By Uzma Ehtasham
US President Donald Trump’s endorsement of the Mecca joint defence agreement between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey may look like a welcome sign of regional cooperation. He has described the pact as a courageous step towards a more united Middle East, one better able to protect itself and respond to threats. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has welcomed the remarks, saying Pakistan valued the American support and would continue working with Saudi Arabia and Turkey to strengthen regional security. His emphasis on peace was well placed. No military arrangement can ultimately provide security if it is not accompanied by a serious political effort to prevent conflict.
Yet the American endorsement cannot be considered in isolation from Washington’s broader policy in the Middle East. The same administration that praises regional cooperation continues to offer substantial political and military backing to Israel. That contradiction matters. It raises a basic question about what kind of regional order the United States wants to encourage. It is difficult to claim that the objective is stability while continuing to strengthen the military capacity of a state at the heart of some of the region’s most persistent conflicts. For decades, the Middle East has suffered from an unequal distribution of military and political power.
Israel has benefited from powerful American support, while Palestinians have struggled to obtain even the most fundamental guarantees of security, sovereignty and statehood. This imbalance has shaped every attempt at regional diplomacy. Any new defence arrangement must therefore be judged by its consequences, not simply by the language used to announce it. Pakistan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are among the most influential Muslim countries. Their decision to strengthen defence cooperation has genuine strategic significance. Greater coordination could improve their ability to respond to external threats, protect their sovereignty and reduce their dependence on outside security guarantees. It could also give them greater influence in shaping the future of the region.
But there is a danger if the agreement is allowed to become another alliance defined primarily by religious or sectarian identity. The Muslim world has already paid a heavy price for divisions between competing political and strategic camps. A new bloc built around exclusion would reproduce those divisions rather than overcome them. The Middle East does not need another arrangement in which security is defined by who belongs and who does not. It needs a framework capable of accommodating countries with different political systems, competing interests and deep disagreements. That is why Iran cannot be ignored indefinitely.
Its inclusion in a wider regional security dialogue would send a more meaningful message than the formation of another bloc against an assumed adversary. This does not mean that Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran must suddenly settle their differences. Their disagreements are substantial and will not disappear through diplomatic optimism. But regional security cannot be made durable by excluding one of the region’s most important powers. Dialogue is most necessary when relations are difficult. Countries do not build peace by speaking only to those with whom they already agree.
The same principle must apply to Gaza. Any proposed settlement that places the complete disarmament of Hamas at the center of an agreement while allowing Israel to retain broad military freedom risks producing an inherently unequal definition of security. Peace cannot be reduced to the disarmament of one side while the other remains free to determine the terms of military action. Such an arrangement may pause a war, but it would struggle to address the political conditions that produced it.
The language used by some Israeli officials makes the problem more urgent. Israeli national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has reportedly called for the killing of dozens of people in Gaza each night and made statements denying the humanity of Palestinians. Such remarks should not be dismissed as routine political rhetoric. When senior officials speak about civilians in dehumanizing terms, governments and international institutions should take those statements seriously. Evidence of inflammatory rhetoric should also be preserved where it may become relevant to future investigations and accountability.
The possibility of renewed fighting in Lebanon adds another layer of uncertainty. Reports of Israeli preparations for a possible new confrontation with Hezbollah have emerged while US-mediated negotiations between Israel and Lebanon continue. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has warned that continued Israeli attacks could worsen Lebanon’s humanitarian crisis and widen the conflict. That concern should not be ignored. Every new front creates additional opportunities for miscalculation, retaliation and escalation. The situation around the Strait of Hormuz carries its own dangers. Trump’s reported threats of military action against Oman if it obstructs efforts to reopen the waterway illustrate the limitations of a strategy based heavily on pressure and threats.
Military power can force short-term compliance, but it cannot by itself create political stability. The more frequently ultimatums replace diplomacy, the greater the risk that an already fragile region will move from crisis to open confrontation. Iran, for its part, has rejected the language of deadlines and pressure, insisting that it will not make decisions under coercion. Tehran has also maintained contact with Qatar and Oman, while Pakistan and Qatar have sought to reduce tensions. These diplomatic channels may appear modest, but they are precisely the channels that become essential when military options begin to multiply. They should be strengthened rather than crowded out by threats. This is why Trump’s endorsement of the Mecca agreement should be treated with both interest and caution.
(The writer is a public health professional, journalist, and possesses expertise in health communication, having keen interest in national and international affairs, can be reached at uzma@metro-morning.com)
