Rokan's Journal

Maj Gen HRM Rokan Uddin (Retd)

The signing of the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement by Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan on 7 August 2026 marks one of the most significant developments in the evolving security architecture of the Middle East and the wider Muslim world. Signed by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, the agreement establishes the principle that an armed attack against any one of the three countries will be regarded as an attack against all. It also provides a framework for military cooperation, intelligence sharing, joint exercises and defence-industrial collaboration. Although the three governments emphasize that the pact is defensive and not directed against any country, its geopolitical implications extend well beyond their borders. The agreement builds upon decades of close Saudi Pakistani military cooperation. Pakistani personnel have long trained Saudi forces, while Riyadh has repeatedly provided financial assistance to Islamabad during periods of economic difficulty. Their relationship deepened with the Saudi-Pakistan Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement of 2025, which already embraced the principle of collective defence. During the regional conflict of 2026, Pakistan reportedly deployed about 8,000 troops, a fighter squadron and an air-defence system to Saudi Arabia, demonstrating that the relationship had evolved beyond diplomatic declarations into practical military cooperation.

Türkiye’s inclusion substantially strengthens the pact. As a NATO member, it possesses one of the alliance’s largest armed forces, extensive operational experience and a rapidly expanding indigenous defence industry that produces drones, missiles, electronic warfare systems, armored vehicles and naval platforms. Pakistan contributes a professional military, considerable combat experience, an expanding defence industry and, significantly, nuclear deterrence capability. Saudi Arabia brings immense financial resources, advanced Western military equipment, strategic geography and considerable influence throughout the Arab and Islamic worlds. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Saudi Arabia spent approximately US$83.2 billion on defence in 2025, Türkiye about US$30 billion and Pakistan approximately US$11.9 billion. Together, their military expenditure exceeded US$125 billion. While defence spending alone does not create an integrated alliance, it demonstrates the substantial resources available should the three countries establish an effective institutional framework. The agreement’s greatest potential advantage is deterrence. Any state contemplating military action against one member must now consider the possibility of confronting three strategically important countries. Saudi Arabia’s financial strength, Türkiye’s technological capabilities and Pakistan’s military experience complement one another, creating the potential for a stronger conventional deterrent.

Geography further enhances the alliance’s significance. Türkiye links Europe, the Black Sea, the Caucasus and the Middle East. Saudi Arabia occupies the heart of the Arabian Peninsula and sits astride vital energy routes through the Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf. Pakistan connects South Asia with Central Asia, China, Iran and the Arabian Sea. Collectively, they form a strategic arc stretching from the eastern Mediterranean to South Asia, encompassing several of the world’s most important maritime routes and energy corridors. Defence-industrial cooperation represents another major opportunity. Türkiye has become a competitive exporter of defence technology, while Pakistan manufactures fighter aircraft, missiles, armored vehicles and ammunition, including the jointly developed JF-17 fighter with China. Saudi Arabia is investing heavily in domestic defence production under Vision 2030. Combining Saudi investment, Turkish technology and Pakistani manufacturing expertise could accelerate the development of drones, missile-defence systems, cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence and advanced communications while reducing dependence on external suppliers.

The agreement may also strengthen intelligence cooperation. All three countries face threats from terrorism, cyberattacks, drone warfare, maritime insecurity and regional instability. A formal intelligence-sharing mechanism, combined with regular joint exercises, could improve early warning, counterterrorism capabilities and military interoperability. Politically, the agreement is significant because Muslim-majority countries, despite their resources and military strength, have historically lacked an indigenous collective-security mechanism comparable to NATO. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, with its 57 member states, remains primarily a political rather than military organization. Nevertheless, describing the Makkah Agreement as an “Islamic NATO” would be premature. NATO possesses more than seven decades of institutional development, integrated command structures and standardized procedures. The Makkah Agreement currently lacks such mechanisms. Its credibility will ultimately depend on implementation, command arrangements, consultation procedures and the political willingness of members to honor their commitments during crises.

