[🇧🇩] Mecca Pact & Bangladesh

[🇧🇩] Mecca Pact & Bangladesh
10
100
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.​
 

Mecca Pact: What Bangladesh should do

The discussions regarding whether or not to join the Mecca Agreement remain unclear as to whether the participants and the government policymakers are considering these challenges for the long term. Ali Riaz writes about what Bangladesh should do regarding the Mecca Agreement.

Ali Riaz

1788651152702.webp


Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (centre), Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (left) and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif after signing the ‘Mecca Joint Defence Agreement’.Photo: AFP

Although Bangladesh has not yet received a formal invitation to join the tripartite defence agreement signed among Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan, known as the ''Mecca Joint Defence Agreement'' or simply the ''Mecca Agreement,'' there has been extensive discussion on this in the country. The government's statements indicate that it is interested in joining.

The positive aspect of this debate is that experts in the country's politics and security, who stay informed, feel the need to present the pros and cons of the agreement to the citizens before the government makes a decision on it.

Since Bangladesh has never participated in such a military agreement in the past, it is essential to examine various aspects of this agreement thoroughly due to its significance. Such agreements are not solely a governmental issue, and once a government joins, the succeeding government cannot easily withdraw from it.

When following these discussions on the Mecca Agreement, it appears that many are considering this matter in isolation, bypassing the other existing challenges to the country's foreign and defence policies.

In light of Bangladesh's increasing geopolitical importance for over a decade and a half, the nation's foreign policy has revolved mainly around one question: Should Bangladesh tilt towards India or China?

A US-controlled system has persisted in the Middle East for more than five decades. Recent joint US-Israeli attacks in Iran have elevated Iran into a direct threat for US allies in the region, and failing to protect these nations from potential Iranian attacks has led some to believe this infrastructure could form as an alternative to the US-sponsored security framework. Some even describe it as a Muslim NATO.

After the US adopted the Indo-Pacific Strategy in 2016, the question arose as to whether Bangladesh should join it. At the time, Bangladesh's position seemed to be amidst a triangular tug-of-war involving the US , China, and India.

A cornerstone of Sheikh Hasina's autocratic governance has been dependence on India, leading to attempts to legitimise an unequal relationship through historical ties, while reliance on China is portrayed as an economic necessity. The source of the tension between the Hasina government and the US has been the latter's stance on democracy and human rights.

The situation changed after the fall of the Hasina government because India was not practically willing to abandon its previous policy towards Bangladesh; instead, it seemed to shelter Hasina and use her as leverage.
Regarding relations with India, a large segment of the Bangladeshi population has grievances arising from India's behaviour and its denial of Bangladesh's legitimate claims, and it seems that India has not truly understood this even two years after the mass uprising in July 2024.

The visits of Interim Government's Chief Advisor Professor Muhammad Yunus and the current Prime Minister Tarique Rahman to China suggest a foreign policy that is evidently not India-centric. However, China's ideological stance and the experiences of other countries in their dependence on China should also be considered.

Although the Trump administration in the US emphasised transactional diplomacy and trade, it does not mean that they are entirely dismissive of China's influence in the region, nor should we forget the possibility of future administrations adopting different foreign policies. For Bangladesh, these are issues of defence and strategy beyond mere diplomatic concerns.

It is not yet clear whether participants and policymakers are considering these long-term challenges in the ongoing discussions about whether or not to join the Mecca Agreement. We can hope they will take them into account.

What is the agreement actually about?

Although detailed information about the Mecca Agreement has not been fully disclosed, it is clear that it is a defence agreement with joint security clauses modeled after NATO's Article 5. This clause states that an armed attack against any of the three states will be considered an attack against all three.

Generally, it is understood that Saudi Arabia will provide financial support and funding for defence projects; Turkey will supply advanced military technology, drones, and deep-tech defence equipment, while Pakistan will assist with frontline military personnel and their current defence capabilities. Twenty-four days after the agreement's signing, a strategic political and defence committee was formed under it on 31 August.

The committee has now begun working on transforming political commitments within the agreement into a suitable implementation framework. However, questions linger about whether a joint command structure like NATO's will be developed, or if there will be regular joint exercises, crisis planning, intelligence sharing, logistics agreements, and integrated air and missile defence systems.

Many are claiming this new defence agreement to be a security architecture, but the question remains how new it really is. A strategic bilateral defence agreement already exists between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia from September 2025, and military training, electronic warfare, and defence industry cooperation between Turkey and Pakistan have expanded. The rise of defence relations has also reduced historic tensions between Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

1788651224740.webp

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan shakes hands with Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif as Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman looks on after they signed a joint defense agreement in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, 7 August 2026.REUTERS

But a bigger question looms over whether the involved countries share a threat perception and if they will come to each other's aid even if their immediate interests don't align.

