Key Takeaways:
- A NATO-style pact is emerging. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have created a collective-defense framework that treats an attack on one member as an attack on all, with officials already discussing expansion to other regional states.
- Turkey’s growing influence poses the main concern for Israel: Erdoğan’s government maintains an increasingly adversarial posture toward Israel while Ankara positions itself at the center of a potentially expanding regional security bloc.
- The alliance could complicate Turkey’s NATO role: The pact does not currently appear to conflict with Turkey’s NATO obligations, but the full treaty remains unpublished, leaving open what happens if Ankara’s commitments to the two alliances ever diverge.
Three of the Middle East and South Asia’s most powerful Muslim-majority states have created a new collective-defense alliance. On August 7, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif signed the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement (MJDA).
Its central principle closely resembles NATO’s collective-defense guarantee: Members treat an armed attack against one as an attack against all three.
The agreement deserves scrutiny in Israel, not simply because of what it says, but because of the country increasingly positioning itself at the center of this emerging security architecture: Turkey.
A Defense Alliance Between Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia
The MJDA builds on an existing bilateral foundation. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan signed the Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement in September 2025, formalizing a longstanding defense relationship. The Saudi government said the pact committed both countries to treat “any aggression against either country” as “an aggression against both.”
Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia have not released the full MJDA, leaving important questions about their precise military obligations unanswered.
However, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has provided a clearer picture. On August 8, Fidan described the agreement as “technically the same as NATO’s Article 5.” He said that if a member comes under attack, the allies will consult to determine the degree and form of support the attacked country requests.
NATO Article 5 requires every ally to assist a member under attack while allowing each country to determine the form of that assistance, including the possible use of military force. We still do not know whether the MJDA creates an identical legal obligation.
Nevertheless, the agreement goes beyond a pledge to deepen military cooperation. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are constructing a collective-defense mechanism modeled, at least in principle, on NATO.
Turkey Signals Growth
The pact may not remain a three-country arrangement.
Fidan has identified Egypt as a likely future participant, describing Cairo as a “natural partner.” Pakistan has similarly indicated that other regional states could join the agreement.
That possibility changes the significance of the MJDA. Its architects are discussing an expandable regional security architecture linking some of the most militarily significant Muslim-majority countries.
Turkey possesses one of NATO’s largest militaries. Pakistan is a nuclear armed state. Saudi Arabia ranks among the region’s wealthiest and most influential powers and is expanding its civilian nuclear program, while Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has said the kingdom would develop nuclear weapons if Iran did so. Egypt would add the Arab world’s most populous country and another major military.
Their strategic interests differ considerably, and nothing guarantees that they will function as a cohesive military bloc. Nevertheless, Israel cannot assume those differences will prevent deeper cooperation.
Israel’s Turkey Problem
Turkey’s role in shaping this emerging architecture presents the greatest concern for Israel.
Turkey remains a NATO member and longstanding Western defense partner. But Erdoğan’s government has pursued an increasingly confrontational policy toward Israel.
After October 7, Erdoğan declared that Hamas was not a terrorist organization and called it a “liberation group.”
Ankara’s relationship with Hamas extends beyond rhetoric. Israel’s Shin Bet has uncovered West Bank terror cells that Hamas’s West Bank Headquarters, operating out of Turkey, directs and finances, along with networks that have moved millions of shekels from Turkey to fund terrorist activity against Israel.
Nothing publicly available in the MJDA identifies Israel as an enemy. Fidan has also insisted that the pact does not target Iran or any other country.
That qualification matters, but it does not eliminate Israel’s strategic concern.
Former Israeli National Security Adviser Meir Ben-Shabbat recently argued that Israel should view the agreement as part of Turkey’s broader push for regional leadership. Ben-Shabbat, one of the architects of the Abraham Accords, described the pact as reflecting the “rise of a central Sunni axis” and argued that it strengthens Turkey’s position as a diplomatic and military leader. He also warned that Erdoğan’s regional ambitions and hostility toward Israel “increase the potential for confrontation” between the two countries.
His warning gets to the heart of the issue. The immediate question is not whether Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have created an anti-Israel alliance. The available evidence does not support that conclusion. The more consequential question is what happens as an increasingly hostile Turkey gains greater influence over an expanding regional collective-defense framework.
A Complication for NATO and Europe
The agreement could also complicate Turkey’s relationship with its Western allies.
Ankara already occupies an unusual position. Turkey commands one of NATO’s largest militaries and plays an important role on the alliance’s southern flank, while Erdoğan increasingly pursues an autonomous foreign policy that sometimes clashes with European and NATO interests. Turkey purchased Russia’s S-400 air-defense system despite objections from its NATO partners and initially blocked Finland and Sweden’s bids to join the alliance.
The MJDA could increase that strategic autonomy. Turkey could increasingly sit at the center of a separate security architecture connecting Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and potentially other major regional powers.
That prospect may prove particularly uncomfortable for Greece and Cyprus. Greece continues to dispute maritime boundaries and jurisdiction with Turkey in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean, while Cyprus remains divided after decades of conflict over Turkey’s role on the island.
The pact also raises a broader NATO question. At its July summit in Ankara, NATO reaffirmed its “ironclad commitment” to Article 5 and the transatlantic bond. Article 5 forms the cornerstone of NATO’s collective-defense system: An armed attack against one member counts as an attack against all, requiring each ally to provide assistance while allowing individual countries to determine the form of their response.
Turkey can participate in both arrangements so long as its MJDA commitments do not conflict with its NATO obligations. Article 8 of the North Atlantic Treaty requires NATO members not to enter international commitments that conflict with the treaty.
For now, no public evidence demonstrates such a conflict. The full MJDA remains unavailable, however, leaving unanswered what would happen if Turkey’s obligations under the two arrangements ever pulled Ankara in different directions.
Bottom Line
For Israel, the larger concern extends beyond treaty mechanics.
Turkey is helping build an expandable collective-defense framework while Erdoğan continues to pursue an increasingly adversarial policy toward Israel. The available evidence does not show that the MJDA targets Israel, but the pact could give Ankara greater political and military influence over some of the region’s most powerful states.
The unresolved question for NATO and European countries is what happens if Turkey’s obligations under the two arrangements ever pull Ankara in different directions. Until Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan release the full MJDA, that question will remain unanswered.
For Israel, that uncertainty reinforces the need to watch how the alliance develops, who joins it and how much influence Turkey gains over its future direction.
Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region. Get updates direct to your phone. Join our WhatsApp and Telegram channels!
© Divuach Ne’eman R”A, 2025
