Makkah Forges Deterrence: When Power Becomes a Path to Peace

In Makkah al-Mukarramah, pivotal moments are never fleeting; some places do not merely preserve the memory of an event, but imbue it with its deeper significance. On August 7, 2026, Makkah hosted the signing of the “Makkah Agreement for Joint Defense” between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan. This step elevates cooperation among the three nations to an advanced level of mutual deterrence, based on the principle that an armed attack on any one of them is considered an attack on all. However, reading this agreement through the eyes of a historian does not stop at the moment of signing; history does not record the moment alone, but seeks to understand what shaped it. In this sense, the agreement is not the beginning of relations among Riyadh, Ankara, and Islamabad, but rather the fruit of a long process of trust, accumulating interests, and cooperation, which has made the transition to a trilateral defense framework an expression of a new stage in building strength. Here lies the deeper significance: nations do not build their strength in the hour of crisis, but in the years of accumulation, calling upon its fruits when the regional balance of power shifts.

The Makkah Agreement did not emerge in a security vacuum, nor was it the product of an isolated incident. This moment was preceded by repeated attacks and threats targeting the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, aiming at its territory, infrastructure, and vital interests, with the danger extending to navigation and commercial shipping. Kuwait and other Gulf states also faced threats and attacks that confirmed that the security of the region cannot be divided into separate files. The complexity of this landscape is no longer merely a political assessment; Iraqi authorities recently revealed a workshop for manufacturing drones in Baghdad, seizing 25 airframes and assembly and production equipment, while Baghdad launched investigations following drone attacks launched from Iraqi territory toward the Kingdom. These are signs revealing how the tools of threat have expanded and their pathways intertwined around the Gulf.

From this context, the Kuwaiti position emerged clear and firm; the State of Kuwait affirmed its full solidarity with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, its standing by its side, and its support for all measures taken by the Kingdom to safeguard its sovereignty, security, stability, and interests, driven by a firm belief that the security of the Kingdom is an integral part of the security of Kuwait and the Gulf Cooperation Council states. In the Gulf calculus, the strength of the Kingdom is not read as that of an isolated state, but as one of the pillars of the security of the Gulf home. With the threat shifting from land to sea, the landscape acquired a more dangerous dimension; targeting ships and tankers does not affect only the state whose flag they fly, but threatens energy security, trade, supply chains, and the routes connecting the East to the West.

The recent condemnation by the UN Security Council of Houthi attacks on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and attacks targeting commercial ships confirmed that the danger has transcended its local scope to become a matter of regional security and freedom of navigation. What the region faces is no longer isolated incidents, but an accumulating challenge that demands more robust protection and broader deterrence. The attack on the Emirati ship while transiting the Strait of Hormuz served as another testament that the security of the Gulf is inseparable from the security of maritime routes; an impact on a Gulf ship in an international artery may extend its effects to global energy, trade, and the economy.

Here, the Kingdom’s philosophy appears in its clearest form: firmness that protects sovereignty, partnerships that deepen deterrence, and diplomacy that opens the path to peace. Deterrence is not a declaration of war, but a means to prevent it. Strength, when built with the state’s intellect, does not become the opposite of peace, but one of its guarantees. For this reason, the Kingdom has not built its strength on weapons alone; it has expanded its economy, developed its defense industries, deepened its partnerships, broadened its diplomatic presence, and made its national capacity a foundation for protecting its decisions and interests. In this context, security becomes part of development, not a separate file; no investment thrives in a turbulent environment, and no ports can fulfill their global role if trade routes become hostage to threats.

The Palestinian issue, meanwhile, remains present in the Saudi and Kuwaiti positions, as well as in Arab and Islamic movements, supporting the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, holding fast to Jerusalem, and striving for a just and permanent peace. This confirms that building strength does not mean the absence of diplomacy, and that protecting security does not mean abandoning Arab causes. From a historical perspective, what is most significant about the Makkah Agreement is not only the three countries that signed it, but the path that led them to that moment. The Kingdom is not creating a closed axis, but building a wide network of Gulf, Arab, Islamic, and international partnerships that make its security deeper, its options broader, and its ability to manage crises more independent. Today, Saudi strength is not measured only by what the Kingdom can do in war, but by what it can prevent before war begins. This is the value of the Makkah Agreement. It is not a response to an isolated incident, nor a page isolated from the regional context; it is a milestone in a path of building deterrence, coming after the accumulation and expansion of threats, declaring that the security of nations is not protected by wishes, but by capability, partnership, and the wise management of power.

When a historian returns to this moment, he will not record merely that three leaders met in Makkah and signed a defense agreement; he will record that the region was redefining the meaning of security, and that the Kingdom chose to confront this transformation by building a capacity that grants diplomacy greater space, protects development from turbulence, and prevents others from turning threats into fait accompli. Here, the narrative reaches its climax: the Kingdom does not build strength in search of war; it builds it so that war cannot impose its path upon it. In Makkah, not only was a defense agreement signed; a deeper equation was embodied: when deterrence becomes capable of stopping war before it begins, strength itself becomes a path to peace.