Research & Commentary Results

On August 7, 2026, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan signed the Mecca Joint Défense Agreement, a collective-defense pact widely compared to NATO’s Article 5. This essay argues that the comparison is misleading. Mecca borrows NATO’s language of solidarity without yet possessing NATO’s institutional machinery, and the Houthi offensive against Saudi Arabia in September 2026 provided an early and revealing test of what the agreement actually means in practice. Neither Pakistan nor Turkey automatically entered the fight on Saudi Arabia’s behalf, and Washington, despite an initial reluctance to strike directly, remained indispensable through intelligence support and a major proposed F-35 sale. Drawing on realist alliance theory — Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz, Stephen Walt, Glenn Snyder, and Steven David — and on the precedent of the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO), the essay contends that the Middle East is not dividing into rival blocs but moving from hierarchy toward a looser, overlapping geometry of hedged partnerships, in which American exclusivity is eroding considerably faster than American primacy.

When Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan agreed to a mutual defense pact in August, it was principally seen as a political commitment. The “Mecca alliance,” as it was dubbed, stipulated that an armed attack on one would be treated as an attack on all three, accompanied by deeper military cooperation.

I was a teenage Afghan refugee in Pakistan’s tribal areas when the Twin Towers fell. Almost nobody around us understood the politics of what had happened, but we knew that something had changed for good. Afghanistan, which until then had been our private tragedy and our first exile from Taliban rule, had suddenly become the world’s concern, with the United States leading the response.

During the opening days of the 2025–2026 U.S.–Israel war with Iran, Kuwait’s military briefings highlighted intercepted Iranian missiles and drones while revealing little about strike locations or damage. The approach reflected a familiar wartime dilemma in which governments must reassure populations while limiting information that could aid adversaries or fuel uncertainty. Yet Kuwait’s response revealed a broader shift across the Gulf. Information was no longer simply a messaging tool; it had become part of the battlefield.

After the US-Israel-Iran war — and the strikes that followed the cease-fire — the Gulf states find themselves dangerously exposed. Host Alistair Taylor is joined by MEI Associate Fellow Gregory Gause to discuss the war’s impact on the Gulf, their partnership with the United States, and whether the turmoil of recent months will push Gulf leaders to reassess their alliances and international engagement.

This essay argues that the current debate about the future of the international monetary system is not really about Gulf currencies, oil pricing, or de-dollarization in the narrow technical sense. It is about something deeper and more important: whether institutional trust can survive when geopolitical certainty is eroding.

Sometimes the only thing more frightening than Afghanistan’s problems is the Taliban’s solutions and the recently signed Russia-Taliban military-technical agreement may be the most alarming one yet. The partnership signals that Afghanistan’s security architecture is being rebuilt without the United States, and increasingly by America’s rivals. Washington should pay close attention because the deal hands one of the world’s most repressive regimes a pathway to becoming more capable and deeply entrenched in a regional order where Russian influence is expanding at America’s expense.

Pakistan is not merely reacting to the current phase of the 2026 Iran war; it is functioning as a system-adjusting intermediary within a rapidly reordering regional landscape. As established channels of diplomacy, trade, and financial coordination have fractured under wartime pressure, Islamabad has emerged as a critical node through which regional and extra-regional actors are progressively rerouting engagement, commerce, and influence.

As Washington and Tehran edge closer to escalation, the most critical line of communication keeping the crisis from spiraling is being run not by polished diplomats, but by an unlikely figure: a Pakistani general. Field Marshal Asim Munir, Pakistan’s powerful army chief, has quietly become the key intermediary in the U.S.-Iran standoff, managing what may be the most important backchannel between the two sides. The mediation has thrust Pakistan to the center of the crisis while exposing it to enormous risk.

This bonus episode of Middle East Focus features a recent MEI Virtual Briefing. Director of Communications Zeina Al-Shaib is joined by MEI Distinguished Diplomatic Fellows Alan Eyre and Daniel Benaim to discuss the historic talks held in Pakistan last weekend between the United States and Iran. Tehran insists the US failed to gain its trust, while the US made its red lines clear and declared it would blockade Iranian ports in the Persian Gulf. What happens next? Eyre and Benaim offer insights into what goes on behind the scenes at such negotiations; identify the core issues at play; explore potential incentives to end the war; analyze the weaponization of energy; as well as assess the role of other regional players in this conflict.

Pakistan’s relationship with the Afghan Taliban has shifted from open sponsorship in the 1990s to a silent partnership following 2001 to alienation and belligerence since 2021. Their current conflict, which comes at great cost to both countries and seems to have no easy military or political resolution, also poses a threat to the stability and prosperity of neighboring states. Although American strategic interests in the region greatly diminished following the United States’ military withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, the region’s altered political dynamics have prompted a growing American engagement with Pakistan and tentatively with Afghanistan. At the same time, the US has become a factor in how both Islamabad and Kabul have come to form their national security strategies.

دعا عضوان في السلك الدبلوماسي الأمريكي خدما في أفغانستان ويشاركان في برنامج إعادة توطين الأفغان الأمريكيين إلى التمسك بمبادئ العدالة والإنصاف عند الحكم على الشخص المتهم بإطلاق النار على أفراد الحرس الوطني في واشنطن العاصمة.

وقّعت المملكة العربية السعودية وباكستان اتفاقية دفاع مشترك في 17 سبتمبر/أيلول 2025، تنص على أن "أي عدوان على أي من البلدين يعتبر عدوانًا على كليهما". أثارت صياغة الاتفاقية تكهنات بأن باكستان قد تستخدم قدراتها النووية للدفاع عن المملكة العربية السعودية. إلا أن الباحث ف. غريغوري غوس من معهد الشرق الأوسط يؤكد خلاف ذلك، ويقدم نظرة ثاقبة على التاريخ والحسابات الاستراتيجية التي أدت إلى إبرام الاتفاق. لمعرفة المزيد عن الصفقة، يرجى زيارة موقعنا الإلكتروني.

في أعقاب الضربة التي شنتها إسرائيل في 9 سبتمبر على أهداف لحماس في قطر، اتخذت باكستان خطوات سريعة وهامة في سياستها الخارجية رداً على ذلك، واتخذت موقفاً حازماً بشكل غير معتاد. وقد تأثر هذا التحول إلى حد كبير بقائد الجيش الباكستاني، المشير عاصم منير. فالأخير مصمم على تعزيز الاستقلالية الاستراتيجية لبلاده ونفوذها الدبلوماسي في بيئة دولية تزداد تعقيداً، من خلال وضع باكستان في موقع الفاعل الأمني الرئيسي والقوة المتوسطة الصاعدة على الساحة العالمية.

اتفاقية الدفاع المتبادل الاستراتيجي (SMDA) بين المملكة العربية السعودية وباكستان، التي تم توقيعها في الرياض في 17 سبتمبر، هي أكثر بكثير من مجرد تعهد ثنائي. فهو يمثل إعادة ترتيب عميقة للتحالفات في الخليج وجنوب آسيا، مما يعكس ويعزز التآكل الأوسع نطاقاً لسيادة الولايات المتحدة في البنية الأمنية الأوروبية الآسيوية. في حين ركزت معظم التعليقات الأولية على الالتزام المذهل من قبل ملكية خليجية ثرية بالدفاع عن دولة جنوب آسيوية حائزة للأسلحة النووية، فضلاً عن مسألة ما إذا كانت باكستان قد مدت بالفعل مظلتها النووية إلى المملكة العربية السعودية، فإن القصة الأعمق هي على الأرجح التقدم المحتمل للصين.