Murat SofuogluBringing together Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Pakistan—countries with substantial military, economic, and strategic influence—this pact shows a growing belief that the region should take more responsibility for its security amid rising instability, fuelled in large part by Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and its military aggression against Lebanon and Iran.
Analysts say the agreement represents a broader shift in Middle Eastern geopolitics.
Rather than targeting a specific adversary, it seeks to establish a flexible defence framework that allows member states to deepen military cooperation while preserving their existing diplomatic relationships.
“It names no adversary, and Ankara has been deliberate about saying so,” Oral Toga, an expert at the Center for Iranian Studies, an Ankara-based think tank, tells TRT World.
“That omission is the design choice that makes everything else possible, because it lets each signatory keep its existing relationships intact.”
The agreement also reflects a broader reassessment of regional security following the Iran-US confrontation and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
For many Middle Eastern governments, recent events have underscored the limits of relying on external powers for long-term security, prompting renewed interest in indigenous defence cooperation.
The regional response has so far reflected the agreement's flexible design.
Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar have welcomed the initiative, while Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have yet to publicly endorse it.
Analysts note that Cairo had previously participated in security consultations with Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan following the Iran-US crisis.
Ozgur Korpe, an academic at Türkiye's National Defence University and a military analyst, argues that the agreement's flexibility is precisely what makes it attractive to countries that may wish to join later.
"Broad security complexes like the Middle East contain 'sub-complexes' within themselves, such as the Gulf or the Levant. In this context, it is perceived that the Mecca Agreement gives the impression of a flexible platform open to actors sharing a common vision of stability, rather than an exclusionary structure," Korpe tells TRT World.
"It is anticipated that potential participation will occur in a cautious and gradual manner, in accordance with each state's own sub-regional threat perceptions and security interdependencies.”
Analysts also note that some regional powers must carefully balance a range of existing security and diplomatic partnerships before committing to a new defence arrangement.
"Joining means accepting a commitment that could be invoked by someone else's crisis, and states with dense relationships on multiple sides will weigh that carefully," Toga says, referring to countries such as Egypt and several Gulf states.
Who could join next?
The agreement's flexible design has also prompted questions about whether the three founding members intend to expand the partnership beyond Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan.
Analysts believe the answer is yes, with expansion likely to take shape as the agreement's institutional framework develops.
Other Middle Eastern states could eventually join the pact, says Luciano Zaccara, a Doha-based political analyst specialising in the Gulf and Iran.
The prospect of expansion comes as the three founding members begin establishing the agreement's institutional structure, while Turkish officials say other countries have already expressed interest in joining.
Qatar is widely seen as one of the strongest candidates to join the framework, given its close defence, political and economic ties with Türkiye.
The Gulf state has maintained working relations with Iran while simultaneously serving as a key US security partner and an important mediator between Washington and Tehran.
Saira Bano, an assistant professor of politics at Thompson Rivers University in Canada, says the agreement is better understood as "an emerging mechanism of regional strategic coordination" than as a NATO-style military alliance.
"Expansion is possible, but I would not expect a rapid enlargement into a large formal alliance. Much will depend on how the agreement develops in practice," she tells TRT World.
"Some Middle Eastern states may be interested in closer cooperation, particularly if the arrangement remains flexible and does not require them to choose sides in regional rivalries."
But she cautions that differing security priorities across the region will make rapid expansion difficult.
"However, Gulf and Middle Eastern states have different threat perceptions and different relationships with Iran, Israel and the United States," she says, adding that this will make "the creation of a unified regional military bloc difficult" in the short term.
Instead, she expects countries to deepen cooperation in specific areas rather than seek full membership.
"Therefore, we may see other countries cooperating with the three states in particular areas such as intelligence sharing, military exercises, maritime security, counterterrorism or defence technology without necessarily becoming full members of the agreement."
Toga shares that assessment, arguing that the agreement's architects envision "selective growth rather than a wave.”
"President Erdogan's stated vision is a broader structure rather than a permanent trio."
Restoring deterrence
If the agreement is designed to remain flexible, what strategic purpose does it ultimately serve?
Analysts say its primary objective is to help Middle Eastern powers assume greater responsibility for their security after the recent Iran-US conflict exposed the limits of relying on external guarantees.
"Restoring deterrence is the most important objective of the pact, after the war started on 28 February. But the deal also aims to enhance strategic diversification, combining the different capabilities each of the three have, with the aim of reducing dependence from the US," Zaccara tells TRT World.
He argues that while the agreement contains a collective security principle similar to NATO's Article 5, it should not be seen as a Middle Eastern version of the alliance.
"The agreement contains an Article 5-like principle according to which aggression against one member is treated as aggression against the others. But it doesn't mean states are forced to respond automatically to the aggressor. So far it would be an embryonic regional collective-security arrangement, not an Islamic NATO."
Although the pact emerged in the aftermath of the Iran-US confrontation, analysts caution against viewing it solely through the prism of Tehran.
Mahjoob Zweiri, a Doha-based expert on Middle Eastern politics, says the agreement carries different strategic implications for Iran and Israel.
"The perception is clear that this kind of alliance is a message to both Iran and Israel," he tells TRT World.
"Israel has its own concern, which already made it clear that they are worried of any kind of alliance between Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Pakistan."
Iran, however, has adopted a markedly different tone.
Rather than describing the agreement as a threat, Tehran has portrayed it as part of a broader effort to strengthen a regional security order less dependent on outside powers.
That interpretation is shared by Mohammed Eslami, a political scientist at the European University Institute.
"Although it's initially a result of recent US war on Iran and Iran's attack on US-related infrastructures in the region, the ultimate goal of this treaty is not to deter or balance Iran rather it is for the means of internalising the regional security architecture after decades of dependence on major powers," Eslami tells TRT World.
He even suggests that, depending on how the agreement evolves, Iran itself could one day become part of the framework.
"While Iran's constitution prohibits military alliances, Iran also can be a potential candidate for joining this treaty. This would be the most important turning point in regional defence and security architecture."
For Saira Bano, that possibility reflects the agreement's broader significance.
Rather than creating a military bloc overnight, she argues, the Mecca Agreement represents an early attempt to reshape the Middle East's security order around regional actors rather than external powers.
"The agreement could represent an early step towards a more autonomous security architecture among influential Muslim majority states. Its importance lies less in whether it becomes another NATO and more in what it tells us about the transformation of the regional order," Bano tells TRT World.
"If additional states eventually participate and the agreement develops permanent institutions, regular military consultations, joint exercises and clearer mutual defence obligations, then comparisons with a collective security alliance would become more appropriate."
