By Shamsul Haq
The Middle East is passing through one of the most critical phases in its recent history, with war, diplomacy, energy security and shifting strategic alliances increasingly intertwined. Against this backdrop, the defence agreement signed by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkiye in Makkah carries significance far beyond the three signatories. It could potentially contribute to a new security equation in a region already grappling with unprecedented challenges.
The agreement, signed in Makkah on Friday, provides that an armed attack against any one of the three countries would be considered an attack against all three. The arrangement therefore comes close to the concept of collective defence, although the precise mechanism for its implementation and the nature of military response in different situations remain to be seen.
The development did not occur in isolation. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia had already signed a Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement, under which aggression against one country was to be treated as aggression against both. The latest trilateral arrangement with Turkiye can consequently be viewed as an expansion of an existing strategic framework rather than an entirely new development.
The importance of Pakistan-Saudi defence cooperation became particularly evident during the recent Iran-Israel-US conflict. When Iranian attacks targeted Saudi Arabia, Islamabad made it clear that Pakistan would not hesitate to fulfil its commitment under the defence agreement to safeguard Saudi Arabia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
For Pakistan, however, the situation was extremely delicate. While it had a strategic commitment to Saudi Arabia, it also shares a long border and important historical and diplomatic relations with Iran. Any direct involvement in a wider regional conflict could have carried serious consequences for Pakistan’s security and economy.
It was in this difficult environment that Pakistan’s political and military leadership adopted a cautious and balanced approach. Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir’s diplomatic and defence engagement, coupled with the federal government’s efforts to promote dialogue and de-escalation, helped Islamabad navigate a highly complicated regional situation without being dragged into a broader war.
The Saudi leadership also deserves credit for exercising restraint. Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdulaziz and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman demonstrated considerable prudence in dealing with the Iranian attacks. Instead of allowing the confrontation to escalate into a much wider regional war, Riyadh maintained its focus on national security and regional stability.
This restraint was particularly important because a prolonged conflict in the Gulf would not have remained confined to the region. It could have disrupted energy supplies, affected global oil prices, threatened maritime trade and created serious repercussions for the world economy.
A new strategic triangle
The Saudi-Pakistani-Turkish strategic triangle brings together three influential Muslim countries with different but complementary strengths.
Saudi Arabia possesses enormous economic resources and occupies a pivotal geographical position in the Gulf. Turkiye has a large conventional military, an increasingly sophisticated defence industry and decades of experience within the NATO framework. Pakistan, meanwhile, has one of the region’s largest armed forces and is a nuclear-armed state with considerable military experience.
The combination of these capabilities could make the trilateral arrangement an important component of a future regional security architecture.
There has already been speculation that the agreement could eventually evolve into something resembling a “Muslim NATO”. Such comparisons, however, would be premature. For that to happen, additional countries would have to join, while mechanisms for joint command, intelligence sharing, defence planning, military exercises and collective response would need to be developed.
The possible participation of other Muslim countries, particularly Indonesia, Malaysia and the Gulf states, could broaden the arrangement considerably. Iran’s possible future engagement in a wider regional security framework could also be important if the objective is genuine regional stability rather than the creation of competing blocs.
Is Iran the target?
One of the most important questions surrounding the Makkah agreement is whether it is intended, directly or indirectly, to counter Iran and groups allied with Tehran in the region.
Some analysts have linked the emerging security arrangement with Iran’s regional influence and its support for armed groups in Yemen and elsewhere. Others reject this interpretation and argue that the agreement is primarily defensive and aimed at strengthening the sovereignty and security of the three signatories.
The actual character of the agreement will ultimately be determined not by speculation but by its implementation. Its future joint military exercises, intelligence cooperation, defence planning and response to regional crises will indicate whether it remains a defensive arrangement or develops into a wider strategic bloc.
