ISTANBUL — Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye have begun to make their new mutual defence agreement operational, setting up a permanent secretariat and starting to work on military coordination among the three nations.

After the first meeting of the pact’s Strategic Political and Defence Committee in Istanbul on August 31, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said the grouping would be officially named the Mecca Defence Alliance.

The secretariat will be in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan will provide the alliance’s first secretary-general for a three-year term.

"The alliance will operate on the basis of respect for national sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs," Fidan said. “The framework was also open to other countries,” he added.

The statement came as the United States and Iran resumed fighting after a month-long lull, raising questions about how the new defence arrangement would function in a regional crisis.

The deal was signed on August 7 in Mecca by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. It states that an armed attack against any of the three countries would be considered an attack against all three.

It is not clear how that commitment would work in practice.

From political agreement to military organization

The talks took place in Istanbul between the three countries' top foreign and defence officials and military chiefs.

Pakistan was represented by Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, Chief of Defence Forces and Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir and Defence Minister Khawaja Asif.

Türkiye sent Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, Defence Minister Yaşar Güler and Chief of General Staff General Selçuk Bayraktaroğlu.

Saudi Arabia was represented by Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, Defence Minister Khalid bin Salman and Chief of the General Staff Fayyadh bin Hamed Al-Ruwaili.

Pakistani and Turkish officials said the committee reviewed military interoperability, joint exercises, cooperation in the defence industry, joint production and research, and counterterrorism coordination.

By setting up a secretariat, the agreement obtains a permanent administrative structure. But it does not in itself establish an integrated military command or a standing joint force.

That’s a difference that counts when you compare it to NATO.

The Mecca agreement contains a collective-defence undertaking broadly similar in principle to Article 5 of NATO, but the two arrangements are not institutionally equivalent. The new alliance is still working out its command arrangements, procedures and mechanisms for responding to an attack.

To become operational, the agreement would need an administrative structure, said Tughral Yamin, a retired Pakistani brigadier and a senior associate at Islamabad’s Institute of Policy Studies.

Important institutional details will have to be clarified, including how the deal would be implemented and how its obligations would be interpreted, said Sinem Cengiz, a researcher at Qatar University’s Gulf Studies Center.

The full terms of the deal have not been made public.

Test for regional pact in conflict

The alliance is taking shape amid continuing volatility in the broader Middle East.

Pakistan, too, has been trying to keep its diplomatic channels open with Iran. ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Munir on August 24 travelled to Tehran for talks with Iranian officials as Islamabad sought to help revive talks between Washington and Tehran and deal with the ongoing disruption around the Strait of Hormuz.

Pakistani officials said the visit produced progress, but US President Donald Trump later said Washington was in no rush to resume talks.

Things took another turn for the worse on August 31, when the US military said it had struck two Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps rocket launchers on Larak Island in the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran later said it had struck facilities linked to the U.S. in Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. Officials in both countries disputed Iran’s claims that the bases had been hit.

The developments raise one of the alliance’s key questions: can Pakistan retain its diplomatic intermediary role with Iran while deepening its security relationship with Saudi Arabia and Türkiye?

Tughral Yamin warned that Pakistan’s position could be further complicated if the trilateral arrangement is viewed as being specifically targeted against Iran.

Other analysts say the alliance is about more than Iran.

“Over the years, the three countries have been developing closer strategic relations, including through longstanding Saudi-Pakistani security cooperation and Türkiye’s efforts to strengthen its strategic autonomy,” said Gökhan Ereli, an international relations expert at Istanbul’s Ibn Haldun University.

The durability of the alliance may therefore be less about the present conflict and more about whether the countries continue to build joint institutions once the fighting has abated.

Syria is another test

Regional tensions have also factored into Türkiye’s security calculations.

Israeli strikes on August 18 damaged the Abu al-Duhur airbase in northwestern Syria. Footage showed damage at the base after the strikes.

The episode was another flashpoint between Ankara and Israel. Israeli concerns of possible Turkish military activity around the site were reported, while Türkiye denied the presence of a Turkish military delegation at the base before or during the attack.

The incident highlights why Syria, Iran, Israel and the wider regional security environment could all impact the future of the alliance – even if none are officially designated as adversaries in the pact.

Who can participate?

The deal is open to other members in principle, but there’s been no expansion yet.

Bangladesh has expressed interest publicly. State Minister for Foreign Affairs Humayun Kabir said on August 25 that Dhaka was looking at the participation positively.

But the Bangladesh position cannot be called a decision to join. Foreign Minister Khalilur Rahman, on August 28, said that membership had not formally come up, as Bangladesh had not got an offer from the existing members.

Another possible contender is Egypt.

In an interview with the state-run TRT News on August 15, President Erdoğan said that the agreement was open to more members and Egyptian participation was possible.

Egypt’s choice may be influenced by its existing defence and diplomatic commitments and by the specific obligations of membership.

Analysts also have cited Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Syria as possible future participants, but none has given any sign of jumping in.

Adding new members may be more complicated than expansion. Each present member would have to ask itself whether it is willing to accept collective-defence responsibilities for a new country and whether the existing regional ties of the new member are compatible with the alliance.

Next Steps

For the moment the priority is institutional, not expansionary.

The first framework for the implementation of the August 7 agreement is provided by the Riyadh secretariat, the appointment of Pakistan’s first secretary-general and the work of the strategic political and defence committee.

The next test will be the extent to which the three governments can turn the broad commitments on interoperability, exercises, defence production and coordination into concrete mechanisms.

Ultimately, the value of the alliance will depend on the form of those mechanisms – and on whether they survive the current moment of regional conflict.

For the time being, the best way to think about the Mecca Defence Alliance is as a newly institutionalised security partnership that, in principle, has a commitment to collective defence but whose exact military obligations are still being determined.