Makkah Joint Defense Agreement: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, news & updates

[mythbuster]

The Emiratis are awfully quiet.

They are standing in the corner with a sullen face.

 

[Desert]

Naa .... they have decent stockpile of spares.

decent ya lol , the saudis used more than their 80% of their patriot missiles in just 40 days i guess .

 

[mythbuster]

decent ya lol , the saudis used more than their 80% of their patriot missiles in just 40 days i guess .

Keep on guessing.

 

[Aryan_B]

What's so bad about being in NATO? I mean, most muslims literally die trying to live in those bad evil NATO Nations.

Just so wrong trying to poke fun at us Turks being in NATO while living in UK or USA.

And Iran doesn't get on with anyone. How is it possible to be in any alliance with people that don't like you.. mostly for religious reasons too.

Sorry for wrong impression I love Turkey and went to Istanbul twice this last 12 months

I was not poking fun but stating realities. In Erdogan you have better leader than Pakistan or Saudi leaders but the fact is that the vast majority of Turks saudis and Pakistanis are anti Israel for justfied reasons which is put there and supported by most Nato countries and yet all three allies seem to be at odds with populations who are anti west for killing muslims and giving democracy to muslim countries

Iran has made mistakes but so what so have other countries. We shoud learn from mistakes. Should not allow west to divide and rule us

 

[Aryan_B]

Your statements tell that you are Anti Islamic NATO. Everything starts with something. In a perfect world without any differences sure entire OIC should be in such a pact. We are not there and its childish to ask for so much at this point in time. Now you say Pakistan sucks up to Trump left, right. Well! Asim munir (who I don't like) went to Iran's supreme leader funeral. The only top most powerful person from any significant / large country in that event. It was super easy for him to skip that event and let only mohsin or ishaq dar go. Do you think Trump was loving seeing Asim munir going to his enemy country and hugging Iranians ?? We buy weapons from China. We have all weather strategic alliance with China. The same China which is the number one challenge and rival to the United States. So why on earth for once you try to get out of this hysterical propaganda? why on earth to think for yourself for once?

You guys just dont get it. I want Iran and other Muslim countries be part of this alliance. If all anti west forces are excluded from this alliance it will not bode well for it

 

[Desert]

Keep on guessing.

ya i was guessing it was 80 % , it's actually 86%.
btw, how is greek patriot battalion in Saudia doing? they still have any missiles left?

 

[NA71]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[RocketLaw]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

'

After yesterday’s monumental Makkah Joint Defence Agreement, three reactions were most hostile.

The Israelis are genuinely perturbed by the new trajectory the region has taken. They thought they would crush Iran while the rest of the Arab states would sleepwalk into another Abraham Accord-style disaster. Israeli death and destruction produced the opposite, making any hope of another Abraham Accord a fool’s errand.

Indians are also rightly irked. After Pulwama and Sindoor, Indians have realized that their numerical superiority brings little advantage in a limited, network centric warfare dominated conflict. The agreement further undermines their conventional superiority by adding a new layer of deterrence, thus reducing the space for recklessness and false flags.

Iran’s reaction was divided. Sadly, IRGC-aligned accounts unleashed a smear campaign without even maintaining the usual pretenses, while Abbas Araghchi struck a more balanced and hopeful tone. It was clear that the agreement is designed primarily to look beyond this conflict.

One cannot help but notice a simple commonality: all these states, or their strategic elites, have hegemonic tendencies that they have never shied away from expressing. India and Israel are not our concern, but Iranians should realize that their future lies in cooperation with regional states rather than animosity.

 

[Feroze]

White european christians will NEVER come to the aid of Turkish Muslims. Being a nato member means NOTHING anymore.

True, Turkey being in NATO was simply to reap the benefits.

Otherwise, I think Turkey should undo Ataturk's reforms. what a shameful humiliation is was.

 

[Oldenwisdom...قول بزرگ]

So no one wondered about the timing of forming this alliance ? why exactly after Saudia and GCC gettin rekt by the Iranians?
why the Saudi refused the Egyptian idea of forming an Arab alliance to defend the entire middle east?
why the UAE begged Egypt for help while they were bragging about them controling Egypt before?

You didn't get it, did you?
This alliance is partly to keep a check on Emirates itself. Guess why Egypt is not part of it...

And unless there is significant internal change in Egyptian outlook, they'll not be a part of it...

Let me repeat... That bloc is Emirates, India, zion and their proxies. It has tentacles in Mideast, Africa, Europe and Asia...
Common economic and political goals... they have invested billions in destabilization of African countries... want a perch on Somali coast... with Morocco they just attempted annexation of Ceuta... to sit on another critical maritime chokepoint. Have an interest in Ukraine draining Russia. Albania and Greece moving closer in coordination with zion... and Cyprus cultivating a front against Turkiye.

