Introduction

This article offers an overview and analysis of the Makka Joint Defense Agreement.

It is helpful to begin with some basic facts.

The Agreement is a defense pact between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkiye.

It was signed in Makka on August 7th, 2026 at the Makka Al-Mukarrama Summit for Joint Defense.

The Makka Agreement establishes military cooperation between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey.

The full text of the Makka Joint Defense Agreement has not been released to the public. This indicates that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkiye are keeping parts of the Agreement private for political and security reasons.

Nevertheless, one key part of the Agreement has been announced. It establishes a collective security arrangement modelled on Article 5 of NATO’s North Atlantic Treaty. Article 5 states that an armed attack on any NATO member is considered an attack on all, and will be responded to accordingly.

Similarly, the Makka Agreement states that an armed attack on Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Turkiye, will be treated as an attack on all of these countries, and will be responded to accordingly.

Saudi, Pakistani, and Turkish officials have indicated that the Makka Agreement will involve other forms of military cooperation as well. Although these have not been formally announced, it is widely expected that such cooperation will include intelligence sharing, military training, logistics, as well as joint development of weapons and military technology.

Saudi, Pakistani, and Turkish officials have also indicated that they wish to invite other Muslim countries to join the Agreement. It is not clear which countries will be invited. However, news reports have mentioned countries like Egypt, Iran, and Bangladesh as potential candidates.

The Makka Agreement has received extensive media attention, especially from Muslims across the world.

Nevertheless, understanding the Agreement is no easy task, for it raises a number of related questions.

RELATED: Analysing the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement

Why is it that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkiye signed this Agreement? What, if anything, makes these countries important to politics in the Muslim world?

What exactly do Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkiye hope to get out of the Agreement? What is each country contributing, and how does the Agreement advance its specific geostrategic goals?

Why was the Agreement signed at this particular time? How does the Agreement relate to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the US-Iran war?

Finally, what impact will this agreement have on the Muslim world? Is it a major achievement that will bring Muslims together against common enemies and foster a revival of the umma? Is it a deceptive plot designed to advance the interests of the US and Israel? Or is it simply an unimportant propaganda effort that will have no real impact.

The present article seeks to answer all of the preceding questions. Moreover, while it is too early to predict the Agreement’s ultimate impact, the article highlights evidence that it will have a positive effect on the Muslim world. In sha Allah, future generations will regard it as a significant step in the direction of much-needed Pan-Islamic unity.

Official Statement Announcing Agreement

As noted above, the full text of the Makka Joint Defense Agreement has not been released to the public. Our information about the Agreement comes from comments made by Saudi, Pakistani, and Turkish officials as well as a joint announcement made by all three countries.

Made on August 7^th, 2026, the joint announcement reads:

At the gracious invitation of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, President of the Republic of Türkiye Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif paid a visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on August 7, 2026.

 

His Royal Highness Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Crown Prince and Prime Minister, received President Erdoğan and Prime Minister Sharif at Al-Safa Palace in Makkah, where the Makkah Al-Mukarramah Summit for Joint Defence was held, during which the distinguished relations between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Republic of Türkiye, and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan were reviewed, along with several issues of mutual interest. Guided by the longstanding historical ties among the three states, based on the enduring bonds of brotherhood and Islamic solidarity that unite them, and building upon their shared strategic interests and longstanding defence co-operation, HRH the Crown Prince, the President of Türkiye, and the Prime Minister of Pakistan signed the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement, reflecting the three states’ shared commitment to further strengthening their collective security and to promoting peace, security, and stability in the region and beyond, in pursuit of a secure and prosperous future.

 

The agreement is intended to strengthen collective deterrence against any act of aggression, and stipulates that any armed attack against any one of the three states shall be regarded as an attack against them all. It further provides for the enhancement of all aspects of defence co-operation among the three states.

 

- Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Pakistan Issue Joint Statement of the Makkah Al-Mukarrama Summit for Joint Defense

Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and the Makka Agreement

Given that the Makka Agreement is modelled on NATO’s North Atlantic Treaty, fully understanding the Makka Agreement requires a closer analysis of the Treaty.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a military alliance between 32 member states (thirty in Europe and two in North America). NATO was established with the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949, with the primary purpose of deterring the threat posed by the Soviet Union and its allies.

