[🇧🇩] Mecca Pact & Bangladesh

[🇧🇩] Mecca Pact & Bangladesh
9
81
More threads by Saif

G Bangladesh Defense

From the Carter Doctrine to the Mecca Pact: A changing Gulf security order

Asif Bin Ali

On August 7, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Türkiye signed a defence agreement in Mecca. The three countries that have come together under this agreement each hold distinct importance in the politics of the Middle East and the wider Muslim world. One is the leading economic power of the Arab world. Another is a nuclear-armed South Asian state. And the third is a member of NATO. Like NATO member states, these countries have agreed that an armed attack on any one of them will be considered an attack on all. However, this is a defensive alliance, not an offensive one.

Some argue that this agreement represents an anti-Iran alliance. That interpretation is overly simplistic. In a Reuters analysis of the Mecca Agreement, Burcu Ozcelik, a researcher at the Royal United Services Institute, argued that the framework seeks, on the one hand, to balance Iranian power and, on the other, to create deterrence in relation to Israel. It should not be seen as preparation for war with Tehran. But the more important question is not simply whom this alliance is directed against. The more important question is why Saudi Arabia, after decades of depending primarily on the United States for its security, now feels the need to develop additional security arrangements of its own.

Others argue that this agreement is helping to create the security architecture of a post-American Middle East. There is some truth in this argument, but I think the term “post-American” goes too far. The United States is not leaving the Middle East. Türkiye is still a NATO member. Saudi Arabia’s security remains closely connected to American support. Pakistan also has an important relationship with Washington. What is changing is not the disappearance of the United States, but the assumption that one external security guarantor is enough. Regional countries are increasingly trying to build several layers of security at the same time.

1788307259385.webp

Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud and Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang during their meeting in Beijing, China, April 6, 2023. Photo: Saudi Press Agency/ REUTERS

I would therefore see the Mecca agreement as part of a longer process of security diversification, or perhaps more precisely, strategic insurance. Saudi Arabia will maintain its relationship with Washington, but it also wants other military, diplomatic and political options. This change did not begin in Mecca. Its roots can be traced through the weaknesses exposed by the 2019 attacks on Saudi oil facilities, the restoration of Saudi-Iranian relations in 2023, the gradual rebuilding of relations between Riyadh and Ankara, and the Saudi-Pakistan defence agreement of 2025. The Mecca agreement is important because these separate developments are now beginning to acquire a more institutional form.

The strategic alliance between the United States and Saudi Arabia began to deepen during the Second World War. In February 1945, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt met Saudi King Abdulaziz Ibn Saud aboard the USS Quincy. However, the US security role in the Gulf became much more explicit in 1979. Against the backdrop of the Iranian Revolution and the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, the United States assumed a central security role in the Middle East. In January 1980, President Jimmy Carter spoke of protecting the Persian Gulf from external aggression. Washington pledged to help the countries of the region resist such aggression, using military force if necessary. This later became known as the “Carter Doctrine”. A decade later, its implications became even clearer. In August 1990, Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait. Saudi Arabia agreed to the deployment of a large number of American troops on its territory to ensure its own security. The US-led coalition later expelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait during the 1991 Gulf War.

The post-Cold War Gulf security system that emerged afterwards was highly unequal. The Gulf monarchies had enormous financial resources and purchased highly advanced weapons, but their ultimate security guarantee came from American military power. Regional states would maintain close relations with Washington, while the United States would ensure that no hostile regional power could establish unilateral dominance over the Gulf.

A change in this arrangement came in September 2019. Attacks on Saudi Aramco facilities at Abqaiq and Khurais temporarily disrupted around 5.7 million barrels per day of Saudi oil production. Washington blamed Iran for the attacks. Tehran denied responsibility. The attacks demonstrated how relatively inexpensive drones could penetrate costly air-defence systems and cause serious damage. For the Saudi leadership, this was a major warning. They realised that buying sophisticated weapons from a great power and receiving an automatic security guarantee from that great power were not the same thing. From that point onwards, the idea of a kind of strategic insurance became increasingly visible in Saudi policy.

1788307293962.webp

A general view of the damaged site of a Saudi Aramco oil facility in Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia, September 20, 2019. Photo: REUTERS

Several diplomatic developments followed. In March 2023, after a seven-year break, Saudi Arabia and Iran agreed in Beijing to restore diplomatic relations. The fact that China mediated the agreement was itself significant. The Saudi-Iranian rapprochement did not turn the two rivals into friends. What it showed, rather, was that Saudi Arabia was changing parts of its old strategy. Put simply, Riyadh no longer wants only to confront its opponents. It also wants to keep channels of communication open with them so that risks can be reduced to some extent.

