The Mecca Defense Agreement

The Mecca Joint Defense Agreement among Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan is being presented as a defensive arrangement that does not target any country. Its declared purpose is deterrence, coordination, and collective security. Those objectives deserve serious consideration. Regional governments have the right to cooperate in protecting their populations, and the United States should welcome responsible allies assuming a greater share of their own defense.

Under the agreement, an armed attack against one signatory is to be treated as an attack against all three. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has compared the commitment to NATO’s Article 5 while maintaining that Iran and other states are not designated enemies. The signatories also plan high-level political and military coordination, joint exercises across land, sea, air, and cyber domains, and cooperation in drones, electronic warfare, artificial intelligence, defense production, and technology transfer. Reuters reported these operational plans on August 13, 2026.

Together, these capabilities could strengthen deterrence and reduce pressure on the United States. They could also allow Turkey to expand its military, political, and commercial reach while remaining protected by NATO and benefiting from alliance-derived training, technology, intelligence, and operational experience.

That tension is central. NATO’s Article 5 operates within a treaty system supported by civilian oversight, consultation procedures, integrated command structures, and decades of institutional practice. Repeating collective-defense language does not make the Mecca Agreement institutionally equivalent to NATO. The agreement’s decision-making rules, definition of aggression, command relationships, financial obligations, and mechanisms for preventing escalation remain critical matters of public and allied concern.

Turkey’s call for regional ownership must also be evaluated in light of its conduct. Ankara maintains forces beyond its internationally recognized borders, retains a military presence in Northern Cyprus, intervenes in Syria and Iraq, and conducts repeated operations inside the Kurdistan Region. A state may describe its actions as defensive while neighboring communities experience them as coercive, destabilizing, or threatening to civilian life.

The consequences for the Kurdish people are especially serious. Across the region, the language of counterterrorism and national security has too often been used without a clear distinction between armed violence and legitimate demands for political, cultural, constitutional, and democratic rights. Kurdish communities should not once again become the unrepresented population whose security is negotiated by stronger states.

This concern is already visible in Syria’s political transition. General Mazloum Abdi and Ilham Ahmed are among the most internationally recognized representatives of northeast Syria, yet the political and civic constituencies they represent have not been granted meaningful participation in shaping the country’s new national institutions. Although limited indirect voting was eventually conducted in parts of the northeast and several Kurdish members entered the People’s Assembly, prominent Kurdish parties rejected the process as selective and top-down rather than genuinely representative.

The problem is not simply the number of Kurdish names placed in parliament. It is whether Kurdish citizens can freely choose their representatives and whether legitimate Kurdish political, civil, and security leaders participate directly in decisions affecting Syria’s constitution, security arrangements, local administration, and national future. A May 2026 assessment of the northeastern vote found that Kurdish parties, Christian representatives, and women’s groups continued to raise concerns about political marginalization. The Konrad Adenauer Foundation summarized those representation concerns.

The United States relied heavily upon Kurdish forces in the campaign against the Islamic State. Kurdish men and women sacrificed thousands of lives while protecting their communities and advancing an international security objective. Washington should not permit a new regional alliance—or its desire to preserve relations with powerful states—to transform those partners into expendable bargaining chips.

American and NATO policymakers should therefore pursue five measures.

First, demand strategic clarity. The signatories should explain the agreement’s definition of aggression, consultation and voting procedures, military obligations, permanent institutions, and relationship to Turkey’s NATO commitments.

Second, protect alliance assets. NATO should establish safeguards governing the transfer of alliance-derived technology, intelligence, training, and operational knowledge into any separate defense structure.

Third, condition cooperation on civilian protection. American military and diplomatic cooperation with the signatories should remain tied to respect for sovereignty, international law, transparent targeting standards, and meaningful accountability for civilian harm.

Fourth, secure explicit Kurdish protections. Washington should seek assurances that the agreement will not be used to legitimize cross-border operations against Kurdish civilians, political representatives, or constitutionally recognized institutions in the Kurdistan Region and northeast Syria.

Fifth, include legitimate Kurdish representatives. General Mazloum Abdi, Ilham Ahmed, and other credible Kurdish political, civil, women’s, and security leaders must be included in discussions that may determine their people’s security and political future. No durable regional order can be built by excluding one of the Middle East’s largest nations.

The United States should not oppose regional cooperation merely because it reduces dependence on Washington. A more capable and responsible regional security system could serve legitimate interests. But responsible cooperation requires transparency, civilian oversight, respect for sovereignty, and participation by the peoples whose lives will be affected.

The Mecca Agreement must therefore be judged not by its ceremony or carefully drafted assurances, but by how its power is used, whom it protects, and whose rights it may place at risk. If it strengthens collective security while respecting existing alliances and vulnerable communities, it may become a stabilizing institution. If it consolidates power without accountability, it may deepen the very insecurity it claims to prevent.

Dr. Pary Karadaghi is a Kurdish-American researcher, writer, and human rights advocate and the former Executive Director of Kurdish Human Rights Watch. Her work has focused on Kurdish and regional affairs, refugees and internally displaced people, democracy and institution building, women’s empowerment, humanitarian assistance, and U.S.–Kurdistan relations.