Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkiye have formalized an expanded mutual defense pact, sparking discussions about a shifting security architecture in the Middle East as the ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran remains unresolved. Under the terms signed in Mecca this past Friday, the three nations have committed to a collective defense arrangement, stipulating that an armed attack against any one of the signatories will be treated as an assault on all.
This trilateral agreement follows five months of intense hostilities triggered by a US-Israeli bombing campaign against Iran, a conflict that has destabilized the Gulf and frequently disrupted maritime transit through the Strait of Hormuz. Despite the regional tensions, the three signatory nations have emphasized that their deal is the culmination of years of negotiation, carefully avoiding language that might antagonize other regional or international actors.
In Tehran, the official reaction has remained notably subdued. Iranian authorities are largely framing the development through the lens of regional and Muslim cooperation, emphasizing what they perceive as a declining role for the United States in the region. This perspective is being viewed by some in Tehran as the beginning of the collapse of US security hegemony in West Asia and the Persian Gulf.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi addressed the spirit of the agreement on Friday, stating that when Muslims stand together, “we can face every challenge by malicious outsiders head-on.” In a post on X, he added, “Time to rely only on ourselves and embrace true brotherhood,” though he stopped short of explicitly mentioning the new trilateral pact.
Hossein Noushabadi, a director general for parliamentary and legal affairs at the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, provided further insight into Tehran’s diplomatic thinking. In an interview with the ISNA news service, he suggested that the ministry views the agreement primarily within the context of a diminishing direct US presence in the region, rather than as an immediate threat.
Despite this outward calm, analysts suggest Iran harbors long-term concerns. Hamidreza Azizi, a researcher at the Clingendael Institute, noted that the timing of the pact is critical, as it follows months of persistent attacks on Saudi Arabia by Iran-aligned groups, including the Houthis in Yemen and various factions in Iraq.
“From Tehran’s perspective, the concern is therefore not only that the pact could strengthen Saudi deterrence, but that it could eventually facilitate coordinated pressure on Iran in Yemen, Iraq, and even economically through Turkiye and Pakistan,” Azizi explained. He added that for now, these are all elements of a post-American security order in the Middle East.
The regional security environment remains volatile. On Sunday, the Houthi movement claimed a successful drone strike on the Saudi Aramco refinery in Jizan. Saudi authorities confirmed that a fire at the facility was extinguished without inflicting casualties, though they did not specify the cause of the incident.
Simultaneously, the situation in Yemen has intensified. Houthi missiles and drones struck the Red Sea port of al-Makha, which is held by the Saudi-backed and internationally recognized government. Officials reported that the attack resulted in at least seven deaths, 15 injuries, and severe damage to critical infrastructure.
The Houthi group, which has also been targeting or forcing the diversion of Saudi-linked commercial vessels in the Red Sea, stated that the al-Makha strike was intended to destroy weapons depots. These actions underscore the ongoing regional friction that the new trilateral pact aims to address through collective security measures.
Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North African Programme at Chatham House, noted that the pact reflects both immediate security needs and long-term strategic opportunities for Riyadh, Islamabad, and Ankara. “They are driven together to forge greater diplomatic and defence cooperation in reaction to US unreliability, Israeli revisionism and Iranian retaliation,” she told Al Jazeera.
Looking ahead, Azizi suggests that Tehran’s priority will be to prevent the pact from evolving into an explicitly anti-Iranian coalition. This strategy involves maintaining individual, stable relations with each of the three signatory nations. Tehran continues to advocate for the long-standing position that regional security should be managed by regional states rather than external powers.
Experts also speculate that Iran might eventually seek potential membership in the pact in the distant future. However, such a development would require a sustainable end to maritime attacks in the Strait of Hormuz and a broader de-escalation across the region. As Azizi noted, if the signatory states view the pact as a shield against Iran, achieving such integration will remain a significant diplomatic challenge.
But Iran certainly sees some reasons to be concerned in the long run, according to Hamidreza Azizi, a researcher and analyst on Iran and Middle Eastern geopolitical dynamics.
Political scientist Vali Nasr said he does not believe the pact is currently a threat to Tehran.
“This is also as much a balance to the Abraham Accords as a direct challenge to Tehran,” he added, in reference to the US-pushed regional normalisation effort with Israel, which US President Donald Trump last month tied
They have stressed the pact, which does not identify a specific threat, is not targeted against any country – particularly Iran – and does not abrogate or replace any existing agreements with others.
“It appears that, in the not-too-distant future, a new regional security order based on cooperation among regional states will replace the power structures imposed by extra-regional actors, heralding the end of the prevailing security and geopolitical paradigm and West Asia’s departure from the sphere of vital US interests,” added the official, who is a former Iranian envoy to Oman.
“This is also as much a balance to the Abraham Accords as a direct challenge to Tehran,” he added, in reference to the US-pushed regional normalisation effort with Israel, which US President Donald Trump last month tied with a civil nuclear deal sought by Saudi Arabia.
Mehran Kamrava, a professor of government at Georgetown University of Qatar, also agreed that decision-makers in Iran do not immediately feel threatened by the pact, especially since they have maintained cordial relations with both Pakistan and Turkiye even under trying circumstances.
“Ultimately, this pact is not that new, nor is it something that, at present at least, has a great deal of substance beyond its symbolic significance.
Not all inside Iran are content with the pact, however, with some hardline lawmakers and media arguing that it could ultimately be directed against the “resistance front” of Tehran-backed armed forces across the region, and degrade Pakistan’s credibility as a main mediator between Iran and the US and others.
“It’s clear that Arab states finally understand security cannot be imported; it must be built within the region.
However, a roadmap is still missing,” Ebrahim Azizi, a member of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, said in a more hawkish viewing of the pact.
“Warning: Miscalculation is a historical mistake.
Iran has proven that every error comes at a cost.
Balance is the only way forward,” he wrote on X.
Ebrahim Rezaei, another member of the commission, also wrote on X that “a paper agreement with Turkiye and Pakistan” will not bring Saudi Arabia security, “just as years of one-sided dependence on the Americans did not bring them security”.
Egypt has already been floated as a candidate, but that could be a complex decision for Cairo to make.
Source: Aljazeera