NATO members agree to defend each other from attacks by entities outside of NATO. They do this by treating an attack on one NATO member as an attack on all.

Article 5 reads:

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

Although Article 5 initially looks straightforward, it is more complicated than it seems.

It is widely assumed that Article 5 requires that, when an attack happens, each NATO member must participate in military operations against the attacker. This is incorrect.

The text of Article 5 simply requires that each member of NATO “will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary.”

Notice that each member of NATO only has to provide some type of assistance, but this does not need to be military assistance. It could be some other form of assistance, including financial support, diplomatic support, supplies, and so on. It should also be noted that each NATO member is given discretion to determine what type of assistance to give. It only gives the assistance that “it deems necessary.”

All of this becomes relevant to interpreting the Makka Agreement, and its endorsement of a provision modelled on Article 5.

Common misunderstandings about Article 5 have led to common misunderstandings of the Makka Agreement. Thus, it is commonly assumed that the Makka Agreement requires that, if one of its three members is attacked, the other members must join in military operations against the attacker – potentially with nuclear weapons (e.g., if Israel strikes Turkiye with a nuclear weapon, Pakistan must respond with a nuclear strike on Israel). But this is wrong. If any member of the Makka Agreement is attacked, the other members must merely provide whatever type of assistance they think is appropriate, which may or may not involve military operations.

In fact, there are already strong indications that, at least for the time being, members of the Makka Agreement will not necessarily participate in military operations when other members are attacked.

Since the signing of the Makka Agreement, Saudi Arabia has been attacked by the Houthis of Yemen. Additionally, Turkish forces in Syria have been attacked by Israel. Yet this has not caused other members of the Makka Agreement to launch military attacks on the Houthis or on Israel.

Professor Vali Nasr of Johns Hopkins has drawn attention to this important fact.

The Historical Need of Gulf Arab States for Protection

Historically, Gulf Arab populations have been militarily weak. This derives from their small populations and limited human capital. As a result, they have often been attacked or conquered by forces from other regions. Following the initial Islamic conquests, Gulf Arab populations were defended by the Umayyad Caliphate of Syria. They were then defended by the Abbasid Caliphate of Iraq. Prior to the twentieth century, they had been defended for centuries by the Ottoman Empire of Turkiye.

Beginning in the 1930s, the Gulf Arab states discovered enormous deposits of oil and natural gas, making them central to the global economy. This hydrocarbon wealth further incentivized rival powers to conquer or control the Gulf. In response, the Gulf Arab states sought protection from the UK and US.

For over a hundred and fifty years, the British empire held a dominant position in the Gulf Arab region (1820-1971) and offered protection to Gulf Arab states. However, the British empire was gradually dissolved after World War II, and by the 1970s, the UK had withdrawn from the region.

The UK was immediately replaced by the US. Since the 1940s, the US had a military presence in the region to secure oil supplies. During the 1970s this was expanded. In 1974, the US made an agreement with Saudi Arabia to establish a petrodollar system. Saudi Arabia would only sell oil in dollars, thereby greatly heightening and stabilizing the value of the US currency. In return, the US would protect the Saudi state. Between the 1970s and 1980s, the US began establishing a network of military bases in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Oman.

After the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the first Gulf War (1991), the US greatly expanded its network of Gulf bases. The 1990s saw the US begin operating bases in Kuwait, Qatar, and UAE.

The US operated these bases with a number of goals. By protecting the Gulf Arab states, it established a significant measure of control over the world’s oil and gas supply. The US was also able to push these Gulf Arab states into closer relations with Israel. This was demanded by Israel itself, through its uniquely powerful lobby. This lobby has heavily influenced US policy in the Middle East since the early twentieth century.

Since the 1990s, a huge portion of US military forces have been concentrated in the Middle East. However, the past two decades have seen China rise greatly in power and become the primary rival to the United States. This period has also seen the US decline in power, and Israel rise in power. Since 2011, the US has sought to reorient its foreign policy around a “pivot to Asia.” This involves moving many of its military forces out of the Middle East to East Asia, with the purpose of countering and containing China. This means significantly less US protection for the Arab Gulf states, leaving them to seek protection from other sources. Pushed by the Israel lobby, the US has worked to encourage the Arab states to rely on an alliance with Israel for their security.

