PNN – Following the major deception the U.S. perpetrated against the Arabs, some believe that Saudi Arabia is seeking a new protective umbrella through the Mecca Agreement.
According to the report of Pakistan News Network; amidst various analyses regarding the backdrop of the defense agreement between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan, the newspaper Al-Akhbar examined the dimensions and rationale behind the deal. It noted that the Mecca Agreement reflects a shift in Riyadh’s security calculations—a move coinciding with the erosion of the U.S. image of deterrence and a quest for stronger guarantees.
The question that arises here is whether this agreement paves the way for a “post-US Persian Gulf” or merely reproduces US policy through regional proxies.
Saudi Arabia Acknowledges Being Duped by the U.S.
The most significant aspect of the defense agreement between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan is not whether it will evolve into a full-fledged military alliance or if the three nations’ armies will ever fight side-by-side on the same front. Rather, it lies in the fact that Saudi Arabia—having built its security upon its relationship with the United States for decades—is effectively beginning to accept that the U.S. security umbrella alone is no longer sufficient, and that placing all its security eggs in the American basket is no longer a sustainable policy.
The initial takeaway from this agreement is that Saudi Arabia has neither turned against the United States nor abandoned American weaponry or military cooperation. However, the move toward such an agreement signifies a realization among regional players—particularly the Gulf states—that the U.S. cannot serve as their protector.
Thus, the fact that Gulf nations, including Saudi Arabia, are maintaining their ties with the U.S. is not the crucial point here; rather, what matters is that American influence in the region did not stem solely from the presence of military bases, but also from convincing regional states that security was impossible without the United States.
Therefore, when U.S. allies—including Saudi Arabia, a key partner—begin seeking an alternative security umbrella, it signifies that the U.S. project and the very foundation of its influence in the Persian Gulf states have been significantly undermined following the recent regional conflict.
This does not, of course, imply a conventional military defeat for the United States. Rather, the experience has damaged America’s deterrent credibility; Washington’s regional allies—who had long viewed the U.S. as their ultimate guarantor of security—realized during this conflict that they needed to revise their calculations and seek more tangible guarantees.
After the United States, Saudi dollars are flowing to Turkey and Pakistan.
Regarding the arrangement known as the “Mecca Agreement,” Pakistan seeks to provide Saudi Arabia with military and nuclear leverage, and Turkey offers defense industry capabilities and military expertise, while Saudi Arabia supplies both parties with funds, market access, and investment. In other words, this is an exchange of interests rather than a gathering of Islamic brotherhood—though the former is certainly the more realistic assessment.
Yet, a question remains that many might overlook: What if Pakistan enters into an all-out confrontation with India? Would Turkey and Saudi Arabia consider themselves at war? Would Kashmir suddenly become a matter of Saudi national security? Or would the adage “an attack on one is an attack on all” require significant clarification when faced with its first real test?
Exposing the Deception of Those Claiming to Support Palestine
The next point—and perhaps the most shameful aspect of this agreement—concerns the exposure of the signatory nations’ dishonesty regarding the Palestinian issue; while these three countries were able to shift from mere rhetoric to the concept of collective deterrence when their own direct security was at stake, they took no practical action regarding Gaza. Despite claiming to support the Palestinians, they limited themselves to issuing statements of condemnation.
Thus, for these Arab and Islamic nations that claim to support Palestine, practical deterrence becomes an urgent priority when their own security is at stake, whereas it remains merely a moral issue when Palestinians are the ones being targeted.
The point here is not to call for the deployment of armies from these countries to Gaza; rather, Palestinians have every right to ask why a defense commitment was established to protect these three nations, yet no genuine system of pressure was created to make Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza politically, economically, and militarily costly for the regime.
In fact, from the very beginning, Palestine has been more a part of Arab and Islamic discourse than a component of the concept of security itself.
Thus, the significance of this agreement lies not in determining whether Turkey will go to war with India or whether Pakistan will deploy troops to defend Saudi Arabia; rather, it lies in the realization by Riyadh that the path to its security does not run exclusively through Washington.
This in itself is a significant loss for the United States, because empires begin to decline when their allies lose faith in the necessity of their existence.