Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Pakistan are moving the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement from the principle of collective deterrence toward building political and military implementation mechanisms, including regular coordination among foreign and defence ministers and chiefs of staff, joint exercises, and cooperation in defence industries and technology transfer.

Riyadh | BETH

The joint defence agreement between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Pakistan has begun moving from the stage of political declaration to building its implementation tools, with an agreement to establish mechanisms for political and military coordination among the three countries.

The agreement will be activated through regular meetings involving foreign and defence ministers and chiefs of staff, alongside joint military exercises and expanded cooperation in defence industries and technology transfer.

This development gives the agreement practical substance that goes beyond the principle that any armed attack against one of the three countries will be considered an attack against them all. It opens the way to building a system capable of assessing threats, coordinating positions, and preparing to respond before danger materializes.

From Commitment to Implementation

Defence agreements do not derive their strength from their texts alone, but from the mechanisms that transform political commitments into operational capabilities.

Regular meetings among foreign and defence ministers and chiefs of staff therefore represent the first step toward developing a unified assessment of risks, determining levels of response, and preventing delays in decision-making when a threat arises.

This process brings together three interconnected levels:

• The political level, to determine the joint position.
• The military level, to prepare response plans.
• The industrial level, to ensure the availability of the necessary capabilities and technologies.

Deterrence is not achieved merely by declaring readiness to defend, but by convincing the other side that a defence plan exists and that the tools required to implement it are ready.

Command or Coordination?

The mechanisms announced so far do not mean that a unified military command has been established. No details have been disclosed regarding a permanent headquarters, a joint force, or a chain of command in the event of an attack.

However, regular meetings among political and military leaders could pave the way for establishing a joint coordination centre that connects intelligence information, develops response scenarios, and monitors exercises and readiness.

The true test of the agreement will lie in its ability to answer implementation questions at an early stage:

Who determines that an attack requires the activation of collective defence?

What form will the response take: political, defensive, or military?

Will the response be automatic, or subject to a decision by each country?

And where does each party’s responsibility begin and end?

The clearer these answers are before a crisis occurs, the stronger the deterrence will be and the lower the likelihood that the agreement will be tested in practice.

Three Complementary Powers

The importance of the agreement rests on the differences among the parties’ sources of strength and the way they complement one another.

Saudi Arabia represents the political and economic centre and holds an influential position within the energy system, maritime routes, and international relations.

Türkiye contributes substantial military power, operational experience, and an advanced defence industry in drones, missiles, naval systems, and electronic systems.

Pakistan gives the agreement military, human, and missile depth, alongside its long-standing experience in defence cooperation with both Saudi Arabia and Türkiye.

The alliance’s strength does not come from the similarity of its members, but from each country’s ability to provide what complements the strengths of the other two.

Joint Weapons Development

Cooperation in defence manufacturing and technology transfer represents one of the agreement’s most important dimensions because it transforms the pact from a protective umbrella during crises into a long-term partnership in building power.

This may include the development of drones, air and missile defence, naval systems, munitions, electronic warfare, and military communications, alongside expanded local production and the exchange of expertise.

For Saudi Arabia, this path is consistent with the goal of localizing military industries and provides an opportunity to move from purchasing systems to participating in their design, production, and development.

Joint manufacturing also reduces dependence on a single supplier, standardizes some equipment and technical specifications, and facilitates maintenance and supply during crises.

Why Now?

The implementation mechanisms are being built at a time when the region faces simultaneous threats:

The U.S.-Iran war.

Disrupted navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and against Saudi interests.

The proliferation of missiles and drones.

And growing doubts about the adequacy of traditional security umbrellas.

The Makkah Agreement therefore does not appear to be a temporary alliance formed to confront a single threat, but an attempt to build a regional capability that does not wait for the intervention of an external power during every crisis.

This does not mean dispensing with existing international partnerships, but rather expanding the three countries’ options and strengthening their ability to protect their interests through their combined power.

Assessment

The Makkah Agreement has taken its first step from text to institution, but the path remains at an early stage.

Exercises, meetings, and technology transfer will gradually strengthen the agreement. Its completion, however, requires a clear command system, organized intelligence sharing, deployment and supply plans, and a joint ability to make decisions at the appropriate time.

Alliances do not prevent war merely because they sign agreements, but because they ensure that their adversaries know in advance what will happen if those agreements are tested.

The start of efforts to establish political and military mechanisms means that the three countries do not want the Makkah Agreement to remain a written message, but rather to become a force that is built so that they will not have to use it.