomy. The two are not mutually exclusive.
The decisive test will not be the war. It will be the crisis that does not become one
There is a natural tendency to evaluate alliances by asking what their members will do when conflict breaks out. In Mecca’s case, the question may be the wrong one.
If the real function is the deterrence and dampening of escalation, the success of the accord will not necessarily be measured through a joint military intervention. It may be measured through the conflict that does not start. Through the limited attack that does not become a regional war. Through a crisis in which Pakistan deploys additional defence to Saudi Arabia while simultaneously talking to Iran. Through a situation in which Türkiye supplies capabilities and intelligence while preserving the diplomatic channel that makes negotiation possible. Or through a Riyadh capable of using its relationship with Washington to temper the reaction of a partner.
These outcomes are harder to photograph than a military convoy. But in geopolitics, successful deterrence is often precisely the event that does not take place.
From indispensable states to states that stabilise the system
The hypothesis Atlas News Romania has formulated previously was that global fragmentation does not eliminate the great powers but increases the value of actors capable of operating between them. The Hormuz crisis showed that such states can become indispensable for negotiation. Mecca now raises the stakes: can these states also become indispensable for preventing escalation?
If the answer is confirmed over time, the pact should not be regarded as the beginning of a new confrontation between blocs. It may represent the opposite — the emergence of a mechanism through which states powerful enough to raise the cost of war and connected enough to negotiate peace attempt to occupy the space between the two.
That would explain why the accord can function without a common adversary. And it would explain why Türkiye, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are a more interesting combination than they appear at first glance — not because they form a uniform front, but precisely because they do not.
The Mecca pact may hold strategic value not through the capacity of the three states to start a war together, but through their capacity to make it more difficult for a war to begin — and easier for it to be stopped before it becomes regional.
Read also