The fact that they've been able to do coordinated moves under the radar says it all on the direction of future events and a stage for future conflicts. GCC has functionally split already... over time these cracks will become fissures to be exploited.

 

[SBD-3]

I will only believe that its independent and meaningful if Iran joins this. Turkey is in nato, Saudi has American bases , Pakistan sucks up to Trump left right and centre at the moment. All 3 at times side with the cnsortium of evil from the west

We need a true alliance of Muslim nations we need to be bigger than our differences as we have far more in common than that what divides us and our enemies take advantage.

Ideally, Iran would be part of such an alliance. But alliances are not freebies; they are transactional arrangements built around converging strategic interests. The obvious question, therefore, is: what exactly would Iran bring to the table, and what would Iran expect in return?

More importantly, why would the IRGC agree to enter an unfamiliar security architecture with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan when there is limited strategic and ideological alignment with some of these countries? Iran has spent decades building an independent security doctrine based on strategic autonomy, asymmetric warfare, missile and drone capabilities, and, most importantly, a network of regional partners and proxies that gives Tehran strategic depth. Joining a formal multilateral alliance could constrain precisely those instruments that have allowed Iran to survive decades of isolation.

So the Iranian question cannot simply be reduced to "Why doesn't Iran join?" The more important question is whether the proposed alliance offers Tehran something sufficiently valuable to compensate for the strategic autonomy it would potentially have to sacrifice.

Then there is the question of deterrence against the United States and Israel.

Has Iran established deterrence? Partially, yes—but the nature of that deterrence is often misunderstood.

Iran has certainly demonstrated that it can impose significant costs on an adversary and that attacking Iran is not comparable to conducting a conventional strike against a small, geographically compact state. Iran's enormous territory, population, strategic depth, dispersed military infrastructure and extensive missile and drone capabilities make a prolonged campaign extraordinarily difficult.

But this is not the same thing as Iran possessing the ability to consistently impose a symmetrical military response on the United States or Israel. Iran's deterrence is therefore based less on the ability to defeat either country conventionally and more on the ability to make the costs of a prolonged conflict sufficiently high and unpredictable.

In other words, Iran's geography and strategic depth are themselves deterrent assets.

The US-Israel-Iran confrontation is therefore unlikely to be resolved through a single decisive war. It may increasingly resemble a long-term strategic contest, somewhat analogous to the Syrian experience in the sense that military confrontation, covert action, proxy warfare, sanctions, intelligence operations and periodic strikes can continue for years without producing a definitive strategic settlement.

The United States and Israel may periodically attempt to degrade Iranian missile, nuclear, drone and military infrastructure whenever they believe Iran's capabilities are becoming unacceptable. Iran, meanwhile, will attempt to regenerate those capabilities, improve survivability and develop new means of imposing costs on its adversaries.

That creates a perpetual cycle of degradation, adaptation and regeneration.

And this is precisely where the proposed alliance becomes complicated.

If Iran is brought into a formal security pact, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan could potentially become indirectly exposed to this confrontation. The alliance could create expectations that these countries support Iran diplomatically, economically, technologically or even militarily whenever Tehran comes under sustained pressure. None of the three is likely to accept an arrangement that automatically obliges them to fight the United States or Israel every time Iran is attacked.

But this is also why we need to stop thinking of alliances exclusively in terms of the traditional "attack one, attack all" model.

A modern strategic partnership does not necessarily require automatic military intervention. The real value can lie in operational expansion, intelligence sharing, logistics, interoperability, defence-industrial cooperation, joint production, technology transfer, supply-chain redundancy and increased survivability of military capabilities.

For example, Iran's experience in developing missiles, drones, asymmetric warfare and military systems under severe sanctions could complement Turkey's increasingly sophisticated defence industry and Pakistan's experience in conventional warfare and strategic deterrence. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, brings enormous financial resources, energy leverage and access to capital and international markets.

The resulting ecosystem could be considerably more valuable than simply promising to send troops to defend one another.

Iran's experience with Russia should also be a lesson here. Tehran invested considerable strategic value in its relationship with Moscow, including cooperation in drones and other military technologies, presumably expecting reciprocal military, technological and diplomatic support. Yet the relationship demonstrated an uncomfortable reality: great powers rarely enter alliances purely on the basis of friendship or ideological affinity; they act according to their own strategic interests.

Iran therefore has every reason to be cautious about entering another alliance in which it could potentially provide more strategic value than it receives in return.

And then there is the biggest institutional obstacle: the IRGC.