This is the broader political context in which the Makka Agreement has emerged.

Recent Efforts to Foster Military Cooperation between the Gulf Arab States and Other Countries

Over the past decade a number of efforts have been made to foster military cooperation between Gulf Arab states (i.e., GCC) and other countries. The most important of these efforts include the following:

The Middle East Strategic Alliance (2017)

The Abraham Accords (2020)

The Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (2025)

The Formation of the “Regional Four” grouping (2026)

The Middle East Strategic Alliance (2017)

The idea of a Middle East Strategic Alliance was announced in 2017. Promoted by the US, the proposed alliance envisioned a security partnership encompassing the six GCC nations (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE) plus Jordan and Egypt.

Some media sources described the Alliance as an “Arab NATO”, that would involve something like Article 5 – such that an attack on any Arab member of the alliance would be treated as an attack on all members. However, US support for the Alliance idea was eliminated, and ultimately it did not produce any significant results.

See here for more information.

The Abraham Accords (2020)

Part of the reason why the US lost interest in the Middle East Strategic Alliance is that it began to focus more heavily on the Abraham Accords. Established in 2020, the Accords established diplomatic normalization between Israel and several Arab states, including the UAE and Bahrain, and then Morocco and Sudan.

Normalization has been followed by increasing economic and military agreements. These agreements have sought to bind Sunni Arab countries (particularly in the Gulf) into an alliance with Israel, against Israel’s primary enemies; namely Iran and its Shia allies (Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, al-Hashd al-Sh’abi in Iraq). In other words, the Accords are designed to create a situation where Israel and the Gulf States militarily cooperate to protect each other and counter Iran and its Shia allies.

The primary country that Israel and the US want to join the Accords is Saudi Arabia – which is by far the most populous, oil-rich, and religiously important Gulf state. However, Saudi has insisted that it will only join the Accords after Israel recognizes an independent Palestinian state – something which the Israeli government has refused to do.

RELATED: New Middle East Alliance Against Islam: Will Saudi Join the Abraham Accords?

The Abraham Accords are controversial for a number of reasons. Traditionally the Arab states have conditioned normalization with Israel on Israel’s recognition of a Palestinian state. The Accords push Arab states (e.g., UAE, Bahrain) to abandon this demand and to cease their support of the Palestinians.

Another issue with the Abraham Accords is that they operate in keeping with the logic of the Yinon plan. The Yinon plan seeks to weaken Muslim populations by fostering conflicts between them. Such often involves creating and exacerbating Sunni-Shia sectarianism.

The Yinon Plan has been explained in various Muslim Skeptic articles including the following: “The Secret Zionist Plan to Destroy the Muslim World”

The Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (2025)

Given the failure of the Middle East Strategic Alliance, and the difficulty in joining the Abraham Accords, Saudi Arabia turned to other options. This was done while facing new threats from Israel, which began waging war on Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and other Arab states after the October 7^th attacks by Hamas in 2023.

On September 17th, 2025, the Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement (SMDA) was signed between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

This occurred immediately after an Israeli airstrike on a Hamas leadership complex in Doha, Qatar. The airstrike occurred on September 9, 2025. It provoked great fear in the GCC, as it seemed to indicate that Israel was willing to conduct military strikes on Gulf states. Moreover, the US was not willing to prevent these strikes despite establishing bases in the GCC with the promise of using them to protect GCC states from attacks.

The SMDA is a defense pact which features an arrangement modelled on Article 5 of NATO. Hence it treats any attack on Saudi Arabia or Pakistan as an attack on both.

The SMDA is a direct precursor to the Makka Agreement. The Makka Agreement builds on the SMDA by adding Turkiye and opening the door to other Muslim-majority states joining.

The Formation of the “Regional Four” grouping (2026)

The “Regional Four” (R-4) grouping was launched in early 2026.

It comprises Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Türkiye, and Egypt.

