Who is the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement for, and who is it against?

Iran has announced that it did not receive an invitation to join the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement signed between Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Tehran denied reports suggesting it had been invited to the agreement. However, it emphasized that there were proposals to hold discussions with the three states party to the agreement on issues concerning regional collective security. 

Iran is simultaneously stating that it did not receive an invitation to join the agreement while also claiming that it does not view the agreement as an anti-Iranian initiative. In a sense, it is keeping the door to dialogue and communication channels open, while pointing to the importance of regional security. 

However, even if Iran voices these sentiments in official rhetoric, it is clear that the agreement carries an anti-Iranian content and is evidently based on an anti-Shia foundation. This is because all three states party to the Mecca Agreement are Sunni. There is a historical and balanced rivalry between Turkey and Iran, two of the signatory countries. Even though the two states are in fierce competition in many areas and even experience tensions from time to time, both possess strong state experience, historical memory, and diplomatic expertise. This is an important factor that prevents competition and tension from turning into hot conflict. Indeed, the Turkey-Iran border is our country's oldest border. It has remained unchanged since the Treaty of Zuhab signed in 1639, with the exception of a few minor border adjustments. 

Pakistan-Iran relations are also, in the final analysis, balanced relations despite occasional tensions and even the mutual missile strikes that occurred in 2024. The two states, which share a 909-kilometer common border, are trying to develop trade between them and resolve problems through negotiations, even when they face issues. They do not view each other as enemies, primary threats, or existential problems. 

Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, views Iran as a major threat. The two states deploy proxy forces against each other in different geographies and different countries. Saudi Arabia wants the US and Israel to prevail against Iran. Iran views Saudi Arabia as a collaborator and supporter of the US and Israel. In addition to economic, geopolitical, and strategic competition between the two oil-exporting states, there is also an Arab-Persian and Sunni-Shia rivalry at play. 

In addition to being one of the two most prominent states in the Arab world alongside Egypt, Saudi Arabia is also the leader of the Gulf Arabs; in recent years, it has also been experiencing tensions with Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Neither the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, nor the Gulf Cooperation Council can resolve these developments occurring among the Gulf Arabs. This is because none of the three organizations have any effectiveness, prestige, or deterrent power, let alone in the world, even among their own members. 

The Gulf countries led by Saudi Arabia are organized under the Gulf Cooperation Council. The Council was established in 1981 by the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, and Kuwait, and has 6 members. Because their geographical proximity, political relations, similar conditions, regimes, culture, religion, language, and sect come to the fore, some who hold hope for the relations, cooperation, and further integration of these 6 states have desired that the Gulf Cooperation Council would also assist and provide a foundation for the Arab Nation that is sought to be created. But this has not happened so far. 

When the tensions that the member countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council experience among themselves (such as the Saudi Arabia-Qatar tension, the Saudi Arabia-United Arab Emirates tension, and the embargo imposed on Qatar by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in 2017 due to its relations with Iran and its support for Hamas) are considered, it is seen that the council is not only failing to create a foundation for an Arab Nation or evolving into a supranational structure similar to the European Union, but is even falling behind its original goals. The authoritarian and oppressive character of the regimes in the member countries also contradicts the expectations of those who pin their hopes on the organization. It is not possible for the member countries to be nation-states, democratic states, or states of law as we understand them. In their current structures, there is no place for national sovereignty, national will, civic consciousness, or national belonging. Even if the relations of the governments in the 6 Council member countries with the US and Israel draw public reaction, this reaction does not reflect on the country's administrations in a political sense. 

Finally, it should never be forgotten that the families, dynasties, and cadres who govern the Arab countries in the Gulf have had close relations with England from the past to the present, in addition to the US.