By Hakan Okçal
The Mecca Joint defense Agreement signed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan at the beginning of last month came as a surprise to many, although Turkey was interested in joining the defense agreement signed by the latter two a year ago. The new agreement goes further than defense cooperation due to a collective security pledge modelled on NATO’s famous Article 5.
The full text of the agreement is yet to be released and submitted to the Turkish parliament. Until this requirement is met, the deal can only be regarded as a non-binding expression of intent.
Nevertheless, the “Mecca Pact” immediately led to heated discussion since Turkey was trying hard to rebuild bridges with the West and avoid controversy in the Middle East. But Turkey once more dived into the stormy affairs of the region without any public endorsement.
WHOSE ENEMY, WHOSE WAR?
A NATO-style joint defense pledge would expose Turkey to immense dangers and pit it against adversaries that it would not intend to confront.
For instance, if Pakistan is engaged in a new war with India, is it in the interest of Turkey to fight a nuclear India alongside Pakistan? Or would Turkey really like to fight Iran and its regional proxies to defend Saudi Arabia, in denial of a foreign policy tenet in place since the early 17th century?
According to all three, there is only one common adversary in the region: Israel. The foreign policies of the three, however, reveal another picture. Unlike Iran, none of them have been enemies of Israel in the past. Pakistan and Turkey have been closer to the Jewish state, whereas Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood were regarded as existential threats to Saudi Arabia, not Israel.
Before the Gaza atrocities, Turkey maintained relations with Israel. Netanyahu was expected in Ankara for talks just before the October 7 attacks.
For Saudi Arabia, Israel was always a secret ally against Iran. Pakistan had no Israel problem. Israel’s relations with all of them plummeted after Netanyahu’s genocidal campaign against the Palestinians.
It is an open secret that Turkey maintained trade with Israel and allowed its ports to be used for Azerbaijani exports even after the atrocities. Although Netanyahu has created a Turkish boogeyman internally, it is doubtful a majority will buy that in the Oct. 7 elections. There’s a chance that Netanyahu will be removed. In a post-Netanyahu era, things may evolve toward restoration and dialogue.
Although the signatories have stressed that the Mecca Pact is not directed toward anybody, a pact with a NATO-style joint security clause could not exist without an adversary. If Israel is not that adversary, who is? The answer lies in President Donald Trump’s support.
The Mecca Pact could not have been formed by the United States’ closest allies in the Middle East without its endorsement. The US will only support such a thing if it serves its interests and is not directed against its prime ally Israel. So the Mecca Pact can only operate against Iran, not Israel.
WHAT TURKEY STANDS TO LOSE
So, the next question is: Are Turkey’s interests served by binding itself to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan against Iran?
Turkey may expect to expand its defense exports through the pact or may even expect financial support from Saudi Arabia, but would these benefits balance the security risks?
Turkey may want to balance Israel’s nuclear threat with Pakistan. That would be a grave miscalculation. Pakistan’s meager nuclear power, even if allowed, could never deter Israel in a conflict with Turkey. The only solution to such a conflict is to garner the support of the civilized world and deter the aggressor with national power.
The recent Houthi attack on Saudi Arabia was the Mecca Pact's first real stress test. Ankara's response was a Foreign Ministry statement condemning the attack 'in the strongest terms' — not an Article 5-style reply. Tehran and its proxies are likely to test the agreement again soon.
On top of everything, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan may be again seeking personal leadership in the Middle East. If the EU is not a priority for Turkey, he is looking in other directions. If he wants to turn his back on the civilised world with the backing of Trump to drag Turkey into the Middle Eastern quagmire, that would be his gravest mistake.
Turkey has nothing to gain from the Mecca Pact, and much to lose. It should retain its centuries-old Western vocation and not seek new alliances in the Middle East.
* Hakan Okçal is a retired Turkish ambassador. He joined the Foreign Ministry in 1978 and served in various diplomatic posts, including NATO, Bonn, Berlin, and as Consul General in Komotini. He was Turkey's Ambassador to Abuja, to Skopje, and later to Seoul. After retiring in 2018, he lectured on diplomacy at universities for five years and is currently a member of the Ankara Policy Center (APM).
