Washington, DC – A seismic shift, or merely a strategic realignment? That’s the burning question echoing through diplomatic corridors following the signing of a landmark mutual defense agreement in Mecca by Saudi Arabia, Turkiye, and Pakistan. The administration of United States President Donald Trump has offered no official response in the hours since the accord was penned, a silence that analysts suggest underscores the intricate – and still unfolding – implications for US strategy.
This muted reaction, persisting into Saturday, highlights the multifaceted nature of the deal. Some experts contend it heralds a sweeping change in the Middle East’s power dynamics, while others propose it paradoxically reinforces longstanding US objectives.
Many consider the agreement a foundational step for one of the most profound regional power shifts in recent memory. It emerges against the backdrop of an ongoing US-Israeli war against Iran and Israel’s increasingly aggressive military maneuvers throughout the region. A pivotal provision within the pact reportedly commits signatories to treat an attack on one as an attack on all, echoing the collective defense principle enshrined in fundamental principles of mutual defense.
The Saudi-Turkiye-Pakistan Pact: A Challenge or a Complement?
Contrasting viewpoints abound. Certain observers interpret the agreement as a direct consequence of growing apprehension towards an unpredictable US government, possibly foreshadowing a broader security realignment poised to reshape the Middle East entirely. Yet, an equally compelling argument suggests that while US actions might have indeed hastened the pact’s formation, the deal aligns seamlessly with US strategic aims promoting greater burden-sharing among its allies.
In the immediate future, many experts agree the pact’s most significant impact will manifest in the diplomatic arena, presenting a potentially insurmountable obstacle to Arab-Israeli normalisation efforts under the Abraham Accords. The pursuit of enhanced regional cooperation with Israel has served as the linchpin of the Trump administration’s Middle East designs since his first term. Sina Toosi, a senior fellow at the Centre for International Policy, views the mutual defense pact as a distinct setback.
“Ironically, the US and Israel entered the war [with Iran] hoping to reshape the regional balance of power in Israel’s favour and accelerate regional integration through initiatives like the Abraham Accords,” Toosi remarked to Al Jazeera. “Instead, one of the first major post-war developments is the emergence of a defence initiative among three major Muslim powers seeking greater strategic autonomy.”
Full details of the agreement remain under wraps, with only a joint statement released on Friday outlining its terms. The central commitment, a pledge that “any armed attack against any one of the three states shall be regarded as an attack against them all,” is a premise that has yet to face its ultimate test.
This recent accord builds upon a similar mutual defense agreement signed between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in September 2025. That preceding pact followed mere days after Israel’s air strike on Doha, the Qatari capital, amplifying anxieties regarding Washington’s capacity to rein in one of its closest regional partners. Since the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023, Israel has initiated numerous military campaigns, including operations against Iran, Lebanon, and a devastating campaign in Gaza.
Officials in Riyadh, Ankara, and Islamabad have been quick to emphasize that Friday’s agreement is intended to supplement, not supplant, existing alliances. Experts, however, caution that the strengthening of defense ties among the trio does not entirely obscure their individual, and at times divergent, national interests.
For instance, Saudi Arabia asserted that the deal “does not represent any orientation toward building a military axis or sectarian/religious bloc.” It clarified, “The agreement does not come at the expense of the Kingdom’s strategic and strong relations at the Gulf, Arab, and international levels.” The Kingdom has borne the brunt of numerous Iranian retaliatory attacks since the US-Israeli war commenced on February 28, and more recently, has witnessed escalated strikes from the Houthis in Yemen and Iran-aligned armed groups in Iraq.
Concurrently, Turkiye’s presidential communication directorate stated the fortified partnership “is not an alternative” to the nation’s membership in the 32-country NATO bloc. Indeed, experts concur that the agreement appears to have no bearing on NATO commitments, though it could potentially lead to a diversion of resources should multiple escalations occur. Turkiye commands NATO’s second-largest standing army and possesses access to advanced military technology. Saudi Arabia contributes its immense financial power to the alliance. Pakistan stands as the sole nuclear-armed power among the three.
Washington’s Strategic Sway: Eroding or Evolving?
Despite these assurances that the pact is not a regional re-orientation, some observers link this new alliance to the Trump administration’s sometimes contentious posture towards NATO and its broader departure from multilateralism. They argue it signifies a perceptible, if nascent, erosion of Washington’s strategic influence.
“The basis for our alliance in the Middle East, in the Persian Gulf, and certainly with NATO and with our allies in Asia, have been shaken,” Harlan Ullman, chairman of the Killowen Group advisory firm and a former naval officer, observed during an Al Jazeera television interview. “How badly remains to be seen. It may only be stirred, not shaken. But it’s something that we need to worry about.”
