By Ayhan Keser*
Many news articles and commentaries have been written about the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement (Mecca Agreement), signed on August 7, 2026, between Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.
To prevent the exaggerations and contradictions in these comments from obscuring the significance of the development, they need to be examined more closely.
First of all, the Mecca Agreement carries a potential for military aggression that should not be underestimated. However, the claim, widely promoted by Turkey’s pro-AKP press, that the combination of “Saudi money, Turkish troops, and Pakistani nuclear weapons” has created an alliance capable of dominating the region is an exaggeration. The alliance has regional rivals, while the US and the UK continue to hold the reins in the region—and even those in control cannot always make events unfold as they wish.
To understand the basis of the Agreement, it is therefore worth first examining some of the assessments that have been made.
Is an Islamic NATO emerging?
The first comments following the announcement of the Agreement suggested that it amounted to a kind of “Islamic NATO.” The fact that the Agreement adopts an approach similar to NATO’s Article 5 certainly contributed to this comparison. More importantly, however, the reactionary governments of the region tend to portray NATO as an exemplary “defence” organization and present it to their peoples as a model to be followed. Yet NATO is neither a defence organization, nor are these three countries the protectors of the “Islamic ummah”.
Although negotiations for the Agreement lasted nearly two years, its provisions are broadly in line with the strategic decisions discussed at the latest NATO meeting held in Turkey. This parallel becomes even more significant when considered alongside NATO’s decision to establish the NATO Multinational Corps Headquarters (MNC-TUR) in Adana, aimed at strengthening its presence in Turkey and extending its influence across the region.
From this perspective, it may be more accurate to describe the Mecca Agreement not as an “Islamic NATO”, but as part of NATO’s expansion into the Islamic world.
Is an unrivaled regional power emerging?
The answer to this question is, of course, no.
The Israel-United Arab Emirates-India trio represents another alliance with regional ambitions. Considering the I2U2 group, which also includes the United States, the Mecca Agreement can be seen as an attempt to carve out a space in the region rather than leave the field to its rivals.
The agreement brings together three nations with a majority of Sunni Muslims. The emerging so-called “Sunni Axis” also reflects efforts to fill the vacuum created by Iran’s weakening influence and to secure a stronger position in the ongoing restructuring of the Middle East.
Is a security mechanism beyond the US being sought?
Another widely discussed issue concerns the effects of the US/Israel-Iran war. Iran, itself a target of imperialist aggression, struck US facilities in nine countries in the region, fueling debate over Washington’s inability to protect its allies. Iranian officials reinforced this perception by warning regional countries against relying on the US for their security.
The Mecca Agreement was therefore interpreted as evidence that regional countries had recognized the limits of US security guarantees and were exploring alternatives. Some even argued that Turkey’s military combined with Pakistan’s nuclear weapons could provide a more effective defence shield.
Interestingly, the Chinese press promoted a similar interpretation, though for different reasons, welcoming the search for security mechanisms independent of the US. In Turkey, meanwhile, this argument fed claims to regional leadership: “we can do what the US could not.”
The crisis of hegemony and competition
This brings us to the heart of the matter: Amid the continuing crisis of hegemony within the imperialist-capitalist hierarchy, US imperialism wants to “deal with” Russia and the Middle East so it can focus on China, while massive military budgets continue to pave the way for new wars around the world.
This crisis of hegemony, the capitalist competition it has triggered, and the military build-up provide the context in which the Mecca Agreement has taken shape. Although such military alliances are presented to domestic publics in terms of security, their real purpose is to expand the room for capitalist classes in pursuit of ever greater resources.
In times of crisis, more countries seek to secure a larger share, and military build-up and war increasingly become the means of gaining the upper hand.
Can Turkish capitalism win?
Taken on its own, the Agreement may not seem particularly significant. However, as we have long emphasized, the Turkish bourgeoisie seeks to expand and climb higher in the imperialist hierarchy. This also underlies many recent steps, including the “peace process,” currently entering an intense phase.
Some see the Mecca Agreement as a “good move” within a neo-Ottomanist strategy that also includes the Kurds. Yet this optimism overlooks the intensity of regional competition.
The region is undergoing imperialist restructuring, and Turkey wants to win the contract, but it is not alone at the table. The US and UK need not take sides: competing power centers and their growing rivalries create opportunities for them, particularly as regional “actors” seek to position themselves within US-UK plans rather than pursue independent strategies.
Turkey’s efforts to reduce Iran’s influence also raise an obvious question: who benefits most from the resulting vacuum? While claiming to stand against Israel, Turkey is in fact playing into Israel’s hands.
Does the Mecca Agreement provide security?
Military alliances, increased military spending, and taking on roles in imperialist plans do not provide security. They serve to present the expansionist ambitions of the capitalists as the national interest while boosting the profits of arms companies.
Recent developments illustrate the risks for millions of working people in Turkey and the region: the Red Sea Coalition is preparing to escalate the war against the Houthis in Yemen; PKK leader Öcalan and various DEM Party officials have targeted Iran; and Israel has struck the Abu al-Zuhur Air Base near the Turkish border, openly declaring that it was sending a message to Turkey.
The picture is clear: Turkish capitalism is moving towards new areas of conflict rather than greater security. Such military alliances also risk dragging Turkey into wars through provocations beyond its control.
If security is the goal, the way forward is not to tie Turkey to imperialist plans through military alliances, but to withdraw from NATO and other imperialist agreements and establish relations based on equality with all countries, starting with its neighbors.
* Ayhan Keser is a member of TKP Party Council.
From In Defense of Communism via This RSS Feed.