Makkah Pact: Deterrence in the Service of Peace -

By Junaid Qaiser
Pakistan’s commitment to Saudi Arabia’s security is being put to a serious test as Houthi attacks raise fresh concerns about the stability of the Kingdom and the wider Middle East. Islamabad’s response, however, is not simply a declaration of solidarity. It reflects a strategic calculation: credible defence can help prevent aggression, while sustained diplomacy remains essential to keeping regional tensions from spiralling into a wider conflict.
The recent statement by Inter-Services Public Relations Director General Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry that Pakistan is providing “whatever support is needed” to defend Saudi Arabia underlines the seriousness of this commitment. It also brings the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement, signed by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye on August 7, 2026, into sharper focus.
The purpose of collective deterrence is straightforward: to convince a potential aggressor that an attack will carry consequences beyond the immediate target. Under the Makkah framework, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye have established a basis for treating an attack against one member as a collective security concern.
During his interview with Independent Arabia, the DG ISPR stressed that the alliance is defensive in nature and is not directed against any particular country. He also made clear that Pakistan would take the necessary steps to protect Saudi Arabia’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and the security of the Two Holy Mosques.
This distinction between deterrence and aggression must remain at the heart of the pact. A defence agreement should discourage attacks, not encourage its members to seek confrontation. Its success should be measured by its ability to protect lives, safeguard territory and reduce the likelihood of war.
The recent attacks attributed to Yemen’s Houthi rebels have reinforced the need for such arrangements. Threats to Saudi territory and civilian infrastructure cannot be treated as isolated incidents when they carry the potential to destabilise an already volatile region.
The Makkah Pact’s defensive character provides an important foundation. Its members should establish effective mechanisms for intelligence-sharing, joint planning, crisis consultation and coordinated responses to genuine security threats. Clear communication can also help prevent an incident from being misinterpreted and triggering a chain of retaliatory actions.
Equally important is the need to distinguish between defending a member state and becoming involved in conflicts that do not directly serve the alliance’s security objectives. Collective defence must remain tied to its stated purpose.
A wider regional war would impose heavy costs on countries already facing economic pressures, political uncertainty and security challenges. Pakistan, in particular, has strong reasons to avoid an escalation that could disrupt trade, increase energy prices and place additional pressure on its economy.
The DG ISPR’s appeal to Muslim countries to stop attacking one another addresses a fundamental weakness in regional politics. Rivalries and armed confrontations have repeatedly diverted attention and resources from the priorities that matter most to ordinary people.
Countries across the Muslim world need investment, employment, modern infrastructure, better education and stronger public institutions. Prolonged conflict undermines these objectives, damages economic confidence and places civilian populations at risk.
Political differences among Muslim-majority countries are inevitable. Their governments will not always share the same strategic priorities or regional assessments. But disagreement need not lead to armed confrontation, and differences should not make dialogue impossible.
Pakistan can use its relationships across the region to encourage restraint and support diplomatic channels. Its engagement with Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Iran gives Islamabad an important opportunity to advocate a more constructive approach to regional security.
The same principle should guide the Makkah Pact. Its credibility will rest not only on the military capabilities of its members but also on their ability to avoid unnecessary escalation. A partnership that deters aggression while keeping the door open to negotiation would offer a more durable contribution to regional peace than one defined solely by military responses.
There is also a case for widening cooperation with other countries that share the pact’s commitment to sovereignty and stability. Any expansion, however, should be based on clear objectives, mutual confidence and a willingness to resolve disputes peacefully. A larger alliance is not necessarily a stronger one unless its members agree on the responsibilities they are prepared to assume.
The meeting between Chief of Defence Forces Field Marshal Asim Munir and Saudi Arabia’s newly appointed ambassador to Pakistan, Dr Rajeh Tami Albugamy, offers a further indication of the importance both countries attach to their strategic partnership. Their reported satisfaction with progress under the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement points towards continued efforts to strengthen defence collaboration, institutional links and strategic coordination.
The next phase must focus on implementation. Agreements become meaningful when they produce practical improvements in readiness, communication and decision-making. Regular consultations, joint training, intelligence cooperation and clearly defined crisis-response procedures can help ensure that the pact remains credible when tested.
At the same time, the political leadership of all three countries must ensure that the agreement’s defensive purpose remains clear. Collective deterrence should be proportionate to the threat, consistent with international law and accompanied by efforts to resolve disputes through negotiation.
This is particularly important in a region where competing interests can quickly transform a local confrontation into a broader crisis. A defensive alliance must be prepared to respond to aggression, but it must also understand the risks of miscalculation.
Deterrence and diplomacy are not opposing choices. When pursued with discipline, they are complementary instruments of security. The real promise of the Makkah Pact lies in its ability to make aggression less attractive, protect the sovereignty of its members and demonstrate that strength is most valuable when it helps prevent war.