The traditional US approach to the Gulf has centered on forging military, economic, and diplomatic ties, with Gulf states expecting de facto security guarantees in return. This strategy gained momentum in the early 1980s with the establishment of the Gulf Cooperation Council and intensified during the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, integral to Washington’s “global war on terror.” The US maintains approximately 50,000 troops across 19 sites in the Middle East, with US-controlled bases in Turkiye, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE, alongside a presence at facilities in Saudi Arabia, Oman, Jordan, Iraq, and Israel. Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt are among the regional nations designated as “major non-NATO allies,” underscoring the depth of their military and economic relationships. Pakistan also holds this distinction.
However, critics contend that the US-Israeli war with Iran has fundamentally degraded the underpinnings of these long-standing alliances. Nawaf Obaid, a senior fellow at the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, characterized the Pakistan-Saudi-Turkiye deal as the clearest indication yet of a shift away from an “American-designed regional security order.”
“The US-Iran war accelerated a transformation already under way,” Obaid articulated in an Al Jazeera column. He highlighted that hosting US bases has transformed several Gulf states into targets for attacks during the protracted conflict with Iran. “Iranian retaliatory strikes exposed the vulnerability of the US basing structure in the Gulf and forced the repositioning of substantial combat forces,” Obaid elaborated.
The loosening of these strategic bonds is also evident on the US side. Successive administrations – including those led by former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden – have attempted to pivot away from the Middle East, redirecting their focus towards China and the Asia Pacific. The 2025 National Security Strategy, early in Trump’s second term, made only fleeting mention of the region. While Washington’s “intelligence relationships, military power, technology and economic influence will remain formidable” in the region, Obaid forecasts a gradual waning of the US presence. “Several American bases will eventually close, as they have lost strategic utility,” he predicted.
Aligning with US Goals? Different Perspectives
Asli Aydintasbas, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, also acknowledged a desire within the Trump administration to reduce its focus on the Middle East, particularly regarding “democracy building.” Yet, this desire has generally not translated into a withdrawal of military forces from the Gulf. With efforts to end the five-month war in Iran repeatedly stalled, any short-term alteration in the US military posture remains improbable. “Now there’s a hot war in the Middle East. Obviously, it’s not really the time to pull US troops or commitments,” Aydintasbas noted. “On the other hand, we’ve also seen the limits of US deterrence in the region in the form of Iranian attacks on US allies and Iran’s continuing ability to inflict pain on US allies and global trade, despite its weaker military model.”
Aydintasbas is among the experts who believe Washington likely perceives the new security agreement as consistent with its calls for greater burden-sharing among allies. The Trump administration has faced reports of munitions shortages during the war with Iran, prompting calls for allies, especially within NATO, to significantly increase their military spending.
“I think the United States is not bothered by a deal among three close US allies for their own protection. It is consistent with the Trump administration’s ideas on burden-sharing and regional solutions,” she asserted. Aydintasbas also raised questions about whether Turkiye or Pakistan would indeed retaliate against the Houthis or Iran in response to attacks on Saudi Arabia under the pact’s terms. “It also really is an agreement that has its own limits, and US officials know that full well,” she added.
Burcu Ozcelik, a senior research fellow for Middle East security at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), cautioned against viewing this development as evidence of a “post-American Middle East.” She stated, “If anything, it fits the broader US preference for greater regional burden-sharing, regional powers assuming more responsibility for deterrence and security while remaining embedded, to different degrees, within a US-centered security architecture.” Ozcelik concluded that, “Stronger regional security cooperation among US partners is entirely compatible with the direction of American strategy.”
The Saudi-Turkiye-Pakistan Pact and Abraham Accords
While Friday’s mutual defense deal may not immediately alter US military strategy, it undeniably conveys a potent message concerning the normalisation of regional ties with Israel under the Abraham Accords. This diplomatic initiative has been a cornerstone of the Trump administration’s approach to the Middle East, with Trump overseeing the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco signing onto the accords during his first term. However, Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza has derailed any recent progress, a process already criticized for sidelining the critical issue of Palestinian peace and statehood.
Normalizing relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel has long been an ambitious, yet elusive, objective for the Trump administration. Experts now suggest that the **Saudi-Turkiye-Pakistan Pact** pushes the prospect of expanding the Abraham Accords further out of reach, if not signaling their complete demise. This reality is particularly acute after Trump retroactively conditioned the sale of nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia on their joining the Abraham Accords, according to defense analyst Alex Alfirraz Scheers.
“I think the fact that the president of the United States basically said that the Saudi nuclear cooperation agreement was contingent on the Saudis joining the Abraham Accords certainly sounded alarms all across the Gulf,” Alfirraz Scheers told Al Jazeera in a television interview. “[It showed] the Abraham Accords are now being used for coercive purposes.” Aydintasbas further clarified that the pact removes any ambiguity regarding Riyadh’s stance. “This makes it crystal clear that the Saudis are not going to join the Abraham Accords as long as the Palestinian issue remains unresolved,” she affirmed.
About the Author
