mythbuster
Trusted Member
That's not nice..
Turkey shall get an equal piece of the pie .
Joint Defense Agreement: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, news & updates
- Thread starter hyperman
- Start date
Turkey shall get an equal piece of the pie .
mythbuster
Trusted Member
You will be better off discussing this important issue in aunties club on WhatsApp.
Yasser76
Elite Member
Best not to give Gupta the recognition he craves....
observer2
Registered Member
Not everyone who has doubts about this agreement is automatically an Indian
PAKISTANFOREVER
Trusted Member
IF not indian then most likely self-hating Pakistanis or Pakistanis that are a part of, "we are the same people as indians" brigade.
Yasser76
Elite Member
Owaiz, our resident Dutch Indian pretending to be Pakistani gets banned, you turn up an hour later claiming to be a Dutch Pakistani with a first post pretending to innocently ask why Saudi never helped Pak in Afghanistan.
How stupid do you think we are Prakesh?
krash
THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Sure it doesn't. Was just readily available as your argument.
Yes, he was born to a Shia family, as were and forever will be countless others who will continue to render invaluable services to this country. Thank God for them all. Every Pakistani who uses another Pakistani's religion, ethnicity, political views, or any other association to magnify or diminish them, or their associated group, only to placate their own miniscule insecurities, however, can take a hike.
But you are more than happy to piggy back your sectarian discussions off his family's religious beliefs. Google what he said, the man was beyond all of us.
Last edited:
observer2
Registered Member
I despise indians as much as you do, i just don't think this agreement will follow through when Pakistan is in its hour of need
observer2
Registered Member
Well if thats what you want to believe
Meengla
Elite Member
That should settle the misinformation. As I said in the Iran war thread: It is important to pay attention to the Iranian officials' words about Pakistan's regional role vs what some forum members from different countries say. But then some Pakistanis, due to Pakistan's domestic political reasons, are hellbent to portray Pakistan in every negative way possible. We know who they are and some made so stupid posts like 'Pakistan joining the Gaza Peace Board was Pakistan taking part in dismantling Hamas and then removing the Palestinians from Gaza'.
Sadly, such pollutant Pakistanis have convinced too many forum members and too many uninformed non-Pakistani analysts about Pakistan's domestic politics and Pakistan's foreign policy.
Meengla
Elite Member
Of course China endorses and of course Iran has its approval too. Look at the Pravin Swaheny video I posted yesterday where he connected the dots of various foreign visits to/from China, Russia, Iran and Pakistan on top of the several meetings between the 'STEP' (Saudia-Turkey-Egypt-Pakistan) diplomats.
This is a big realignment of regional countries and, I believe, if/when the American fleet leaves Iran's vicinity more is to come.
Feroze
Trusted Member
The Makkah Agreement: A new architecture for regional security
Dr. Ali Awadh Asseri
August 09, 202620:49
Follow
Short Url
The signing of the Makkah Joint Defense Agreement by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkiye on Friday was a historic development for our region. When Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif came together in Makkah, they established a collective defense framework among three of the most powerful states of the Muslim world. Its central commitment is clear: an armed attack against one will be regarded as an attack against all. Its purpose is equally clear: to deter aggression, strengthen collective security and contribute to lasting regional peace.
The public response reflected the importance of the occasion. There was understandable pride and jubilation in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkiye as people watched their leaders come together at an exceptionally difficult moment for the region. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan already share an extraordinary relationship rooted in faith, history and decades of solidarity, while Turkiye enjoys deep historical and popular bonds with both countries. Makkah has now given these relationships a powerful new strategic expression.
Some outside observers were quick to describe the agreement as a “Muslim NATO” or a new Sunni alliance. Both descriptions miss its purpose. The agreement is not directed against Iran, Israel or any other country. It is neither a sectarian coalition nor the beginning of an arms race. It is a defensive agreement among three sovereign states that have watched their regional security environment deteriorate rapidly and have decided to strengthen their ability to deter future aggression. They seek no war but are determined to defend peace together.