The same logic can be seen in Saudi Arabia’s relationship with Türkiye. In the decade following the Arab Spring, Ankara and Riyadh often stood on opposite sides of regional political rivalries. During the 2017 blockade of Qatar, Türkiye stood by Doha. At the time, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt were attempting to isolate Qatar. In 2018, Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Saudi-Turkish relations deteriorated further afterwards. By 2022, however, President Erdoğan had begun rebuilding relations with Riyadh. As the political relationship began to thaw, security and economic cooperation also increased. Saudi Arabia signed a major agreement to purchase Turkish drones in July 2023.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have had a security relationship for many decades. The two countries signed a Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement in September 2025. The agreement stated that any military attack against one country would be considered aggression against both. Following the agreement, there was broad discussion about whether Pakistan’s nuclear capability might somehow become part of Saudi Arabia’s deterrence framework. However, no such commitment was explicitly mentioned in the published agreement. Moreover, Pakistani officials did not support that interpretation. The 2026 Mecca agreement should therefore not be seen as the creation of an entirely new Saudi-Pakistani security architecture. Rather, an existing arrangement has been expanded. The most important new development is Türkiye’s inclusion in this framework. This is why I do not see the agreement merely as a diplomatic display. It can also be viewed as a form of institutional progress.

1788307328387.webp

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif pose after signing a joint defence agreement in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, August 7, 2026. Photo: Saudi Press Agency/REUTERS

Following the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, Israel launched the war in Gaza. The war led to widespread destruction in Gaza and spread across the Lebanese border. The United States and Israel attacked Iran on February 28,2026. Iran then launched retaliatory attacks across the region. The war disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. These conflicts made it very clear to the Gulf states that their existing security arrangements also have limitations.

Saudi Arabia’s economic model, for example, depends on stability. Implementing Vision 2030 requires foreign investment, tourism, new infrastructure, major construction projects and confidence that Saudi territory will remain relatively insulated from regional wars. A Middle East in which missiles regularly cross the Gulf, shipping through the Strait of Hormuz is disrupted, and the Red Sea becomes insecure is fundamentally incompatible with that development strategy. For Riyadh and Türkiye, therefore, security is no longer only a military issue. It is directly connected to their economic futures. Pakistan’s calculation is that deeper security cooperation with Saudi Arabia gives Islamabad greater diplomatic influence, stronger economic relations with the Gulf and a wider regional role.

Asif Bin Ali is a geopolitical analyst and doctoral fellow at Georgia State University in the US.​
 

Weighing Bangladesh's options in the Mecca treaty

Ali Riaz

1788308321718.webp

‘Little information about the Mecca Treaty is known except that it’s a defence treaty with a collective security clause akin to Nato’s Article 5.’ FILE PHOTO: REUTERS

In the past weeks, intensive debate has ensued on whether Bangladesh should or should not join the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement (MJDA), a tripartite defence treaty between Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan signed on August 7. There are conflicting indicationson whether Bangladesh has been invited to join. While a press report suggests that it has been, Foreign Minister Khalilur Rahman told the parliament that Bangladesh would consider it positively if invited. Statements of two state ministers for foreign affairs, Humaiun Kobir and Shama Obaed, provide an impression that it’s already under consideration by the government.

The context

For most parts of the past 15 years, conversations about Bangladesh’s foreign policy revolved around the question of whether it would align with India or China. With the US’s adoption of the Indo-Pacific Strategy in 2016, the discussions were about whether Bangladesh should be on board. At that point, it seemed to be a triangular tussle for Bangladesh between the US, China and India. The arguments for the relationships were: India is the neighbour with long historical ties and China has a deep pocket needed for economic development. Having a relationship with the US, the largest export destination of Bangladesh, is an imperative.

As the Hasina regime was deposed, the scenario changed. During the interim government led by Professor Muhammad Yunus, India was not only absent but was also unwilling to work beyond diplomatic niceties and the US was no longer pursuing the Indo-Pacific centred policy. Many suggested that China has got the upper hand. Yunus’ China visit was an indication that China’s previous support for the Hasina regime was left behind in the past. The maiden trip of the new Prime Minister Tarique Rahman to Malaysia, followed by China, was essentially a continuation of the interim government’s policy. The hope that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s invitation to his counterpart to join the outreach meeting of the BRICS summit in New Delhi would provide an opportunity to patch things up could not go further, thanks to Sheikh Hasina’s press conference and renewed tension between the two countries over her extradition.

But all these seem to have been pushed to the back burner, if not vanished, after August 7, in the wake of the Mecca Treaty.

What is the treaty about?

Little information about the Mecca Treaty is known except that it’s a defence treaty with a collective security clause akin to Nato’s Article 5, which stipulates that “any armed attack against any one of the three states shall be regarded as an attack against them all.” The general understanding is that Saudi Arabia will provide financial backing and funding for defence projects; Türkiye will contribute advanced military technology, drones, and deep-tech defence equipment, and Pakistan will supply frontline military manpower and its existing defence capabilities. Despite the ambiguity, many are calling it “the Muslim Nato” and painting it as a new security architecture. It is far from a completely new arrangement, as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia already have a strategic mutual defence agreement since September 2025, and Türkiye and Pakistan have expanded military training, electronic warfare and defence industrial co-operation. The tension between Saudi Arabia and Türkiye has subsided with increasing defence ties. As such, the important question is whether these countries share threat perceptions and would act even when their immediate interests are not aligned.

