What could the Mecca defence pact mean for the US role in the Middle East?

A new mutual defence pact between Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan has raised questions over the changing geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, particularly as the fallout from the US-Israel war on Iran pushes regional countries to explore new security arrangements, Al Jazeera reports.

The agreement, known as the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, was signed in the Saudi city of Mecca on Friday.

According to a statement issued after the meeting, the pact aims to strengthen “collective deterrence” against aggression and states that an armed attack on any one of the three countries will be treated as an attack on all three.

The agreement also calls for greater cooperation among the three countries across various areas of defence.

While details of how the pact would operate in practice remain unclear, analysts say it reflects growing concerns among regional states over the reliability of long-standing US security guarantees.

Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, a Middle East fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, told Al Jazeera that doubts over the US security partnership had been growing for more than a decade.

The US decision to launch military operations against Iran, the conduct of the war and Washington’s changing efforts to resolve the conflict have further intensified those concerns, he said.

However, Ulrichsen said the emergence of new defence arrangements was unlikely to mean that regional states were seeking to replace the US. Rather, they could provide countries with additional strategic and policy options.

Uncertainty over the US role

US President Donald Trump’s administration has yet to publicly comment on the pact. Analysts, however, see the agreement as part of efforts by Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan to adjust their security relationships following the turmoil surrounding the Iran war.

Sina Toossi, an analyst at the Center for International Policy, described the agreement as one of the first major geopolitical indications that the regional order is being reshaped by the conflict.

He said the significance of the pact lies less in the creation of a formal military alliance and more in what it reveals about how regional countries are reassessing their security arrangements.

Saudi Arabia has maintained a longstanding security relationship with Washington. But analysts say Riyadh’s decision to deepen defence ties with other regional powers could signal an effort to broaden its security partnerships.

“Rather than relying primarily on Washington, Saudi Arabia appears to be broadening its security partnerships and laying the groundwork for more intra-regional security arrangements,” Toossi said.

Media reports have also suggested that some US partners in the Middle East were frustrated by the Trump administration’s decision to launch the war against Iran with limited apparent consideration of the consequences for regional allies.

Iranian forces responded with waves of missile and drone attacks on US military facilities across the Middle East, resulting in civilian casualties. Iranian attacks also targeted civilian infrastructure, including energy and desalination facilities.

Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial route for regional energy exports, has further affected local economies.

Despite heavy US and Israeli strikes, Iran has largely retained its ability to restrict traffic through the strategic waterway. Washington has also faced difficulties in providing its regional partners with sufficient air-defence munitions, with much of the available supply directed towards Israel.

‘Normative deterrence’

The war has put further strain on the region’s longstanding reliance on Washington for security.

Brett McGurk, a former US President Joe Biden administration official involved in Middle East policy, described the current period as a “fluid” era in which the regional order is being reshaped.

Analysts, however, caution against interpreting the Mecca agreement as an attempt to replace the United States or directly confront Iran.

Yasmine Farouk, an analyst at the International Crisis Group, said all three countries remain US partners and recognise that no existing framework can fully replace the United States.

She also argued that the agreement should not necessarily be viewed as a move towards greater confrontation with Iran.

Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan have generally supported mediation and de-escalation since the US and Israel launched their attacks on Iran in late February.

According to Farouk, the three countries share an interest in avoiding further regional escalation. The agreement could therefore be understood partly as a form of “normative deterrence” — signalling collective opposition to aggression while strengthening regional security cooperation.

She said Iran has emerged from the conflict more hardened and confident in its ability to use force to pursue its objectives.

The pact, therefore, may have significance beyond immediate deterrence, pointing towards a longer-term effort by regional powers to build stronger strategic and defence cooperation.