The timing has naturally attracted attention because the agreement was signed amid the continuing Iran conflict. But timing must not be confused with origin. Detailed consultations had been taking place for years. The Saudi-Pakistan Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement signed last September was itself the culmination of more than half a century of defense cooperation, while Pakistan and Turkiye also possess a long-standing and extensive military relationship. Saudi-Turkish defense cooperation has likewise expanded considerably.
Turkiye’s inclusion did not suddenly arise from the present conflict. The crisis accelerated a process already underway because it demonstrated, with painful clarity, why stronger and more structured regional cooperation had become necessary.
This is where the dynamic and visionary leadership of the crown prince deserves particular recognition. The real test of leadership comes during a crisis, when decisions must be taken under enormous pressure and their consequences may shape the future for decades. A wise leader must appreciate the lessons of history, understand the realities of the present and possess the foresight to prepare for what may come next. The crown prince has demonstrated precisely these qualities.
His decision to conclude the Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement with Pakistan last year now appears even more farsighted in light of subsequent events. The Makkah Agreement takes that vision further by bringing Turkiye into a wider framework capable of strengthening the security of all three states and contributing to regional stability.
His leadership during the present conflict has been equally important. As war spread and the danger of escalation grew, Saudi Arabia faced enormous pressure. Yet the crown prince exercised remarkable strategic patience and refused to allow the Kingdom or the wider Gulf to be dragged into a war they neither initiated nor wanted.
Saudi Arabia defended its sovereignty, protected its national interests and supported diplomatic efforts without allowing restraint to become a vulnerability. When the changed security environment required a stronger and more durable response, that response came in Makkah. This was not an emotional reaction to war but the action of a leadership determined to learn from the crisis and prepare for the future.
Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman has described the agreement as establishing a long-term partnership that strengthens “deterrence, coordination and integration.” These words are backed by experience. Saudi-Pakistani defense coordination was already deep before the present conflict and became even more important during it. Prince Khalid has maintained close engagement with Pakistan’s military leadership, particularly Field Marshal Asim Munir, while military contacts among Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkiye have steadily expanded. The experience of recent months demonstrated the value of such close political and military consultation. The Makkah Agreement now places it on a stronger and more enduring foundation.
The strengths that the three countries bring together are considerable. Saudi Arabia possesses growing defense capabilities, economic power and a pivotal position connecting the Gulf, Red Sea and wider Arab world. Turkiye has one of the region’s strongest militaries and an increasingly advanced defense industry. Pakistan contributes one of the Muslim world’s most experienced and professional armed forces and decades of defense cooperation with both countries.
Intelligence sharing, joint exercises and training, maritime security, counterterrorism, air and missile defense, cybersecurity, logistics, advanced technologies and joint defense production can all become important areas of deeper cooperation. The institutional mechanisms envisaged under the agreement can ensure regular coordination and allow the three countries to prepare together before threats become crises.
At the heart of this framework is the collective defense provision. By declaring that an armed attack against one of the three states will be regarded as an attack against them all, the agreement removes ambiguity about their commitment to one another’s security and territorial integrity. How that commitment is exercised will naturally reflect the circumstances and requirements of a particular situation, but the principle itself is unequivocal: aggression against one engages the collective responsibility of all three.
The greatest success of this provision would be for its credibility to ensure that it never has to be invoked. That is the essence of deterrence — convincing any potential aggressor beforehand that aggression will encounter collective resolve and impose costs far exceeding any possible gain.
This commitment has become necessary because the nature of threats facing our region has changed. Missiles, drones, proxy forces, attacks on commercial shipping and threats to critical infrastructure have enabled state and nonstate actors to impose heavy costs on countries that may have played no role in starting a conflict. The Gulf states have experienced the consequences directly. Their cities, citizens, energy installations, economic infrastructure and maritime routes cannot remain pressure points in wars conducted by others. The Makkah Agreement provides a viable, state-led response: stronger defenses, closer coordination and a clear warning that sovereignty cannot be violated without consequences.
