The United States had issued no official response by Saturday after Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan signed a mutual defence agreement in Mecca. The pact says an armed attack on any one signatory will be treated as an attack on all three, although its full terms have not been released and the commitment has not been tested.
Analysts disagree over what the agreement means for Washington. Some see it as evidence that regional powers are seeking greater independence from an unpredictable US government; others say stronger defence cooperation among US partners fits Washington’s call for allies to share more responsibility for regional security.
At a glance:
- The agreement was signed by Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan in Mecca.
- Its central stated provision treats an armed attack on one signatory as an attack on all three.
- Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan say the pact supplements rather than replaces their other alliances.
- Analysts expect its most immediate effect to be diplomatic, particularly on the Abraham Accords.
Why the pact has drawn attention
The agreement comes during the US-Israeli war against Iran and amid Israel’s expanding military actions in the region. It follows a similar Saudi-Pakistani mutual defence agreement reached in September 2025, and came after an Israeli air strike on Doha heightened concerns about Washington’s ability to restrain a close ally.
The signatories have presented the pact as an addition to existing relationships. Saudi Arabia said it does not create a military axis or sectarian bloc and does not come at the expense of its Gulf, Arab or international ties. Türkiye said the partnership is not an alternative to its NATO membership.
A challenge to the US security model?
Critics say the pact reflects weakening confidence in the US-led security order. Harlan Ullman of the Killowen Group said the foundations of US alliances in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, NATO and Asia had been shaken, though he said the extent of the damage remained uncertain.
Nawaf Obaid of King’s College London called the agreement the clearest sign yet of movement away from an “American-designed regional security order”. He argued that attacks linked to the war with Iran had exposed the vulnerability of US bases in the Gulf. The United States has about 50,000 troops across 19 sites in the Middle East, including bases or military access in Türkiye, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and other countries.
Why other experts see continuity
The agreement does not appear to alter Türkiye’s NATO commitments, although analysts said multiple regional escalations could eventually divert resources. Türkiye contributes the second-largest standing army in NATO, Saudi Arabia brings substantial financial resources and Pakistan is the only nuclear-armed member of the trio.
Brookings fellow Asli Aydintasbas said Washington is unlikely to withdraw Gulf forces in the short term while the war with Iran continues. She argued that regional defence cooperation is consistent with the Trump administration’s preference for burden-sharing. RUSI researcher Burcu Ozcelik similarly cautioned against interpreting the pact as proof of a post-American Middle East, saying regional partners can assume more security responsibilities while remaining connected to a US-centred architecture.
The Abraham Accords face a diplomatic setback
The agreement may have its clearest near-term effect on diplomacy rather than US troop deployments. The Trump administration has made Arab-Israeli normalisation through the Abraham Accords a central regional goal, including efforts to establish relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Analysts said the new pact makes Saudi Arabia’s position harder to misread. Asli Aydintasbas said Riyadh would not join the Abraham Accords while the Palestinian issue remains unresolved. Defence analyst Alex Alfirraz Scheers said alarms were raised after Trump made Saudi participation in the accords a condition for a nuclear-reactor cooperation agreement, arguing that the accords were being used as leverage.
Questions readers ask
Does the pact replace Saudi Arabia’s or Türkiye’s existing alliances?
No. Saudi Arabia said it supplements its existing Gulf, Arab and international relationships, while Türkiye said it is not an alternative to NATO membership.
Has the mutual-defence commitment been tested?
No. The agreement’s full details have not been released, and its central pledge to treat an attack on one country as an attack on all three has not yet been tested.
Related coverage:
No comments yet. Start the discussion.