It was formed to address shared security challenges and regional escalation. These include Israeli aggression and the expanding conflict between the US-Israel and Iran which began in February 2026. This later conflict has involved Iran attacking US military bases in the GCC. Iran has also attacked oil and gas infrastructure, and shut the Strait of Hormuz to damage the global economy and – by extension – the US economy.

Three members of the R-4 grouping then joined the Makka Agreement. It is also widely expected that Egypt will eventually join the Agreement.

See here for more information on this.

Most Important Powers in the Middle East

The Makka Agreement does not involve every country in the Muslim world or every country in the Middle East. Rather it involves three specific countries, and is also shaped by concerns about other specific countries.

Understanding the Makka Agreement requires understanding the seven strongest military powers in the Middle East region. These are:

• US
• Israel
• Turkiye
• Pakistan
• Iran
• Egypt
• Saudi Arabia

The power of these countries is reflected in a number of metrics including (but not limited to) their population, territorial size, GDP, oil and natural gas reserves, and whether they possess nuclear weapons.

Let us look at each of these countries in turn.

United States

The US is by far the strongest country in the world. It has the world’s largest economy along with the world’s strongest military. To maintain this army, the US spends far more on the miliary than any other state.

The US is the largest arms exporter in the world, accounting for 42% of global arms exports. It supplies large amounts of weapons to its allies such as Israel and the Gulf Arab states.

However, despite the power of the US, its pollical system has been compromised. Thus, its foreign and military policy in the Middle East is controlled largely by Israel through the Israel lobby.

US military forces are spread throughout the world. It has about 173,000 troops deployed in 159 countries.

Many of these troops are stationed in the US’s global network of military bases. The US has about 750 bases in at least 80 countries.

There is a heavy concentration of US military forces in the Middle East. In the region, it has around 50000 soldiers at 19 or more bases.

As noted previously, GCC countries are heavily dependent on the US and military bases for their security.

However, the recent Iran war has changed this situation.

The GCC invests in the US, politically defers to the US, and maintains US military bases on the assumption that these bases will protect them and the vulnerable oil refineries, desalination plants, and waterways (e.g., Gulf of Hormuz, Bab al-Mandab) on which their economies depend.

However, the Iran war has demonstrated the US is unwilling and unable to protect these things with its bases. Rather these bases exist primarily to protect Israel, launch attacks on Israel’s enemies, and maintain Israeli hegemony in the region. Rather than protect GCC countries, they make these countries targets for hostile entities like Iran and the Houthis of Yemen.

Israel

Israel has a small population (about 10 million) and small military. Nevertheless, at present, Israel is the second strongest power in the Middle East. It has a strong indigenous military industry, which is aided by the US. This allows it to produce some of the world’s most technologically advanced missile, intelligence, and cyber technologies.

Israel also has one of the largest military budgets of any country. In 2023, it ranked 14^th globally in military spending (29 billion US dollars).

But these are not even Israel’s greatest strengths.

Aided by the US, Israel is the only country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons.

Moreover, Israel exercises significant control over the US military through the Israel lobby. So Israel is always militarily aided and protected by US forces.

Turkiye

Turkiye and Pakistan are perhaps the strongest powers in the Middle East after Israel.

It has a larger population than Saudi and a larger military (~360,000 active-duty military personnel).

Turkiye has a sizable economy and a population with a significant number of STEM graduates.

Turkiye also has a capacity to develop and manufacture relatively advanced types of weapons that are crucial for contemporary warfare – including jets, drones, and missiles.

Although Turkiye has no nuclear weapons, it is a member of NATO. Several NATO members (e.g., US, UK, France) have nuclear weapons and, by virtue of Article 5, are obliged to help protect Turkiye. Theoretically, this gives Turkiye a type of nuclear deterrence.

Under Erdogan and AKP, in recent decades Turkiye has pursued a Pan-Islamist politics. As such it has moved towards establishing a Sunni axis incorporating the R-4 grouping (Turkiye, Pakistan, Saudi, Egypt). It has also intervened in Libya, Egypt, and Syria to promote Islamist causes. At present, Turkiye has significant control over Syria.