At the same time, this agreement creates no new enemy. Dr. Rayed Krimly, undersecretary at the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has made clear that it does not establish a military or sectarian bloc, is unrelated to nuclear ambitions or an arms race, and does not come at the expense of Saudi Arabia’s strong Gulf, Arab and international relationships. Nor does it replace the existing bilateral and multilateral commitments of the three countries. Erdogan has similarly stressed that the agreement targets no country, while Prince Khalid has expressed the hope that the platform can provide a foundation for broader regional cooperation.
This positive purpose deserves emphasis. Saudi Arabia seeks peaceful relations with its neighbors and has no interest in creating new divisions in an already troubled region. Dialogue remains necessary, diplomacy indispensable and international partnerships important. But recent events have also demonstrated that regional states must possess the capacity to defend their sovereignty and contribute more directly to their own security. Strong defense and serious diplomacy are not contradictory. Credible deterrence can prevent the very conflicts that diplomacy then works to resolve.
The ultimate purpose of security, moreover, is not military power but human progress. Vision 2030 is transforming Saudi Arabia on an extraordinary scale. Turkiye and Pakistan likewise possess immense economic, technological and human potential. All three need secure trade routes, reliable energy supplies, investment confidence and regional stability. The security provided by closer cooperation can create greater space for partnerships in technology, research, investment, education, industry and development. Peace must ultimately produce prosperity for our peoples.
There is something especially meaningful about the fact that this agreement was signed in Makkah. For Muslims everywhere, the Holy City represents unity and a bond that transcends nationality and geography. Having served for almost a decade as my country’s ambassador to Pakistan, I know from personal experience how deeply Pakistanis cherish their relationship with Saudi Arabia and how warmly Saudis regard Pakistan. Turkiye shares profound historical and popular bonds with both nations. The jubilation surrounding the agreement therefore reflects something diplomacy alone cannot create: genuine affection and confidence among three brotherly peoples.
Last year, the Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement transformed the extraordinary Saudi-Pakistani defense relationship into a binding strategic commitment. This year, after one of the gravest periods of regional insecurity in recent memory, the Makkah Agreement has widened that vision. The crown prince showed patience when patience was required, firmness when Saudi interests had to be protected and foresight in preparing for the future. Together with the leaderships of Pakistan and Turkiye, he has now helped establish a framework whose importance should be measured not only by the difficult circumstances in which it was signed but by what it can achieve for decades to come.
The Makkah Agreement is therefore much more than another defense pact. Three powerful regional states have taken greater responsibility for their security while extending a hand of peace to everyone around them. They seek no confrontation but they will stand together against aggression. If this historic commitment is translated into sustained cooperation, it can become a pillar of regional stability and a foundation for wider cooperation in the future. Our region has spent too long responding to wars after they begin. Makkah offers a better path: strength that deters aggression, cooperation that protects sovereignty and security that gives our peoples the peace and prosperity they deserve.
- Dr. Ali Awadh Asseri is deputy chairman of the International Institute for Iranian Studies in Riyadh and a former Saudi ambassador to Pakistan and Lebanon.
Feroze
Trusted Member
Makkah Agreement is not a pact against anyone
Hani Hazaimeh
August 10, 202615:37
Follow
Short Url
The signing of the Makkah Joint Defense Agreement by Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan marks an important development in the Middle East’s evolving security landscape. Predictably, the agreement has prompted speculation about whom it is intended to confront. In a region accustomed to viewing alliances through the lens of rivalry, competing axes and geopolitical confrontation, new security arrangements are often interpreted as the creation of a new bloc against an existing one. That reading risks missing the broader significance of the agreement.
The Makkah Agreement should not be viewed as a pact targeting Iran, Israel or any other country. It should be understood primarily as a defensive partnership designed to strengthen deterrence, protect sovereignty and contribute to regional stability. The distinction matters because deterrence and aggression are not the same thing. Indeed, the purpose of credible deterrence is often to prevent the sort of conflicts that military capabilities are designed to confront.
The agreement comes at a time when the Middle East has experienced an extraordinary accumulation of security threats, including wars, missile and drone attacks, threats to maritime routes and growing uncertainty over traditional security arrangements. Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan have each been affected by this instability, either directly or indirectly. Their decision to strengthen defense cooperation is therefore neither surprising nor inherently provocative.
