The Mecca Agreement and beyond

Signed on 7 August 2026, the Mecca Agreement is a military cooperation agreement between Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, modelled on NATO’s famous Article 5. In other words, an attack on one of us is deemed to be an attack on all of us, and a collective response will be mounted. In the commentary following its signing, the agreement was assessed as one that brings together Turkey’s military strength, Saudi Arabia’s financial resources and Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities in the region, and which will alter the balance of power in the region in which we live.

First and foremost, let us emphasise that no agreement of a military nature is ever concluded out of pure goodwill. The parties to the agreement undoubtedly harbour perceptions of potential or existing enemies, and the primary aim is to deter that enemy.

Whilst our own intentions may appear clear enough, the extent to which the Saudis and Pakistan would, or could, come to our aid in the event of a hot conflict remains a much-debated issue. For example, could the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan realistically be expected to have the courage to confront the US – which has been consistently arming Greece disproportionately (particularly the Greek islands that, under international law, should be demilitarised) – and France, which has pledged support for Greece in the event of a conflict, in the face of the most visible alliance between Greece, the Greek Cypriot Administration and Israel? Do you think Greece’s desire to extend its territorial waters to 12 miles has been abandoned, or could the realisation of this ambition—which Turkey regards as a ‘casus belli’ (cause for war)—happen at any moment? And in such a scenario, would the other signatories to the Mecca Agreement regard such a declaration as an act of intervention against Turkey? Or would they say, ‘Did you declare the casus belli? Are you the aggressor?’

Let us turn to Pakistan. The memory that has lingered in our ears since our youth: ‘Cive cive Pakistan!’ Is it not a fact that, by standing against Pakistan—our friend and brother—we have taken on India, that country’s age-old and eternal enemy? In the event of a conflict between Pakistan and India—a country to which both the US and EU nations have extended a hand of friendship and cooperation, whilst China is increasingly viewed as the West’s primary adversary, a fact now recorded in NATO documents—what will become of us? Indeed, in a negative scenario, would taking Pakistan’s side bring us into direct conflict with our primary ally and the organisation of which we are a member, NATO? According to Foreign Minister Fidan, the Mecca Agreement is not directed against NATO; in fact, it is an agreement that complements NATO.

Trusting Fidan’s assessment, let us turn our attention to the hot conflict zone to our south. According to the latest reports, the Houthis in Yemen—backed by Iran—are carrying out serious attacks on Saudi Arabia in an attempt to increase Iranian influence in the Strait of Hormuz. Will the Mecca Agreement come into play in the face of these attacks on Saudi territory? In other words, given the need to safeguard the energy security of the Strait of Hormuz and the assumption that attacks on our ally Saudi Arabia are also directed against us, do we not need to teach the Houthis a lesson? But does taking a stand against the Houthis not effectively mean going to war against Iran?

If Trump’s primary aim – given that he is in a dire predicament ahead of the November re-election – is to extricate himself from the war as soon as possible, would shifting the burden of the regional conflict onto Turkey’s shoulders not be a good solution? And would the prospect of engaging in a hot conflict against Iran not elevate us to the role of Israel’s protector in the region?

Wouldn’t this strengthen the hands of Netanyahu and Trump in the upcoming elections (October in Israel, November in the US)?

Doesn’t it inevitably make one wonder whether the Mecca Agreement was, in essence, an American ploy designed to protect Israel? Are all the other Turkey-Israel conflicts merely small pieces of some larger scenario?

Naturally, the fact that the Western alliance seems so eager for Turkey to side with Ukraine in the Ukraine-Russia war to our north – does this not mean that new problems will befall us? In particular, the rise of the far right, especially in Germany, will surely only further fuel the desire of our so-called EU ‘friends’—who wish to offload the burden of the Ukraine conflict—to drag Turkey into the fray and save their own skins. How much longer can we maintain our efforts to remain neutral from now on? How much longer can we continue to uphold the 1936 Montreux Straits Convention?

Is it too naïve to hope that a miracle might occur and the world might be rid of leaders who thrive on war? Unfortunately, realism—which defines the nature of international relations—leaves little room for such naïve thinking.

With the hope of waking up to days filled with peace…