The Mecca Agreement... and the Dawn of a New Deterrence Equation
There are agreements that change reality, and agreements that change ways of thinking. If it is too early to judge the outcomes of the Mecca Agreement on Joint Defense among the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan, it is equally premature to downplay its significance. Major transformations do not begin fully formed; they start as an idea, evolve into a project, and then become reality.
In my view, this agreement should not be seen merely as a military treaty, but as the beginning of a new approach to regional security, based on building a deterrence equation that relies on the capabilities of regional states, in a world where alliances are shifting and power balances are being redefined.
The choice of Mecca as the venue for signing the agreement, followed by the leaders of the three countries performing Friday prayers at the Grand Mosque, was not just a procedural detail. Mecca is not like other cities; it is the Qibla toward which the hearts of more than two billion Muslims turn. Therefore, its selection carried a message that transcended politics to touch the Islamic consciousness, lending the agreement a moral dimension that conference halls and official statements cannot provide.
What distinguishes this agreement is that it brings together three different pillars that complement one another. Saudi Arabia possesses economic and political weight, spiritual standing, and one of the largest defense budgets in the world. Turkey has emerged as one of the leading rising powers in military industries and defense technologies. Pakistan represents significant demographic and military weight, and is the only Islamic state possessing nuclear deterrence capability. In strategy, strength is built not from similarity of capabilities, but from their complementarity.
Some may ask: Against whom is this agreement directed? In my view, the more precise question is not “Against whom?” but “To prevent what?” Deterrence does not mean seeking war, but preventing it. When any party realizes that the cost of aggression will be prohibitive, peace becomes the most rational option.
This is not a new concept. After World War II, the world divided into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Warsaw Pact. Despite the Cold War lasting for decades, no direct military confrontation occurred between the two superpowers, because the balance of deterrence made the cost of war too high for either side to bear.
From this perspective, the Mecca Agreement can be understood as not seeking confrontation, but rather building strength that makes any party think twice before threatening the security of the region or the sovereignty of its states.
Any defense agreement is not measured by what is written in its documents, but by what is built after signing. True success begins when provisions are transformed into institutions, through the creation of a joint military command, integration of air defense systems, establishment of early warning centers, exchange of intelligence, regular joint exercises, and expansion of joint military manufacturing.
Economic integration is no less important than military cooperation. Sustainable military strength requires a robust economy capable of financing it and an advanced industrial base able to develop it. Every joint industrial or technological project represents an investment in regional security before it is an economic investment.
The three countries collectively spend approximately $125 billion annually on defense. If this expenditure were redirected within a framework of integration, and roles distributed rather than duplicated, the resulting strength would be far greater than the sum of each country’s individual capabilities. The region does not need a new arms race; it needs better management of its existing potential.
This agreement is not directed against any specific state, but it sends a clear message to anyone considering threatening the security of the region.
At the forefront of concerns are the expansionist ideas put forward by some leading figures of the ruling Israeli right, linked to the so-called “Greater Israel” project. These proposals raise legitimate fears among many countries in the region and necessitate serious consideration of building deterrence systems capable of safeguarding sovereignty and stability.
In response, the agreement should not be interpreted as directed against Iran, provided that Tehran revises its policy of intervening in the affairs of other states, moves beyond the approach of exporting the revolution—which has left deep imprints in several Arab countries, with Syria being the most tragic example—and adopts a more constructive regional posture.
Furthermore, the strategic convergence between India and Israel in military and technical fields cannot be overlooked, especially in light of the historical rivalry between India and Pakistan, as well as the ongoing tensions in Israel’s relations with Turkey and several Arab states. These factors make the construction of a more balanced regional order more critical than ever.
If this agreement proves successful, expanding its scope will be a natural development. The participation of the Arab Republic of Egypt, given its demographic, military, and historical weight, would add a crucial strategic dimension. Similarly, the involvement of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries would provide it with economic, political, and defensive depth, making it one of the most important frameworks for regional cooperation.
This does not imply abandoning international partnerships, but rather building self-reliance, after recent crises have demonstrated that external security umbrellas, however important, remain tied to the interests and priorities of their sponsors. The US-Israel relationship may remain a historical exception in many respects, yet even it is currently subject to growing debate within the United States regarding the scope and nature of this commitment.
It is high time for Gulf and Arab countries to seriously study this model and explore ways to develop and build upon it.
This agreement may succeed, or it may encounter obstacles, as many prior initiatives have. However, the mere shift in thinking from relying on external protection to building elements of strength constitutes a strategic transformation in itself. If this experience succeeds in moving from symbolism to institutionalization, and from understanding to integration, historians may note that Mecca witnessed not only the signing of a defense agreement, but also the beginning of a new deterrence equation—one whose core principle is that peace is not protected by weakness, but by prudent strength.