If an attack against one member is to be treated as an attack against all three, the message is unmistakably one of deterrence. Potential aggressors must understand that any attack will not remain a limited confrontation involving a single country. It could trigger a collective response involving three significant regional powers. That calculation can make aggression less attractive. This is the fundamental logic of deterrence: not to make war inevitable but to make it an irrational choice.
The agreement also reflects a broader shift in how countries across the region view their security responsibilities. For decades, Middle Eastern security arrangements have relied heavily on external powers, particularly the US. While such partnerships remain important, successive conflicts have encouraged regional states to develop greater capacity to protect their own interests and contribute to regional security.
Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan bring different but complementary strengths to this partnership. Saudi Arabia has enormous economic weight, strategic geography and growing diplomatic influence. Turkiye possesses one of the region’s most capable conventional militaries, substantial defense-industrial capabilities and the strategic experience of NATO membership. Pakistan brings extensive military experience, a large armed force and long-standing strategic ties with Saudi Arabia. Together, they represent three important centers of power in the Muslim world.
Their cooperation does not have to mean confrontation with anyone. On the contrary, a credible regional security framework can create more room for diplomacy by ensuring that political dialogue takes place alongside credible deterrence. Peace cannot depend solely on goodwill or declarations. It also requires convincing those who might contemplate aggression that military escalation will not produce easy gains.
The Middle East has suffered greatly from the tendency to interpret every security partnership as preparation for confrontation. When one alliance is immediately treated as a threat, others respond by creating counteralliances. The result is a cycle of suspicion, arms competition and strategic polarization. The region does not need another such cycle.
The Makkah Agreement should instead be viewed as an opportunity to promote a different principle: that regional states can take greater responsibility for their own security without automatically defining themselves against others.
This is particularly important because Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan do not share identical foreign policy positions on every regional issue. They have different interests, relationships and diplomatic channels. That diversity could make the agreement more useful. Rather than becoming another dividing line, it could serve as a bridge between different parts of the region and the wider Muslim world.
If the agreement is presented as an “Islamic NATO” aimed at a particular adversary, it will inevitably generate suspicion and encourage countermeasures. If it is consistently presented as a defensive framework committed to sovereignty, stability and peace, it can acquire much broader legitimacy.
This raises an important question for countries that are already expressing concern about the agreement: Why oppose or criticize a regional security arrangement before seeing what it can become? Why not engage with it instead?
That does not mean every country must immediately become a member, nor does it require states to abandon their independent foreign policies. It simply means that the door should remain open to countries willing to support sovereignty, nonaggression and the peaceful resolution of disputes.
There is nothing contradictory about building military strength while pursuing peace. A country or alliance that possesses credible defensive capabilities can be better positioned to negotiate because potential adversaries understand that coercion will not produce easy victories. But strength must be accompanied by responsibility.
The symbolism of signing the agreement in Makkah reinforces that responsibility. Makkah represents unity and spiritual connection for Muslims across the world. An agreement signed there should aspire to communicate something greater than military cooperation: a commitment to protecting life, sovereignty and peace.
The Middle East has had enough alliances defined by fear and conflicts driven by miscalculation. What it needs is a security environment in which countries understand that their stability is interconnected and that war is ultimately a failure of regional politics.
The Makkah Agreement should therefore be judged not by whom it might confront but by what it prevents. Its greatest success would be the crisis that never becomes a war, the attack that is never launched and the political dispute that is resolved before military force becomes the answer.
The Makkah Agreement should not be seen as an alliance against someone. It is an alliance to prevent another war. And rather than rushing to criticize it, other countries should consider a more constructive alternative: engage with it, help shape it and, where their interests and commitments permit, join it in building a more stable regional security order.
- Hani Hazaimeh is a senior editor based in Amman. X: @hanihazaimeh
Hakikat ve Hikmet
VIP Member
No Ladies?!? Sad....
Users who are viewing this thread
Pakistan Defence Latest
-
-
-
-
For Muslims, Hindus, Christians Tarique Rahman's Bangladesh Unity Appeal (4 Viewers)
- Latest: SoulSpokesman
-
