Written by Howaida Awad Ahmed
Choosing this difficult moment in the history of the nation to announce an Islamic alliance based on clearly defined standards and objectives known to all parties is significant.
Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Pakistan form an alliance that brings together financial power, political influence, and a defense industry with standards approaching those of NATO, along with approximately 700,000 military personnel and Pakistan’s substantial nuclear capability.
According to the established principles governing military alliances, an armed attack against any member state is considered an attack against the other allies, requiring them to respond collectively to the aggressor.
However, each of these countries has an adversary that may simultaneously be a friend or partner of another member. There are also shared interests, trade, expertise, and cooperation among them. These factors could constrain the alliance’s power and cause it to operate only in carefully selected and defined directions, based on agreements that take into account the interests and reservations of all three countries.
Nevertheless, the alliance is also important because it could create a major balance of power amid the current turmoil in the Middle East, where competing interests, conflicts, and proxy wars involving militias threaten the stability of the entire region.
Although Egypt has been and continues to coordinate closely with the three countries to establish mechanisms for containing the deteriorating situation and the escalating tensions involving Iran, the Gulf states, and Iran-backed armed groups in Yemen and Iraq, Egypt has not signed onto the alliance. Instead, Cairo has chosen to carefully examine the technical details and implications of such a commitment.
The decision to go to war, the financial obligations involved, and the risks of committing Egypt to a war outside its borders are serious matters that require careful consideration and a thorough assessment of the potential consequences.
The Mecca Agreement
The Mecca Agreement is considered one of the most important and potentially consequential alliances in the region.
The backbone of the agreement is the principle that an armed attack against any one of the three member states would be treated as an attack against all three, closely resembling the collective-defense principle of NATO and effectively turning the three countries into a single strategic bloc.
At the same time, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter preserves the right of individual and collective self-defense, provided that an actual armed attack has taken place. This is intended to prevent the use of force without legal limits or sufficient justification.
The International Court of Justice addressed this issue in the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua case, distinguishing between large-scale uses of force and limited border incidents, such as those involving Houthi attacks and the Saudi border.
In other words, there is a legal and strategic distinction between a major military assault and a limited strike.
The Middle East is currently witnessing proxy warfare involving militias and drone attacks carried out by groups affiliated with regional powers, including the Houthis, who are backed by Iran, as well as armed factions operating in Iraq and Syria.
The provisions of the agreement are therefore expected to operate according to agreed criteria governing responses to drones, limited strikes, and other forms of attack. All options would remain open should the situation escalate into a major and comprehensive war.
This deliberate ambiguity in the wording of the agreement could allow the three countries greater flexibility in determining their response without being bound by a single predetermined course of action.
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan explained that the agreement contains broad commitments, while its practical implementation will depend on discussions and decisions by the alliance’s bodies, which are expected to be established soon.
The political deterrence message behind the alliance is clear: an attack against one member would be treated as an attack against the others, but within strong and clearly defined limits.
This modern hard-power structure is not merely a product of current events. Rather, it builds on years of military cooperation, joint work, and the exchange of expertise among the three countries.
The so-called “new Islamic NATO” would send a message to regional adversaries and represents the culmination of decades of military planning, integrated cooperation, and efforts toward establishing a unified command structure resembling the Allied command structure in Europe.
The alliance could potentially establish a joint force capable of rapid deployment. However, the Mecca Agreement would not necessarily require the permanent deployment of large military formations; instead, it could rely on tactical arrangements and coordinated responses.
Türkiye possesses one of the largest and most capable militaries in the region, while Saudi Arabia has a substantial arsenal of advanced aircraft and air-defense systems.
Pakistan, meanwhile, possesses significant military capabilities and a nuclear arsenal.
Bringing the three countries together under a single alliance and banner could therefore create a massive military bloc with capabilities comparable, in certain respects, to those of major powers.
The most significant and potentially consequential step would be the establishment of a joint military body and command structure comprising defense ministers, foreign-policy representatives, and chiefs of staff from the three countries’ armed forces.
The administrative arm of this body could be a general secretariat headquartered in Riyadh, responsible for operational details, working mechanisms, protocols for information and operational exchange, the limits of the secretariat’s authority, and high-level coordination among the three military commands.
This would allow the alliance to coordinate the movement and deployment of forces in response to a specific threat.
In the absence of a permanent unified command, an alternative could be the rapid formation of a temporary joint command whenever an armed attack occurs. This command would determine the nature and scale of the response according to the severity of the attack and the level of threat. It could also be activated for joint military exercises and training.
Military coordination would include continuous joint exercises, supply-chain integration, training on new weapons systems, joint development and modernization, and the integration and sharing of intelligence and operational information within a common theater of operations.
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have a long history of military cooperation. In 2025, they signed a strategic mutual defense agreement, following which thousands of Pakistani troops, fighter aircraft, and air-defense systems were reportedly deployed to Saudi Arabia for training purposes.
Türkiye and Pakistan have also maintained naval cooperation for around a decade, while Saudi Arabia has increased its purchases of Turkish defense equipment, particularly unmanned aerial systems.
The armed forces of the three countries would remain stationed in their respective territories until a specific crisis requires the alliance to respond.
The Proposed Response Mechanism
First: The state under attack would officially declare that it has been subjected to an armed attack in the legal sense.
Second: It would submit a formal request specifying the type, scale, and timing of assistance required from the other member states.
Third: The ministerial committee would consult among its members, and its decision would be based on intelligence assessments, logistical support requirements, ammunition supplies, and the possible deployment of specialized military units, as determined through political and military consultations.
This flexibility could also allow one country, for example, to provide financial resources, weapons, or equipment without necessarily deploying its own troops.
The distribution of roles is perhaps the most critical aspect of such an alliance. Each country would be expected to fulfill the specific role assigned to it.
Saudi Arabia would serve as the alliance’s geographic and financial anchor, with enormous financial resources, significant influence in global energy markets, and access to advanced Western weaponry. With the alliance’s general secretariat headquartered on its territory, Saudi Arabia could also take responsibility for financing joint defense-manufacturing projects and providing extensive logistical support. This would help secure energy supplies during any prolonged conflict or war.
Türkiye would serve as the technological spearhead. As a member of NATO with a rapidly expanding defense industry, Türkiye possesses significant capabilities in electronic warfare, modern military platforms, drones, and network-centric warfare.
Pakistan would provide strategic depth, substantial manpower, approximately 600,000 military personnel, extensive experience in counterinsurgency operations, strong ground forces, and a significant nuclear arsenal.
Ultimately, this alliance could become one of the most powerful and consequential strategic arrangements in the region, helping each country compensate for the gaps in its own capabilities through the strengths of the others.
