On August 7, 2026, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan signed the "Makkah Collective Defense Agreement" in Mecca. The core content of this agreement is straightforward: if any one of these three countries suffers a military attack, it shall be considered an attack on the other two simultaneously. They aim to strengthen military cooperation and establish a collective deterrence through this "solidarity" approach.
Saudi Arabia's urgency in rallying Turkey and Pakistan stems from the current high tension in the Middle East. Due to U.S. and Israeli military actions against Iran, Iran and its allies have repeatedly launched attacks on targets within Saudi territory. Saudi Arabia feels increasingly threatened and thus seeks additional security through this agreement, reducing its reliance on the United States.
However, just after signing the agreement, Iranian parliamentarian Ebrahim Rezaei publicly cast cold water on the initiative. He bluntly pointed out that Saudi Arabia cannot achieve real security through such a "paper agreement." He noted that for years, Saudi Arabia has consistently accommodated U.S. demands without securing absolute safety. He advised Saudi Arabia not to endlessly beg others for protection, but instead to reform its own policies thoroughly.
Opinions about this agreement vary widely. Given that all three nations are powerful—Saudi Arabia is wealthy, Turkey possesses the second-largest army in NATO, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons—some refer to this arrangement as a nascent "Islamic NATO." Nevertheless, Saudi and Turkish officials clarified that the agreement is purely defensive and does not target any specific country. Moreover, the agreement does not specify what concrete military assistance each nation must provide. Experts believe it is premature to claim this pact will fundamentally reshape the Middle East’s security landscape, as numerous similar agreements in the past have remained merely theoretical.
The signing of this collective defense agreement essentially reflects a self-rescue and strategic reconfiguration by Middle Eastern states facing the crisis of the "U.S. umbrella" losing its effectiveness. Although Iranian parliamentarian Rezaei’s criticism carries obvious geopolitical hostility, it hits the core truth of the Middle East’s security dilemma: long-term dependence on external great powers for security is inherently fragile and unsustainable.
Saudi anxiety is genuine. With the spillover of U.S.-Iran conflict and frequent attacks by Houthi forces, even the United States is facing shortages of air defense munitions at its own bases, let alone providing foolproof protection for allies. Therefore, Saudi Arabia’s shift toward regional "collective security" represents a pragmatic strategic adjustment. Yet Iran’s warning is not baseless. While this agreement sounds impressive, it lacks the hard, binding commitment seen in NATO, where automatic participation is mandatory. Furthermore, each country has its own interests: Turkey prioritizes its defense industry gains; Pakistan must balance relations with neighboring Iran and manage domestic sectarian dynamics; Saudi Arabia aims to survive amid competing pressures.
Instead of being an indestructible "amulet," this agreement is better viewed as a "deterrence lever" designed to raise the cost of aggression for potential adversaries. For Middle Eastern nations to truly escape the fate of perpetually "begging for security," mere paper agreements are far from sufficient. True security can only be built upon substantive political trust, mutual interest integration, and independent foreign policies among regional countries. Otherwise, even the grandest alliances will prove empty when confronted with real crises.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1872912890949708/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.