Riyadh: Bringing together Saudi Arabia, Trkiye, and Pakistan-countries with substantial military, economic, and strategic influence-the Mecca Agreement signals a growing belief that the region needs to take more responsibility for its security amid rising instability. This instability is largely fueled by Israel's war on Gaza and military actions against Lebanon and Iran.
According to TRTworld.com, analysts suggest that the agreement represents a broader shift in Middle Eastern geopolitics. Rather than targeting a specific adversary, it aims to establish a flexible defense framework that enables member states to deepen military cooperation while preserving their existing diplomatic relationships. Oral Toga, an expert at the Center for Iranian Studies, tells TRT World that this design choice allows each signatory to maintain its existing relationships intact.
The agreement also reflects a reassessment of regional security following the Iran-US confrontation and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Recent events have underscored the limits of relying on external powers for long-term security, prompting renewed interest in indigenous defense cooperation. The regional response has so far mirrored the agreement's flexible design, with Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar welcoming the initiative, while Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have yet to publicly endorse it.
Ozgur Korpe, an academic at Trkiye's National Defence University, argues that the agreement's flexibility is what makes it appealing 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," he tells TRT World. This makes the Mecca Agreement seem like an open platform for actors sharing a common vision of stability.
The agreement's flexible design has prompted questions about whether the founding members intend to expand the partnership. Analysts believe expansion is likely as the agreement's institutional framework develops. Luciano Zaccara, a Doha-based political analyst, suggests that other Middle Eastern states could eventually join the pact. Turkish officials also confirm that other countries have expressed interest in joining, with Qatar seen as a strong candidate due to its close ties with Trkiye.
Saira Bano, an assistant professor of politics at Thompson Rivers University, views the agreement as an emerging mechanism for regional strategic coordination, rather than a NATO-style military alliance. She believes that rapid expansion is unlikely due to differing security priorities across the region. Instead, countries may deepen cooperation in specific areas like intelligence sharing and counterterrorism without necessarily becoming full members.
Analysts emphasize the agreement's primary objective is to help Middle Eastern powers assume greater responsibility for their security. While the agreement contains a collective security principle, it should not be seen as a Middle Eastern version of NATO. "The agreement contains an Article 5-like principle, but it doesn't mean states are forced to respond automatically to an aggressor," Zaccara tells TRT World.
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, notes the agreement sends a message to both Iran and Israel, though Iran has portrayed it as part of a broader effort to strengthen regional security less dependent on outside powers.
Mohammed Eslami, a political scientist, even suggests that Iran could one day become part of the framework. "While Iran's constitution prohibits military alliances, it can be a potential candidate for joining this treaty," he tells TRT World.
For Saira Bano, the Mecca Agreement represents an early step towards a more autonomous security architecture among influential Muslim-majority states. Its significance lies less in becoming another NATO and more in transforming the regional order. If additional states participate and the agreement develops permanent institutions, comparisons with a collective security alliance would become more appropriate.
