Asia Defense | Security | South Asia

The Mecca Pact and America’s Reduced Leverage in West Asia

Erosion of U.S. influence could, in the long run, impact arms sales, the negotiation of military basing rights, and the management of regional crises.

The signing of the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye on August 7 is a significant development. The pact is the first formal regional security agreement to be formed as a direct result of the conflict between the U.S. and Iran. The agreement reflects the lessons that key regional actors have drawn from the crisis as they seek to redefine their place within a security order long dominated by the U.S.

The West Asia war has revealed that the American defense umbrella in the form of forward bases in the region is not adequate in protecting Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Arab states from Iranian attacks. Rather, the U.S. military presence in these states pulled them directly into the conflict, making them targets of Iran and its regional allies. Additionally, the Israeli military’s approach to the Palestinian question and its bombing of the people of Gaza have drawn widespread ire in the Muslim world.

For decades, Washington served as the sole security guarantor in the Gulf. The emergence of a formal defense pact among key regional players that excludes the U.S. is may chip away at Washington’s leverage in the region. While this erosion of influence may not become fully apparent in the short term, it is likely to assume greater significance in the coming years, particularly with respect to arms sales, the negotiation of military basing rights, and the management of regional crises.

One may argue that as a result of the pact the U.S. will now be indirectly constrained by decisions taken jointly by Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. For instance, the Mecca Pact stipulates that an attack on one country will be regarded as an attack upon all. While the signatories have not publicly elaborated the precise circumstances under which the idea of collective commitment would be activated, it is reasonable to conclude that they have reached internal understandings regarding the scenarios that would trigger such a response.

It does seem that Washington sees little issue with the Mecca Agreement. American officials have refrained from opposing the agreement, with analysts noting that it aligns with Washington’s interests for regional burden-sharing. In practice, however, the U.S. holds no formal obligations under the pact. However, its deep military ties with Saudi Arabia, Turkiye, and Pakistan mean Washington cannot easily disentangle itself should a crisis erupt amid ambiguity surrounding the pact’s scope.

It is important to note that this pact has taken shape among countries bound by deep historical, religious and defense ties, whose interests have converged amid the shifting geopolitical landscape of West Asia during the Iran-U.S. war. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye have long maintained strong military cooperation. Last year, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan concluded a bilateral Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement. Similarly, Türkiye and Pakistan have been collaborating on naval projects, fighter jet development and joint exercises.

Furthermore, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye have established strong defense ties in recent years. A major turning point in this regard occurred in 2023 when Saudi Arabia signed a massive defense contract to acquire Bayraktar Akinci unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) from Türkiye’s Baykar. The deal included agreements between Saudi Military Industries and Baykar for technology transfer, local assembly, testing and joint production inside the Kingdom. In a way, this directly aligned with Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 objective to localize more than 50 percent of its military spending. This existing Saudi, Turkish, and Pakistani defense industry collaboration made it only natural to form a defensive alliance that is expected to foster deeper military integration in the years ahead.

Arguably, Washington has been compelled to accept the arrangement due to the transformation of regional realities where it cannot fully ensure conflict resolution. The agreement could not realistically have materialized prior to........

© The Diplomat