The agreement also faces important challenges. The three countries have different strategic priorities. Pakistan’s principal security concern remains South Asia, particularly its relationship with India. Türkiye’s priorities include Syria, Iraq, the eastern Mediterranean, the Caucasus, NATO and Russia. Saudi Arabia focuses primarily on Iran, Yemen, Gulf security and protecting critical energy infrastructure. These differing priorities raise difficult questions. If Pakistan became involved in a major conflict with India, would Saudi Arabia and Türkiye provide military assistance? Conversely, would Pakistan participate militarily if Saudi Arabia entered another confrontation with Iran or Iranian-backed groups? Would Saudi Arabia and Pakistan become involved if Türkiye faced a major conflict in Syria or the eastern Mediterranean? Such scenarios illustrate the complexity of transforming a political declaration into an operational collective-defence system.

The issue is even more sensitive because Pakistan and India are both nuclear-armed states. Pakistan is estimated to possess around 170 nuclear warheads, while India has approximately 190. Although current reports indicate that nuclear cooperation is not part of the agreement, Pakistan’s nuclear capability inevitably influences perceptions of the alliance’s strategic weight and could intensify regional arms competition if not managed responsibly. Türkiye’s NATO membership introduces another layer of complexity. Ankara already benefits from NATO’s Article 5 collective-defence guarantee. Managing obligations under two different security frameworks could become challenging if their interests diverge. Consequently, the Makkah Agreement should complement rather than compete with Türkiye’s existing alliance commitments. Relations with Iran present another challenge. Saudi Arabia and Iran remain strategic competitors despite recent diplomatic engagement. Pakistan shares a long border with Iran and values stable bilateral relations, while Türkiye also maintains extensive political and economic ties with Tehran. If Iran interprets the pact as an explicitly anti-Iranian alliance, regional polarization could intensify.

India also deserves careful consideration. While Pakistan naturally welcomes closer strategic cooperation with Saudi Arabia and Türkiye, Riyadh maintains important political and economic relations with New Delhi and is unlikely to support arrangements that unnecessarily damage those interests. Differences also exist regarding Israel. Pakistan has no formal diplomatic relations with Israel, Türkiye’s relationship has fluctuated considerably, and Saudi Arabia continues to balance support for the Palestinian cause with broader strategic considerations. Such policy differences may complicate efforts to define common security objectives. Perhaps the greatest risk is strategic entanglement. Collective defence strengthens deterrence, but it can also transform a bilateral conflict into a wider regional confrontation. A border clash, missile strike or military miscalculation involving one member could create political pressure on the others to respond. The agreement therefore requires clear definitions of what constitutes an armed attack, when obligations apply and what forms of assistance members are expected to provide.

To enhance credibility, the agreement should remain firmly anchored in international law and the UN Charter. It should strengthen deterrence, protect sovereignty and contribute to regional stability rather than facilitate intervention in other countries’ internal affairs or encourage sectarian divisions. A permanent trilateral defence council, regular meetings of defence and foreign ministers, structured military coordination and secure intelligence-sharing mechanisms would strengthen institutional credibility while ensuring civilian and constitutional oversight.

Beyond security, the agreement offers important economic opportunities. Defence-industrial cooperation could generate employment, promote technology transfer and increase defence exports. Joint efforts to protect maritime routes through the Red Sea, Arabian Gulf and Arabian Sea, together with cooperation in cyber defence and safeguarding critical energy infrastructure, would produce practical benefits extending beyond traditional military collaboration. Ultimately, the success of the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement will depend not on political symbolism but on implementation. If it develops into a practical framework centered on deterrence, intelligence cooperation, counterterrorism, maritime security, cyber defence, joint training and defence-industrial collaboration, it could make a meaningful contribution to regional stability. If, however, it evolves into an ideological or sectarian bloc directed against regional powers, it risks accelerating arms races, deepening geopolitical divisions and drawing its members into conflicts beyond their core national interests.

Saudi Arabia contributes financial strength, energy influence and geopolitical importance. Türkiye offers advanced defence technology, operational experience and strategic geography. Pakistan provides capable armed forces, combat experience and strategic deterrence. Together, these complementary strengths have the potential to create an influential regional security partnership. Whether the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement becomes the foundation of a stable regional security architecture or another source of geopolitical rivalry will depend on the wisdom, restraint and strategic vision with which Riyadh, Ankara and Islamabad implement their commitments. Its greatest success should be measured not by the wars its members are prepared to fight together, but by the conflicts their collective diplomacy, cooperation and deterrence succeed in preventing.

hrmrokan@hotmail.com