For the IRGC, Iran's regional network is not merely a collection of "proxies" that can be switched on and off. It has become an important component of Iran's national-security doctrine and strategic depth. Hezbollah, Iraqi armed groups, the Houthis and other regional relationships give Tehran mechanisms for projecting influence, deterring adversaries and keeping potential battlefields away from Iran's borders.

A formal alliance with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan could therefore create uncomfortable contradictions. What happens when Saudi interests conflict with an Iranian partner in the region? What happens when Turkey's Syria policy conflicts with Tehran's? What happens when Pakistan wants to maintain relations with Washington while Iran is engaged in a confrontation with the United States?

These are not theoretical problems. They go directly to the question of whether the alliance could survive its first serious strategic crisis.

The IRGC would therefore have to ask itself a fundamental question: would the alliance enhance Iran's strategic depth or undermine it?

If joining the pact requires Tehran to abandon or substantially restructure its existing regional networks, Iran may see little reason to join. But if the alliance is designed to complement rather than replace Iran's existing strategy, giving Tehran additional economic, technological, diplomatic and military options, then the calculation changes considerably.

This is why I think the most realistic model is not an immediate NATO-style Muslim military alliance. It would probably have to begin as a strategic cooperation framework: intelligence sharing, joint defence production, military exercises, drone and missile technology cooperation, secure supply chains, energy cooperation, financial mechanisms, coordinated diplomacy and perhaps eventually some form of collective-security guarantee.

Over time, successful cooperation could create enough mutual dependence to evolve into something much deeper.

The irony is that Iran may actually be one of the most valuable members of such an arrangement precisely because it is the country that has spent decades developing capabilities outside the Western security architecture. But that same history also makes Iran one of the most difficult countries to integrate into a conventional alliance.

So the challenge isn't simply convincing Iran to join.

The challenge is designing an alliance that Iran has a strategic reason to join without requiring it to abandon the very security architecture that allowed it to survive in the first place.

And unless that equation is solved, a Turkey-Saudi-Pakistan-Iran alliance will remain an attractive idea on paper but an extremely difficult institution to operationalise in reality.

 

[Desert]

You didn't get it, did you?
This alliance is partly to keep a check on Emirates itself. Guess why Egypt is not part of it...

And unless there is significant internal change in Egyptian outlook, they'll not be a part of it...

So a whole alliace to just keep the tiny UAE on check?
I think Iran can do it for free and wipe out the whole UAE in few days.

you people gotta be thankful to the iranian regime.

 

[Mujahid]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

'

After yesterday’s monumental Makkah Joint Defence Agreement, three reactions were most hostile.

The Israelis are genuinely perturbed by the new trajectory the region has taken. They thought they would crush Iran while the rest of the Arab states would sleepwalk into another Abraham Accord-style disaster. Israeli death and destruction produced the opposite, making any hope of another Abraham Accord a fool’s errand.

Indians are also rightly irked. After Pulwama and Sindoor, Indians have realized that their numerical superiority brings little advantage in a limited, network centric warfare dominated conflict. The agreement further undermines their conventional superiority by adding a new layer of deterrence, thus reducing the space for recklessness and false flags.

Iran’s reaction was divided. Sadly, IRGC-aligned accounts unleashed a smear campaign without even maintaining the usual pretenses, while Abbas Araghchi struck a more balanced and hopeful tone. It was clear that the agreement is designed primarily to look beyond this conflict.

One cannot help but notice a simple commonality: all these states, or their strategic elites, have hegemonic tendencies that they have never shied away from expressing. India and Israel are not our concern, but Iranians should realize that their future lies in cooperation with regional states rather than animosity.

They will keep animosity because these munafiqs “Iranian” will never forget their beating by Rashidun caliphate and ending there empire.. They want to dominate the region even if they need to shake hands with satan, let alone Zionist, knight templars and hindutva regimes..

 

[RocketLaw]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Turkish Vice President Cevdet Yilmaz:

"The Mecca Joint Defense Agreement must absolutely not be seen as a structure directed against Iran and the agreement is open to other countries within the region - ignore the misinformation voices."

This is also the first time Saudi Arabia has moved away from it's relationship built around American military support.

Nice try though Joe.

 

[Oldenwisdom...قول بزرگ]

So a whole alliace to just keep the tiny UAE on check?
I think Iran can do it for free and wipe out the whole UAE in few days.

you people gotta be thankful to the iranian regime.

Remember Egypt collects a yearly stipend because of tiny country next door. Enough to justify the massacre and genocide of millions. The other tiny country has Egypt in the choke worth tens of billions of dollars... they operate a port in Somaliland, run militias in Sudan and Libya among other places...
Iran paid a price... and doesn't possess ability to project beyond that... which has it's limitations.