New Power Axis Emerges as Three Military Heavyweights Unite, Complicating Abraham Accords Strategy

A newly formed defense pact between Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan is stirring questions across the Middle East: Are the three nations quietly building a rival regional bloc that could test the U.S.-backed order centered on Israel and the Abraham Accords, or are they experimenting with a broader burden-sharing model among key American security partners?

Each country brings its own priorities to the agreement, despite all three maintaining long-standing defense relationships with Washington. Together, however, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan could begin to reshape the regional balance of power.

For Riyadh, the pact comes after Saudi Arabia signed a Strategic Defense Agreement with the United States in November 2025 and received major non-NATO ally status. But the kingdom still fell short of securing the treaty-level, Article 5-style U.S. security guarantee it had sought for years, making the new trilateral arrangement a possible hedge against uncertainty over Washington’s future commitments.

Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country, stands to gain stronger energy security, deeper Saudi investment and a larger role in regional affairs, while contributing substantial military capabilities of its own. Whether Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent would extend to its partners remains unconfirmed. Turkey, meanwhile, brings its NATO membership, an expanding defense industry and growing strategic influence at a time of heightened tensions with Israel.

WHO IS TURKEY’S RECEP TAYYIP ERDOĞAN? HOW NATO’S MOST UNPREDICTABLE LEADER KEEPS REINVENTING HIMSELF

Viewed as a whole, the agreement gives three major U.S. partners more room to develop their own deterrence capabilities. That could reduce some of the security load carried by Washington, even as it gives Riyadh, Ankara and Islamabad greater freedom to act independently.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement on Aug. 7. In a joint statement, the three governments said the pact was designed to “strengthen collective deterrence against any act of aggression” and declared that an armed attack on one member would be treated as an attack on all three.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan went further the following day, telling Turkey’s state-run Anadolu news agency that the agreement was “technically the same” as NATO’s Article 5 mutual-defense provision, which treats an attack on one member as an attack on all. Fidan said, however, that the countries would consult on the degree and form of assistance provided following an attack, with operational details still to be determined by a new ministerial committee. The alliance will also establish a general secretariat based in Saudi Arabia, Reuters reported Aug. 8.

Fidan said President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan wants the alliance to eventually expand beyond its three founding members and identified Egypt as a potential participant. He said negotiations over the pact had been underway for two years and eight months.

Saudi Deputy Minister for Public Diplomacy Rayed Krimly has pushed back on suggestions that the agreement represents the creation of a new sectarian or military bloc, saying it is not connected to nuclear ambitions or an arms race. Turkish officials have similarly said the pact is defensive and not directed against Iran or any other country.

Iran, meanwhile, played down the pact as a threat to Tehran. Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Aug. 10 that Iran saw no reason to be concerned that the agreement was directed against it, telling Reuters that the pact reflected a regional shift toward countries relying more heavily on their own security capabilities rather than outside powers.

“Any plan that is based on the geopolitical and historical realities of the region, is comprehensive and inclusive, and correctly identifies the enemy and the threat, has a chance of helping to strengthen security and prevent instability and abuses by the Zionist enemy and its allies,” Baghaei said, referring to Israel.

News Outlet reached out to the Turkish Embassy in Washington, D.C., and the Pakistani government for comment but did not receive responses in time for publication.

Sinan Ciddi, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and director of its Turkey program, told News Outlet that he remains skeptical that the pact currently amounts to a NATO-style alliance.

“Does it have teeth? Is it a serious deterrent? Is that a serious collective defense pact? Is it a Muslim NATO? We’re not actually sure yet,” Ciddi said.

Ciddi said each of the three countries enters the pact with different incentives. For Saudi Arabia, he sees it as a hedge against doubts over the reliability of U.S. security guarantees; for Pakistan, it offers greater energy security, Saudi investment and added regional prestige; and for Turkey, it creates new opportunities for defense cooperation and a larger market for its arms industry. Ankara also gains additional deterrent weight as its tensions with Israel grow, he argued.

“I would say that this pact is much more targeted towards closer economic and commercial ties rather than substantive NATO-like security ties,” Ciddi added.

Saudi Arabia rejects the suggestion that the agreement represents a turn away from Washington.

“The United States remains to be our primary strategic partner,” a Saudi source told News Outlet on background, saying the kingdom’s expanding ties with Pakistan and Turkey should not be viewed as coming at the expense of its relationship with Washington.

The Saudi source also rejected descriptions of the agreement as a “Muslim NATO” or Sunni alliance and said it was not directed against Israel, Iran or any other particular country. Asked whether the pact represented a Saudi move away from normalization with Israel, the source said, “It’s not related in any way.”

Aziz Alghashian, a senior non-resident fellow at the Gulf International Forum, offered a similar interpretation.

“I don’t think it’s a counterweight to the Abraham Accords,” Alghashian told News Outlet.

Instead, Alghashian described the agreement as part of Saudi Arabia’s longer-term diversification of strategic relationships.

“I think it’s actually a supplementation. It’s complementary to the United States,” he said, arguing that greater cooperation among regional partners could provide increased burden-sharing for Washington.

From Pakistan’s perspective, the agreement offers both military and political advantages, Raza Rumi, distinguished lecturer at the Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute at CUNY, told News Outlet.

“Pakistan gains strategic depth, greater leverage in the Gulf and a more formal place in an emerging regional security architecture,” Rumi said, pointing to potential cooperation on defense production, technology transfers, intelligence, training and air and missile defense.

But he cautioned against interpreting the pact’s mutual-defense language too literally.

“Seriously, but not literally as an Article 5-style guarantee, at least not yet,” Rumi said. Its credibility, he added, will depend on whether the countries develop joint planning, command structures and procedures for responding to crises.

Rumi also warned against assuming the Middle East is already dividing into two fixed camps. India, however, is watching the new alignment closely. India’s Ministry of External Affairs said Aug. 11 that it was examining the pact’s implications for national security and regional peace and stability, adding that New Delhi would take “whatever necessary steps are required” to safeguard its interests.

“These states are hedging, not choosing permanent blocs,” he said.

Ciddi, on the other hand, argued that the agreement reflects “serious reservations” among regional countries about U.S. security guarantees. His greater concern is that even a militarily weak pact could encourage opposing alignments to harden.

“Security pacts beget more security pacts,” Ciddi said, arguing that Israel, Greece, Cyprus and potentially India could deepen their own cooperation in response.

“You’re buying security, but you’re also creating tension,” he said. “That’s where I think the harm comes in.”

Calling the pact a direct counterweight to the Abraham Accords or the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor would therefore be “premature,” Rumi argued. But he said a broader competition is emerging over the region’s future — between U.S.-backed economic integration involving India, Israel and the Gulf and efforts by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan to develop greater strategic autonomy.