Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan Activate Mecca Pact Amid Houthi Attacks: Is It NATO in the Middle East? | Today’s news

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey on Monday (6 October) moved to activate their joint defense agreement from Mecca, announcing moves to prepare and deploy military forces and defense assets in Saudi Arabia amid renewed Houthi attacks and escalating regional tensions.

The move followed emergency talks in Riyadh on Monday involving senior political and military officials from the three countries.

After the negotiations, Saudi Defense Minister Khalid bin Salman announced the activation of the pact, and Pakistan also issued an official statement.

These developments focused on the Mecca Defense Agreement of August 7, which is often described as a potential “Muslim NATO” because of its collective defense clause.

But analysts warn that the comparison with NATO may be exaggerated.

The agreement is partly modeled on the principle of NATO Article 5, according to which an armed attack against one member is considered an attack against all.

However, the pact does not automatically make Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey a NATO-style military alliance.

The British think tank Center for International Security and Economic Strategy (CISES) says calling the deal a “Muslim NATO” is misleading because the three countries have different strategic priorities and threat perceptions.

However, the three countries agreed to create a permanent secretariat in Saudi Arabia, initially headed by a Pakistani secretary-general, along with greater defense cooperation, military cohesion, and joint industrial and technological development.

Three countries, three strategic calculations

The biggest challenge to the pact is that Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan do not necessarily see the same countries as their primary threats.

Saudi Arabia: Riyadh’s main security concern is Iran and the Iranian-backed Houthis. Saudi Arabia is balancing its security relationship with the US while deepening ties with China and managing its rivalry with Tehran.

Turkey: Ankara perceives threats from multiple directions, including tensions involving Israel, Kurdish armed groups and its wider regional interests. Turkey is also a member of NATO and maintains relations with Russia, including through the purchase of the S-400 air defense system.

Pakistan: Islamabad regards India as its main security concern, while maintaining strategic relations with China, the US and the Gulf states. It also faces security challenges associated with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

CISES notes that NATO was created in a very different environment. In 1949, the Soviet Union provided a powerful common threat that helped bind the otherwise disparate states together.

According to CISES, all three countries pursued a hedging strategy that kept room for maneuver rather than committing exclusively to one power or bloc.

Why the NATO comparison may not hold up

An attack that appears existential to one member might be viewed differently by the other two.

CISES cites Iran as an example: while Iran is a major security concern for Saudi Arabia, Turkey maintains functional ties with Tehran, including energy and trade relations. Meanwhile, Pakistan shares a border with Iran and cannot look at Tehran only through the Saudi Arabian security prism.

This means that an attack on one member could lead to very different strategic calculations for the other two.

Even NATO’s own Article 5 does not prescribe one specific military action. Each member determines the form of help he considers necessary.

The distinction is important because the label “Muslim NATO” could create an expectation of automatic military mobilization that the pact may not actually guarantee.

CISES points out that Pakistan’s statement on the Houthi attacks indicated a commitment to collective defense, but no military response under the pact was discussed.

Therefore, the agreement should not be rejected just because it is not NATO, notes the think tank.

Its institutionalization could create a platform for intelligence sharing, defense-industrial cooperation, technological development and greater military coordination among the three countries.

The establishment of a permanent secretariat and commitments to military cohesion and joint industrial and technological development indicate that members are seeking greater organizational substance.

However, CISES warns that expecting Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan to act as highly committed NATO allies could create dangerous expectations during a crisis. If one member assumes Article 5-style solidarity while another is still considering its options, the resulting expectation gap could itself cause strategic miscalculations.

The activation of the Mecca pact amid renewed Houthi attacks is its first major test.

For now, “Muslim NATO” may be a catchy label, but the strategic reality is far more complex.

The immediate background to the activation is a renewed escalation involving the Iran-aligned Yemeni Houthis.

The conflict extends to the wider war in Yemen. The Houthis seized large parts of Yemen, including Sana’a, in 2014. Saudi Arabia intervened militarily in 2015 to support Yemen’s internationally recognized government and push back the Houthis, although fighting eased after a UN-brokered ceasefire in 2022.

Tensions have risen again as Saudi-backed Yemeni forces seek to retake territory from the Houthis, prompting missile and drone attacks targeting Saudi Arabia. The Houthis have also attacked shipping in and around the Red Sea as part of their wider regional campaign.

(With input from agencies)