The primary mission of military alliances is to provide a security umbrella or a deterrent factor, ensuring a potential aggressor realizes that the costs of aggression outweigh its benefits. Alliances are not strictly bound by friendship; rather, they represent a reciprocal trade-off through which each nation achieves its objectives, as politics is driven by interests rather than charity.
The agreement between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Türkiye targets these presumed mutual interests. Achieving these goals strengthens the pact and encourages other nations to join, which aligns with the signatories' declarations that the alliance remains open to other states and does not serve as a substitute for any existing coalition.
Looking at the Middle East, two nations seek dominance and influence, armed with an expansionist ideology while disregarding international law and good neighborliness. The first is Israel, which is committing atrocities in Gaza that amount to "genocide," occupies territories in Lebanon and Syria, and whose aggression has not even spared Qatar. The second is an ideologized Iran, which, through its armed militias, targets the Gulf states under the pretext of fighting America. It is no wonder, then, that attention is focused on their actions, raising the question: how can deterrence be achieved?
Through this agreement, Saudi Arabia is seeking to achieve regional peace by restoring the balance of power, building its defense framework, and focusing on its major economic vision. Meanwhile, Türkiye is aiming to secure a larger regional role, enhance its security in the Red Sea, and develop its industries through financial investments that involve a willingness to transfer technology to its investing partner, while also promoting its goods in the region's vast market. As for Pakistan, already an ally of the Kingdom, joining forces with Türkiye will grant it broader cooperation in military industries and economic support, alongside political leverage in a strategic region that will earn it the respect of major powers like the US and China.
This alliance will change the face of the region, providing powerful deterrents if the US evades its commitments. This alignment of interests prompted the signatories of the agreement to declare: "Any aggression against one state will be deemed an aggression against the others." This text mirrors Article 5 of the NATO alliance, which stipulates that a country has the right to take "such action as it deems necessary," meaning there is no immediate military obligation. Since the details of the trilateral agreement remain unknown, this condition may not exist; however, if it does, it serves the purpose of highly beneficial strategic ambiguity, granting the signatories a degree of independence while confounding the calculations of an aggressor state due to the uncertainty surrounding the nature of the response.
Since Iran and Israel are the destabilizing forces in the region, their responses to the agreement differed in form but aligned in substance. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi considered the agreement beneficial for the unity of Islamic countries and a gateway paving the way for the exit of outsiders (the US) from the region, whereas Iranian hardliners classified it as a direct threat to their revolutionary republic. Meanwhile, Israel viewed it as a danger to itself and its interests in the region. Regardless of their responses, both recognize that the alliance narrows their military options.
The agreement may lead to counter-alliances in the region, but that will not impact the strategic goal of achieving a balance of power. Contrary to popular belief, opposing alliances reduce wars and open horizons for cooperation between adversaries. At the height of the Cold War, General Secretary of the Communist Party Leonid Brezhnev launched the theory of peaceful coexistence with capitalist America. This theory did not emerge from a vacuum; rather, it stemmed from the collective awareness that war is costly for everyone, and that coexistence is preferable to conflict.
The reality remains that the regional balance of power is skewed in favor of Iran and Israel. American intervention has neither deterred Iran nor halted Israeli incursions, and this vital region cannot endure asymmetrical wars. Consequently, this alliance represents a significant first step toward restoring balance, following apparent American hesitation, Chinese absence, and Russian withdrawal from the region.
Furthermore, the alliance members' connections with both friendly and adversarial nations serve them diplomatically and politically. For instance, Saudi Arabia maintains strong relations with India, Pakistan's rival, while Türkiye and Pakistan share ties with Iran and the US. This provides a platform for diplomatic dialogue and trade relations, helping defuse potential aggression and reducing the chances of military confrontation.
Thus, the Kingdom could act as a mediator between India and Pakistan, Pakistan could mediate between Iran and the Gulf countries, and Türkiye could serve as a bulwark against Israeli threats in Lebanon or Syria. Additionally, the pact's member states are capable of exerting pressure on the US to compel Israel to accept a just settlement for the Palestinian cause, as well as prompting China - and even Russia - and others to join a settlement that restores balance to the Middle East.
The Makkah Joint Defense Agreement represents a qualitative leap, acting - as the Roman historian Flavius Renatus suggested - to win the war before fighting it. This is because an aggressor will realize theoretically that its opponents are more prepared and deterrent, and will discover practically, should it venture out, what surprises await.