For Pakistan, avoiding confrontation with Iran will remain particularly important. Its geographical proximity to Iran means that any prolonged Saudi-Iranian or wider regional conflict could have direct implications for Pakistan’s border security and internal stability.
Implications for the United States and Israel
The agreement also carries implications for the broader strategic calculations of the United States and Israel.
Washington has traditionally played a major role in Gulf security. Recent developments, however, appear to have encouraged regional countries to strengthen their own security partnerships rather than relying exclusively on external guarantees.
For Israel too, a strategic framework bringing together Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkiye represents an important development. Yet it would be misleading to portray the agreement simply as an anti-Israel or anti-US military alliance. Its stated emphasis is collective defence, and its practical direction will depend on how the three countries interpret and implement it.
The wider significance of the agreement lies in the possibility that regional states are increasingly seeking greater responsibility for their own security.
Opportunities for Pakistan
For Pakistan, the agreement offers both strategic opportunities and serious responsibilities.
First, it could enhance Pakistan’s geopolitical importance. Islamabad can potentially emerge as an important player not only in South Asian security affairs but also in discussions concerning the security of the Middle East.
Second, greater defence cooperation with Saudi Arabia and Turkiye could open opportunities in defence production, military training, technology transfer and investment.
Third, the agreement could strengthen Pakistan’s diplomatic standing if Islamabad combines its security commitments with an active role in promoting dialogue and de-escalation.
Pakistan’s ideal role would therefore not be that of a party to another regional confrontation but that of a security partner capable of contributing to peace and stability.
There are, however, considerable risks. Pakistan must ensure that the agreement does not automatically draw it into conflicts that do not directly serve its national interests. The country’s economic challenges, internal security concerns and geographical proximity to Iran make prolonged involvement in another regional conflict particularly costly.
An example of civil-military coordination
Another significant aspect of the development is the apparent coordination between Pakistan’s political and military leadership in matters of national security and foreign policy.
Such coordination can be useful when the country is confronted with rapidly changing regional circumstances. At the same time, however, agreements carrying long-term strategic, political and financial implications should enjoy broad national ownership.
It would therefore be appropriate for the government to keep Parliament fully informed about the scope, obligations and future implications of the defence agreement. Parliamentary oversight would strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the arrangement and help build a broader national consensus on Pakistan’s long-term security policy.
Beyond a military alliance
The real test of the Makkah agreement will be whether it becomes an instrument of confrontation or a mechanism for preventing confrontation.
If Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkiye develop mechanisms for intelligence sharing, joint defence planning, military exercises, defence production and coordinated crisis management, the agreement could become the foundation of a broader regional security framework.
But its success will ultimately depend on whether the Muslim world can overcome its internal divisions. Differences between Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkiye and other regional powers remain substantial. Without confidence-building and dialogue among these countries, the creation of a comprehensive Islamic security arrangement would remain difficult.
Perhaps, therefore, the greatest potential of the Makkah agreement is not that it becomes an “Islamic NATO”, but that it opens a new debate about collective security, strategic autonomy and peaceful conflict resolution in the Muslim world.
A delicate road ahead
The Makkah defence agreement comes at a time when the traditional security architecture of the Middle East is undergoing profound transformation. The emerging Saudi-Pakistani-Turkish strategic triangle could strengthen the defence capabilities of the three countries and contribute to a new balance of power.
For Pakistan, however, the real challenge begins now. Islamabad will have to deepen its strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia and Turkiye while simultaneously avoiding unnecessary confrontation with Iran, maintaining balanced relations with major global powers and protecting its economic interests.
The Makkah agreement could become a historic step if it is used to promote collective defence, regional stability and the prevention of war. But if it becomes the foundation of another bloc confrontation, it could add to the very instability that the region desperately needs to overcome.
Its ultimate success will therefore depend on whether the signatories choose to use their growing collective strength not merely for deterrence, but also for diplomacy, restraint and peace.
The writer is senior journalist and former director of Directorate General Information and Public Relations Peshawar.