Nevertheless, Turkiye is a semi-democratic state where the population is capable of voting out Erdogan and the AKP. Given the legacy of Ataturk, Turkiye has a very large population of secularized Muslims who oppose Pan-Islamist politics and interventions in foreign lands. This means that Erdogan and his government cannot undertake forms of foreign policy which are risky or dangerous. So Turkiye strongly avoids foreign wars or sending its troops abroad.

Israel can tell that Turkiye is relatively powerful, and for this reason calls it the country’s largest threat after Iran.

Pakistan

Pakistan has a giant population (far bigger than any Middle Eastern country).

Unlike Turkiye, in Pakistan democratic politics are strongly constrained. This means that the government can undertake risky foreign policy moves without significant fear of an electoral backlash. Unlike Turkiye, Pakistan has indicated a willingness to deploy its troops abroad in places like Saudi.

Pakistan has a strong military. It has a large army (~660,000 active-duty military personnel). More importantly, it has nuclear weapons and a formidable air force. It also has some indigenous ability to produce and maintain weapons and military technologies.

Nevertheless, Pakistan is a relatively poor country, with a modest annual military budget (around 11 billion dollars).

Given these facts, Pakistan has a strong need for the type of money provided by Saudi.

Pakistan is also in a very precarious situation. It is hated by India, which is one of the most powerful states in the world given its giant population, giant economy, and strong military. Pakistan and India struggle with one another for control of Kashmir. India is also worried Pakistan will cooperate with its sizable Muslim minority population against the Indian government. Hence, most of Pakistan’s resources are tied up in a long-running military conflict with India.

Iran

Iran has a relatively large population, and a large military (~610,000 active duty personnel).

Along with Saudi it has great wealth in terms of oil and natural gas.

Its economy is sizable despite the fact that unlike all other countries this economy has been subject to major artificial constraint due to 47 years of US sanctions.

Iran also has an exceptionally high proportion of STEM and engineering graduates. This is why it has been able to build a significant indigenous military industry producing relatively advanced missiles and drones (but not jets). They have also been able to create an advanced nuclear program, putting Iran on the threshold of creating nuclear weapons.

The fact that Iran has large amounts of oil and natural gas, large amounts of STEM and engineering graduates, and has been able to create a relatively sizeable economy under the most severe sanctions – this means Iran has potential to greatly jump in power if sanctions are removed – even more so if it creates nuclear weapons.

Beyond this Iran has created a Shia-dominated “Axis of Resistance” with forces in Palestine, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Yemen (Houthis), Iraq (al-Hashd al-Sha’bi) which it uses to project power.

Given these facts, Israel sees Iran as its greatest threat.

Egypt

Historically, Egypt has been the most powerful Arab state.

It has the largest population of any state in the Middle East, and has a sizable military (~440000 active personnel). The population also has a significant number of STEM and engineering graduates.

However, it is heavily dependent on the US for weapons and does not have a strong indigenous military industry. It is also poor and suffers from major economic problems.

Egypt is weaker than Turkiye, Pakistan, and Iran.

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia has large amounts of oil money that it can invest in military projects. In fact, Saudi Arabia has one of the largest military budgets in the world. In 2023, Saudi Arabia ranked fifth globally in military spending (74 billion dollars).

But Saudi Arabia has a relatively small population, and it lacks a powerful military. Its army is not large (~250,000 active-duty military personnel).

Moreover, the country’s somewhat sophisticated weapons and military technologies are not produced by Saudis. Instead they are purchased from the US. This makes Saudi heavily dependent upon the US for supplying and maintaining its weapons and technologies.

What will Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkiye Contribute to the Agreement

As explained above, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkiye are very different countries with very different strengths and weakness. This will affect what they contribute to the Makka Agreement.

Saudi Arabia has large amounts of oil money that it invests in military projects. But its population is small, and it lacks a powerful army. Saudi is also dependent upon the US for supplying and maintaining its weapons and technologies. Since US policy is heavily shaped by Israel, Israel can push the US to limit military supplies to Saudi. The US will also not allow Saudi to use its weapons against Israel. This is a major problem if Israel attacks Saudi. The Makka Agreement creates a situation where Saudi Arabia will be able to redirect much of its military spending to joint projects with Turkiye and Pakistan. Turkiye and Pakistan will use this money to develop and produce weapons. They will also offer protection to Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan has a large population and large army, nuclear weapons, and a willingness to deploy its troops abroad in places like Saudi. Under the Makka Agreement the primary contribution of Pakistan will be its manpower and nuclear weapons. Because Pakistan has a strong military, it has less need for protection than Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, Pakistan is much poorer than Saudi Arabia and Turkiye, and has a strong need for the type of money provided by Saudi. So the primary benefit that Pakistan will receive is financial.