End of US dominance

A US-controlled system has persisted in the Middle East for more than five decades. Recent joint US-Israeli attacks in Iran have elevated Iran into a direct threat for US allies in the region, and failing to protect these nations from potential Iranian attacks has led some to believe this infrastructure could form as an alternative to the US-sponsored security framework. Some even describe it as a Muslim NATO.

However, in reality, none of these countries are outside the US sphere of influence. Turkey is a NATO member, and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan maintain very close security relations with the US. Furthermore, the US and Saudi Arabia recently signed a nuclear agreement allowing American companies to build nuclear plants there for civilian use. Despite discomfort from Trump's administration's behaviour, there is no reason to believe these countries are stepping out of the American orbit. That's why Trump has welcomed this agreement.

This agreement follows a long-term US policy to form an alliance with Middle Eastern countries that will pose no threat to Israel. CENTO, signed in 1955 and known as the Baghdad Pact, was the initial attempt at this, and the latest iteration was the Abraham Accords of 2022.

An analyst highlighted the religious identity, commenting, "Since the country is an 'island of Muslims surrounded by non-Muslims,' such an agreement would bring benefits." Others argue that it will strengthen economic cooperation with member states and diversify Bangladesh's arms import sources. For the general populace, joining the alliance serves as a counterbalance to strained relations with India, which many see as a preventive measure.

Countries signing the Abraham Accords not only established normal relations with Israel but also accepted US-Israeli dominance. In a sense, those left out of the Abraham agreement are now being brought under the Mecca Agreement's umbrella. Although it has been repeatedly stated that the agreement is not against any nation, the effort is to clarify that it is not against Iran. But since 1979, US policy has aimed to create an anti-Iranian force led by Saudi Arabia regionally and globally, if possible.

What should Bangladesh do?

Those advocating for joining this alliance emphasise potential benefits, including gaining significant strategic advantages and enhancing national security. The strongest argument made is that Bangladesh has not established a strategic relationship with any country, leaving it vulnerable and friendless.

An analyst highlighted the religious identity, commenting, "Since the country is an 'island of Muslims surrounded by non-Muslims,' such an agreement would bring benefits."

Others argue that it will strengthen economic cooperation with member states and diversify Bangladesh's arms import sources. For the general populace, joining the alliance serves as a counterbalance to strained relations with India, which many see as a preventive measure.

On the contrary, there are serious negative aspects to joining this alliance. Given the various ongoing conflicts and long-standing tensions in the Middle East, joining this alliance would mean bringing distant conflicts home.

Regional confrontations between different countries and powers—such as the conflict in Yemen between Saudi Arabia and the Iran-backed Houthi rebels—are of minimal strategic interest to Bangladesh. Yet, this agreement would make Bangladesh a participant in them.

If a member of the Mecca Agreement is attacked, Bangladesh might be obliged to send troops to war due to mutual defence commitments. Hence, a natural question arises: is this the best use of Bangladesh's military resources? There is no logical reason for Bangladesh to adopt or be swayed by threat perceptions from other countries, either geographically or strategically.

The argument that Bangladesh is an island among non-Muslim countries is severely flawed, as Bangladesh's foreign policy should not be driven by religious identities but rather by national interests—military, strategic, economic, and political. The argument that joining the alliance would diversify arms import sources is also flawed because Bangladesh is already purchasing weapons from Turkey, and defence cooperation with Saudi Arabia started in 2025.

India's concern over Bangladesh's positive reaction to the agreement points to viewing this as an opportunity for Pakistan's silent presence and a security threat along its eastern borders. This could allow Bangladesh to shift away from an India-centric foreign policy. Bangladesh should be mindful of India's concerns but not let it solely influence the decision to join or refrain from joining the alliance.

Bangladesh's decision should be solely driven by its national interests. Under the current circumstances, the arguments made in favour of joining the alliance do not negate its risks, challenges, and potential harms.

Instead of quickly adopting any measures based on existing circumstances or emotions, the government should consult everyone. The parliament exists for this purpose. Instead of brief statements by foreign ministers or deputy ministers responding to queries, a detailed discussion is necessary—what the government is thinking and why it holds such views.

#Ali Riaz is a former Vice-chair of the National Consensus Committee of the Interim Government and a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Politics and Government at Illinois State University, USA.​
 

Latest Posts

Back