Operational aspects such as whether there will be a joint command structure like Nato, and whether regular exercises, joint contingency planning, intelligence sharing, logistics agreements and integrated air and missile defence would be developed are either yet to be settled or yet to be known.

End of the Pax-American or a return to the past?

Treaty enthusiasts have described this as the beginning of a “Muslim Nato,” hoping that other regional countries would join the alliance. In their understanding, the alliance will act as a deterrent against Israel and India in the region. Others have described this as “the end of the US-led Middle East order,” which shaped the regional security architecture for five decades. While this sounds like quite a momentous shift in the region, one must not forget that none of these countries are out of the US orbit. Türkiye remains a Nato member, while Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have very close security relationships with the US. Besides, in recent days the US and Saudi Arabia have signed a nuclear deal allowing US companies to build nuclear plants for civilian use. Indeed, the Iran war, especially the unpredictability of the Trump administration, has created some unease and concerns about whether the US security umbrella is sufficient to protect the countries in the region. These have created the urge to have some strategic autonomy, which has led to adding “another layer of protection.”

The pact has received the blessings of Trump, as it essentially continues the longstanding US policy to create an alliance of the Middle East countries which would not become a threat to Israel.Cento, also known as Baghdad Pact, signed in 1955, was the earliest attempt, and the latest was the 2022 Abraham Accords. Signatories of the Abraham Accords not only normalised relationship with Israel but essentially accepted the US-Israeli predominance. Although none of these three countries—Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye—had signed the Abraham Accords, except Pakistan others have various levels of relations with Israel. Neither Saudi Arabia nor Israel has called each other an enemy. In some measures, those which were away from the Abraham Accords have been brought under one agreement—the Mecca Pact. Notwithstanding the historical contestation between Persians and Arabs and the hostile relations between the US and Iran since 1979, Saudi Arabia, with the active support of the US, tried to build “a Sunni wall” around Iran to contain the spread of the Iranian brand of Islamism. These contribute to the suspicion about the intent, which the Pakistani foreign minister tried to assuage, saying that the alliance is not directed against any country. It is not surprising that Iran denied media reports that it has been invited to join.

The pros and cons of joining the treaty

Those who are professing to join underscore the potential benefits, which include providing vital strategic depth and enhancing national security. The most vigorous argument is that Bangladesh has not developed a strategic relationship with any country, leaving Bangladesh vulnerable and friendless. One analyst highlighted the religious identity and suggested that as the country is “an island of Muslim people surrounded by non-Muslims,” a treaty like this will bring help. Others contend that it will strengthen economic cooperation with the member states and will diversify Bangladesh’s sources of weapons. Hardly spoken, but a key factor in support for joining the treaty has been Bangladesh’s strained relationship with India. The perception is that it will serve as a deterrent.

But there are serious downsides to joining the pact. As there are several ongoing conflicts and longstanding tensions in the region, Bangladesh’s joining the pact is likely to bring these faraway conflicts home. Conflicts between various countries and forces in the region, for example, between Saudi Arabia and Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, have little strategic significance for Bangladesh. Yet the treaty will make Bangladesh a party to it. In the event of a member being attacked, due to reciprocal defence obligations, Bangladesh will have to send its troops to war. It is legitimate to ask whether it is the best way to utilise Bangladesh’s kinetic resources. There is little geographical and strategic reason for Bangladesh to share threat perceptions of other countries and vice versa. One may also ask: will Bangladesh’s priorities receive equal treatment?

The argument that Bangladesh is an island among non-Muslim countries is deeply flawed because Bangladesh’s foreign policy should not be guided by religious identity but rather by its national interests—military, economic and political alike. The argument that joining the pact will help to diversify the source of weapons is a folly because Bangladesh is already buying weapons from Türkiye, and defence cooperation with Saudi Arabia has started in 2025. Finally, it is likely that it will require allocating resources that are best used dealing with crises which are far more pressing.

Bangladesh’s positive reaction towards the pact has made India wary, as India views this as a tacit presence of Pakistan along its eastern borders, posing security threats; it will help Bangladesh move away from the India-leaning foreign policy. While Bangladesh should be cognisant of India’s wariness, this should not influence Bangladesh’s decision, whether to join or not. Bangladesh’s decision should be driven by its national interests. As of now, arguments for joining do not outweigh the risks, challenges and potential benefits. Entering into a defence agreement is not something that can be reversed after a change of government, and it should be done only after the benefits align with national interests in the long run, rather than impulsively as a response to the current challenges.

Ali Riaz is distinguished professor of political science at Illinois State University in the US. He previously served as a special assistant to the chief adviser of the Interim Government of Bangladesh and in the Constitution Reform Commission and National Consensus Commission.​
 

Latest Posts

Back