Turkiye has a capacity ability to develop and manufacture relatively advanced types of weapons that are crucial for contemporary warfare, including jets, drones, and missiles. This is what it will contribute to the alliance. Because Turkiye has a strong military, and is also protected by NATO, it has less need for military assistance than Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, given that NATO may not protect Turkiye against Israel, Turkiye welcomes the prospect of military aid from Pakistan. But the primary benefit that Turkiye gets from the Makka Agreement is Saudi money to help develop its military industry.

Overall, the Makka Agreement itself should be seen as a Saudi-centric arrangement. Saudi Arabia has taken the lead in moving the Agreement forward. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan created the direct precursor to the Makka Agreement (i.e., the Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement). This precursor was then expanded by including Turkiye at a summit convened in Saudi Arabia.

The reason why Saudi Arabia has taken a leadership role is that it needs the Agreement more than Pakistan and Turkiye. Saudi Arabia is by far the weakest of the three states from a military perspective. It is highly vulnerable to attacks from rival powers like Israel, Iran, and the Houthis. It has minimal ability to deter such attacks. Under the Agreement, Pakistan and Turkiye will help deter attacks of this kind.

Three Perspectives on the Makka Agreement

Both Muslim and non-Muslim media commentators have put forth a variety of perspectives on the Makka Agreement. The three most common perspectives can be expressed as follows:

1. The Makka Agreement is a significant Pan-Islamist Achievement
2. The Makka Agreement is a Harmful Sectarian Plot
3. The Makka Agreement is Unimportant

Let us consider each of these perspectives in turn

The Makka Agreement is a Significant Pan-Islamist Achievement

According to this perspective, the Makka Agreement reflects a significant commitment to Pan-Islamist politics. In other words, the Agreement is designed to foster cooperation between all Muslims (Sunni and Shia) against threats (e.g., Israel). As such, the Agreement can be seen as a victory for Islamic teachings on unity within the umma. Such unity will strengthen Muslims and help free them from the domination of non-Muslim powers which has characterized the modern period.

The notion that the Makka Agreement is Pan-Islamist is reflected in the official statement announcing the agreement.

From the official statement

“Guided by the longstanding historical ties among the three states, based on the enduring bonds of brotherhood and Islamic solidarity that unite them, and building upon their shared strategic interests and longstanding defence co-operation, HRH the Crown Prince, the President of Türkiye, and the Prime Minister of Pakistan signed the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement, reflecting the three states’ shared commitment to further strengthening their collective security and to promoting peace, security, and stability in the region and beyond, in pursuit of a secure and prosperous future.”

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif portrays the Agreement as a Pan-Islamist arrangement which brings together nations “united by faith”

Other Pakistani politicians have emphasized the Pan-Islamist nature of the agreement.

Makkah defence pact historic milestone for Muslim Ummah: Rana Sanaullah

The notion that the Makka Agreement is Pan-Islamist is also supported by the fact that Pakistan and Turkiye keep emphasizing that it is open to other Muslim states – implying that all other Muslim states may join, whether Sunni or Shia.

Turkiye has placed emphasis on the hope that Egypt will join the Makka Agreement (such that it covers the entire R-4 Group).

Interestingly, there is also news that Bangladesh is considering joining the Makka Agreement. This would represent a giant development in South Asian politics. The 1947 Partition of India led to the formation of a unified Muslim state encompassing both Pakistan and Bangladesh. Nevertheless, this state was broken apart with aid from India. The Makka Agreement raises the prospect of reactivating a Muslim alliance (i.e., Pakistan and Bangladesh) to counter India.

