Skepticism is only fair if this was indeed the first time Saudis used Makkah as a venue.
To counter the Cairo Caliphate conference, Saudis convened Makkah conference to balance the same question, Muslim unity, instead it only helped legitimize Saudi authority over the holy cities and their rule and dispelled any notion of return to Khilafah or to help choose common leadership.
But it goes beyond that... Saudis used their brand to paint wholesale apostasy on everyone but them... which included the Ottomans and back then their excuse to side with British Empire was that, they, the Brits are in fact Ahl-Kitab... people of the book.
Backstabbing in the context laid out above isn't the intent of the ruler but de facto... as both Turkiye and Pakistan said aye! As a balance to countervailing forces ...chaos and insurgencies that may arise as a result of the power vacuum of parting US... where everyone with weight or sway will be vying for space.
In that space Saudis going around to double down on prevailing paradigm or it's upcoming space holder in zion can only be inferred...
Muslims, pre first world war were not vying for nation states or structural barriers based on ethnic lines... Turks ruled, so did Kurds, Persians and Arabs... languages, ethnicities and interpretations survived to the modern age and then everything went haywire.
The last century has produced more death and destruction than previous crusades or Mongol hordes in shear numbers... only proportionally lower because of higher populations... that includes both primary and secondary causes.
This pact could have taken place in Riyadh and be called by that name too... the fact that it was Makkah and that it has been invoked to defend members puts it beyond the secular plane... where identities have been painfully curated outside the fold to pander to other mere mortal causes.
Judgement however is not out yet...
And we'll see how the new initiative by zion to get a coalition going against Houthis goes...
I only see the first paragraph somewhat relevant - and vying for ethnic lines does not mean empires did not exist on ethnic lines which are hollow semantics and whataboutism I see no value here.
So on the first paragraph -
If you look at the timeline - the Cairo conference did not lead to any outcome simply because no majority actually wanted a caliphate then especially not the Egyptian king who created the conference with that purpose in mind.
You can come with all sorts of conspiracy theories but it could also be plain want for independence of control and leadership - and maybe not wanting King fuad as the caliphate. IT was nothing to do with the return of the Khilafah as much as a power play by one rule.
What Saud did was to try and legitimize his conquest of Hijaz and less about Caliphate but it was to rival Fuad's claim to control of Hijaz. That was it.
There is no evidence for the rest of accusations of having Brits as Ahl-al-Kitab or so on since the brits were also supporting hashmis who were also rivals for control of the area. You can allege the British were doing their usual divide and rule but the rest of "backstabbing" Turks is frustrated emotion - you can have at it - but it is still weighed against the idea that Turks were ruling Arabian lands and they had their own tense relations with the locals on that.
For that matter - someone can also apply that same rule on why Muslim soldiers were part of East India company against the Mughals.
As for the backstabbing on this alliance - there is no backstabbing as it is typical Arab impatience on delivery for signatures without reading the fine print. The Saudis are frustrated that western consultants in lieu with their own screwed them on the Line, Neom and so on with misleading figures.
In this case the figures weren't even misleading as such and the Turks and Pakistanis have laid out their timelines for the Saudis on what can be achieved with their own constraints - which has not been enough for the Saudi leadership so they
are going back to the Americans because in their mind "at least the Americans deliver".
That is it. Now whether MBS is in cahoots with Israel or not and so on is all conjecture and derived from an ignorance of statecraft vs family politics.
It is also odd for me in general why Pakistanis find statecraft so hard to grasp especially when they themselves are ok to try and have family members killed over 500sq ft of land but then also be offended when those same family members dont consider their sons for the daughter's hand in marriage.
