A new geopolitical analysis has raised serious questions about the durability of the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement signed by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan in early August, warning that the trilateral pact lacks the ideological cohesion and shared threat perception that have historically held successful military alliances together. The report, published by Canada-based Geopolitical Monitor, argues that without a common adversary or unified values, the pact faces a fundamental question of what will ultimately hold it together.

Origins of the Pact

The agreement emerged against the backdrop of the Iran war, which has significantly disrupted Middle Eastern geopolitics. According to the report, US bases across the Gulf have been repeatedly targeted, and Washington has been unable to fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz for maritime traffic and energy shipments. This has prompted regional powers to diversify their defence partnerships away from the United States, with the Mecca Agreement representing the most visible demonstration of that strategic shift.

The pact is being promoted as a NATO-like security arrangement, featuring a clause modelled on NATO's Article 5 — treating an armed attack on any one of the three signatories as an attack on all. However, analysts note that the comparison to NATO may be misleading.

Deep Contradictions Within the Grouping

The report highlights that several members of the grouping maintain deep ties with adversaries of fellow signatories. A pointed example: Saudi Arabia has significantly strengthened its relationship with India over the past decade. The analysis asks whether Riyadh would support Pakistan in a future conflict with New Delhi — a question that remains unanswered.

Historical precedent adds further doubt. When Saudi Arabia previously requested that Pakistan contribute troops, ships, and aircraft to the Yemen war, Pakistan's parliament voted against joining the conflict. The report notes that each country evaluates questions of war and peace through the lens of its own national interests, casting uncertainty over whether the three nations would genuinely assist one another — and to what extent — if the Article 5-equivalent clause were ever triggered.

No Ideological Glue

The analysis draws a sharp contrast with NATO, which it describes as the benchmark for a successful military alliance — one built on shared democratic values, a commitment to human rights, and the rule of law. The Mecca Agreement, the report argues, lacks any comparable binding political ideology.

The three signatories represent starkly different political systems. Saudi Arabia is characterised as a theocracy that seeks to maintain its position as the foremost Islamic state while simultaneously pursuing internal reforms. Pakistan is described as a military-backed democracy that deploys religion as a policy tool. Turkey is identified as a strained democracy that champions the ideology of political Islam.

Critically, the report flags a direct ideological fault line: Saudi Arabia views political Islam — particularly the Muslim Brotherhood — as a threat to its own regime, while Turkey has historically been associated with movements aligned with that ideology. This internal contradiction, analysts argue, could prove corrosive over time.

What Analysts Are Watching

The Mecca Agreement's longevity will likely depend on whether the three countries can subordinate their divergent national interests to collective security commitments — something that past experience suggests is far from guaranteed. Observers note that the pact's NATO framing may serve more as a diplomatic signal to Washington than as a credible operational defence architecture. How the agreement holds up under real-world pressure — particularly if any signatory faces a conflict involving a third party with ties to another member — will be the defining test.