The Makka Agreement is a Harmful Sectarian Plot

According to this second perspective, the Makka Agreement is implicitly sectarian. It exists to create a Sunni axis to combat the Iran-led Shia axis (i.e., incorporating Hezbollah, Houthis, al-Hashd al-Sha’bi).

Moreover, the Sunni axis involved consists in countries allied with the US (i.e., Saudi, Turkiye, Pakistan). Their alliance with the US tacitly brings them into a type of alliance with Israel, since the US is controlled by Israel.

On this perspective, the Makka Agreement is a step in the direction of the Abraham Accords which promotes violent sectarianism based on the Yinon Plan. The Accords envision a Middle East structured around a military alliance of Israel, the US, and a Sunni axis which opposes an Iran-led Shia axis.

Various analysts have claimed that the Makka Agreement is implicitly a sectarian project

For example:

Kamran Bokhari, a senior resident fellow at the Middle East Policy Council, a research centre based in Washington, DC, agreed the practical shift is minimal at this stage, calling it “a strategic signal” rather than “an operational alliance,” with any integrated military capacity years away.

…

[Bokhari said] “Everyone involved understands that the agreement is principally aimed at containing Iran and the network of non-state actors it has cultivated across the region, including Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraqi Shia militias,” said Bokhari, adding that none of the three signatories is “yet prepared for an overt strategic confrontation with Tehran”.

Nevertheless, political officials from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkiye have made numerous statements which explicitly deny that the Makka Agreement is a sectarian project. Instead, they have insisted that it is a Pan-Islamist project. Also see here. And here.

On the other hand, the US has vocally supported the Makka Agreement. The US is an enemy of Iran and the Axis of Resistance. The US also supports the Abraham Accords and the logic of the Yinon Plan. This implies that whether or not the Makka Agreement is a Sectarian Project, the US will use its influence to try and make it one.

Israel believes that the Makka Agreement aims to produce a Sunni axis. However, it also believes that this axis is designed to counter Israel as well as Iran, or perhaps only Israel.

Israel opposes any idea of a Sunni axis or a Shia axis. It wants to destroy both.

It favors a security framework where any Sunni element is diluted. Hence it prefers a security arrangement that would link the US, Israel, UAE, Saudi, Greece, Cyprus, and India.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has taken the lead in speaking out against the threat of a Sunni axis.

As for Iran, it has not said much about the Makka agreement, and has struck a relatively neutral position. It likes the fact that the agreement reflects less dependence on the US, and by extension less influence from Israel. On the other hand, it is aware that the pact could be made into weapon targeting Iran.

Iran has played down the mutual security agreement signed between the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey in the Muslim holy city of Mecca on Friday.

 

Esmaeil Baghaei, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson, said on Monday that Tehran saw no reason to be concerned that a new security pact is directed against Iran.

 

Baghaei said the pact showed a “change in perception” towards the US, as well as a shift in the regional approach to security.

 

He added that the agreement represented a shift towards greater reliance on the states’ own capabilities rather than outside powers.

 

“Any plan that is based on the geopolitical and historical realities of the region, is comprehensive and inclusive, and correctly identifies the enemy and the threat, has a chance of helping to strengthen security and prevent instability and abuses by the Zionist enemy and its allies,” Baghaei said.

Recent news reports challenge the notion that the Makka Agreement is a sectarian project aimed at Iran and its allies. Thus, on August 23^rd, 2026 (about two weeks after the Agreement was signed) reports began to spread that Iran has actually been invited to join the Agreement. Many outlets with established reputations have published this surprising news, although it is not yet certain whether it is accurate.

There are indications that Iranian leadership is considering whether to join the Agreement, but is evaluating it first.

The Makka Agreement is Unimportant

A final perspective on the Makka Agreement is that it is less important than it looks and will have a limited impact on the region.

Consider that each of the three parties to the Agreement have very different goals. The parties may be able to cooperate on less dangerous projects (e.g., joint training, intelligence sharing, weapons development). However, it is unlikely that they will be able to cooperate on more ambitious and risky projects, such as actual military operations (e.g., against Israel, Iran, Houthis).

Consider the different goals of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkiye.

