Written by: D P Srivastava5 min readAug 25, 2026 06:15 AM IST First published on: Aug 25, 2026 at 06:15 AM ISTThough there is a pause in the shooting war, the situation in West Asia continues to be volatile. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed. Houthi attacks on the Bab el-Mandeb at the mouth of the Red Sea have closed the second waterway for the transport of Saudi oil to Asian markets. This also affects shipments of Russian crude oil to India. Amid these developments, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan have signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement. This raises the question: Joint defence against whom? There could be three possible threats: The Houthis, Iran, and Israel.The joint statement issued after the Makkah Al-Mukarramah Summit stipulates that “any armed attack against any of the three states shall be regarded as an attack against them all”. However, the extent and nature of commitments by the three countries for joint defence are not known. Nor has the geographical scope of such an arrangement been spelt out. Will this include conflicts outside West Asia? Can Pakistan invoke it in case of an Indian riposte to a future terror attack?AdvertisementHas the Mecca Agreement created an Islamic NATO? Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty provides for collective self-defence but limits its scope to Europe. The only time Article 5 was invoked was in Afghanistan, post 9/11. NATO’s travails in Ukraine and absence in the Iran war point to the fact that what matters is common threat perception, not a formal pact. Within the Mecca Agreement, the threat perceptions differ. Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping do not pose a direct threat to Turkey or Pakistan. Turkey is more concerned with the Israeli presence in Syria. Pakistan regards India and Afghanistan as threats. In 2015, Pakistan did not take part in the action against the Houthis despite requests from Saudi Arabia and the UAE.Is the Mecca Agreement an alliance of Sunni powers against Shia Iran? Iran has emerged as the most important regional power, having withstood more than 23,000 Israeli and US bombing raids in the war. Can Turkey and Pakistan provide Saudi Arabia with the protection from Iranian retaliation that the US could not? However, they do not mind sharing Saudi riches. The accord gives Pakistan a diplomatic profile at a time when its economy is sinking and it is beset by internal problems in Balochistan and PoK. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan had signed a Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) last year. A Pakistan Air Force contingent and 13,000 ground troops were deployed in the eastern part of Saudi Arabia in April this year. Did the Pakistanis fire a single shot in discharge of their obligations under the SMDA?The third possible threat is Israel. PM Netanyahu’s pronouncement of a Greater Israel may have made Arab governments uncomfortable. However, the US umbrella could provide better protection to Saudi interests than Turkey could.AdvertisementThe trilateral pact has not gone unnoticed in Tehran. The influential daily Kayhan, close to the IRGC, has carried a strong editorial against Pakistan, questioning its credentials as a neutral mediator in Iran’s talks with the US. In Pakistan, Shia cleric Jawad Naqvi has already criticised the government for joining the alliance.you may likeIndia has friendly relations with Saudi Arabia. It is a good customer for Saudi oil. Saudi Arabia has a mature diplomatic establishment. It will nevertheless be useful to sensitise them to our concerns. If attacked, India is bound to exercise its right of self-defence.The lasting solution to the West Asia crisis is mainstreaming Iran, so that it has a stake in a peaceful region. The June 17 MoU holds the promise of lifting both secondary and primary sanctions against Iran. This goes beyond the Obama-era nuclear deal. Iran’s capacity to dominate Hormuz is tacitly recognised by all countries. This should be used as a deterrent against future aggression, rather than as a toll, which would bring a small fraction of the revenue Iran could earn from the export of its oil and petrochemicals once sanctions are lifted. The US should lift the blockade. The nuclear issue need not be insurmountable. Iran has already committed in the MoU to not “procure or develop nuclear weapons”. The US has to moderate its demands. Insistence on “zero enrichment” will only be a deal-breaker. Iran has a legitimate sense of grievance. It was twice attacked by Israel and the US amid negotiations. But the future of its people is more important. The alternative to an agreement is continued disruption of global oil supplies, loss of revenue for the Gulf states and Iran, and chaos in West Asia.The writer is former ambassador to Iran. He negotiated the Chabahar Agreement