Saudi Arabia is very worried about Israel. It is also very worried about Iran and the Houthis. It is vulnerable to attacks on its economy from these countries because it is weak militarily. It also knows that Iran could come to dominate the GCC if economic sanctions are lifted, if it develops a nuclear weapon, and if it is able to maintain control of the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandab (with help from the Houthis).

It should also be noted that if India attacks Pakistan, it is highly unlikely that Saudi Arabia would militarily intervene to protect Pakistan. Saudi Arabia would view doing this as too risky. Moreover, Saudi Arabia does not have the military capacity to make a large difference on the battlefield.

There is evidence that Saudi Arabia does not envision every Muslim country joining the Makka Agreement. It has opposed Egypt joining because Egypt is too close to its rival UAE.

One would expect Saudi Arabia to oppose Iran joining the Makka Agreement more than Egypt. However, as noted earlier, there are indications that Saudi Arabia has actually assented to Iran joining.

This brings us to Pakistan. Unlike Saudi Arabia, Pakistan is not greatly concerned with threats from Israel, Iran, or the Houthis. Israel and the Houthis are too far away. Meanwhile, Pakistan (unlike Saudi) has the type of powerful military capable of deterring Iran. And neither country would derive any benefit from attacking the other. For this reason, Pakistan and Iran have relatively positive relations. Pakistan constantly attempts to balance friendly relations with Iran and the US, and mediate between them.

Pakistan’s major concerns are the military threat posed by India, and its own economic problems. If war were to break out between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Pakistan would likely avoid militarily intervening to protect Saudi Arabia, as this would be regarded as highly dangerous and costly. Here it should be noted that Pakistan has thus far avoided protecting Saudi from Iranian missile strikes since the beginning of the Iran-US war. Indeed, it is not even clear whether Pakistan will protect Saudi Arabia from Houthis despite the lower cost and danger involved.

Finally, we come to Turkiye. Like Pakistan, Turkiye is not greatly concerned with threats from Iran, because it has the type of powerful military capable of deterring Iran. It also does not want to pay the costs of a war with Iran, so it is unlikely that it would attack Iran to protect Saudi Arabia.

Turkiye is primarily concerned with deterring Israel, especially given the heightened likelihood of clashes with Israel in Syria. Turkiye is also aware that its NATO status will not protect it from Israeli strikes. After all, NATO is controlled by the US, and the US would not sanction an attack on Israel.

It should also be noted that if Israel attacks Turkiye, it is highly unlikely that Saudi Arabia would militarily intervene to protect Turkiye. Saudi Arabia would view doing this as too risky. Moreover, Saudi Arabia does not have the military capacity to make a large difference on the battlefield.

Why Muslims Should be Cautiously Optimistic about the Makka Agreement

None of the three aforementioned perspectives on the Makka Agreement is entirely satisfactory. However, the first is probably the closest to the truth. In other words, there is much evidence to support the view that the Agreement is a significant Pan-Islamist achievement.

As we have seen, Saudi, Pakistani, and Turkish officials have explicitly described the Makka Agreement as a Pan-Islamist project rather than a sectarian one. And this idea receives further support from the news reports indicating that Iran has been invited to join the Agreement.

Throughout the twentieth century Western powers and Israel have sought to split up Muslim populations in the Middle East to keep them weak, and make it easier to dominate them. Since the dissolution of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924, Muslim-majority states have not put forth military cooperation pacts based on broad Islamic solidarity. Instead, they have developed military cooperation with non-Muslim powers like the UK, US, and Russia. They have also supplemented this with secondary forms of cooperation based on ethnicity and (less commonly) sectarian identity.

The only reason why it is possible to have anything resembling the Makka Agreement is the recent decline of US power. Since the US is becoming weaker, Muslim majority states can no longer depend on the US to protect them, and they are being forced to consider alternative arrangements. It is this situation that has opened the prospect of Pan-Islamic military cooperation.

Even if the Makka Agreement ultimately fails, it has at least revived and normalized political discourse on Pan-Islamic unity. This is no minor feat, for recent decades have witnessed the complete marginalization of (Pan-)-Islamist politics, in favor of secularist and ethnic nationalist projects. Prior to the Makka Agreement, most Middle Eastern governments automatically dismissed calls for Pan-Islamic unity as “extremism”.