Celebrations for the cameras only: Iran made a mockery of Erdogan and Pakistan
The defense agreement signed between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan was quickly violated by Iran. After the promises and smiles for the camera, in practice, we received only media and political silence.
The words spoken by Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan echoed loudly: he openly compared the mutual guarantee mechanism of the new agreement to Article 5 of NATO, according to which an attack on one is an attack on all. There is no message more unequivocal than that. But he also immediately added a "double voice," stating that the alliance is not directed against Iran. So, what holds weight in this case: Article 5 or the lack of desire to act against Iran?
However, the practical test did not take long to come—Iranian and Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia's central energy facilities in Jubail and Jazan not only put the fresh agreement to the test but also exposed a deep crack in its deterrence concept.
Even if, on the military level, preparations have not yet been made and mechanisms for military activation have not been defined, the expectations from a defense agreement with such pretensions were clear. The expectation was not necessarily the immediate dispatch of Pakistani or Turkish fighter jets to the Gulf. The expectation was a statement. A signal. A firm condemnation, a resolute warning, or at least an official reference clarifying to Iran or any rival that a red line has been crossed.
Greek Defense Minister on the F-35 deal for Turkey (photo: social networks, use according to section 27 A)
In practice? Media and political silence. The complete silence from Ankara and Islamabad in the hours after the strike on Saudi infrastructure perhaps tells us something essential about the nature of this alliance.
Declarations about "Article 5" look great in diplomatic press conferences. But the moment the words require backing, even rhetorical deterrence, the political echelon in Turkey and Pakistan chooses to stay away from the fire. The risk management of Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Shehbaz Sharif prefers to prevent direct escalation with Iran, even at the cost of eroding the credibility of the guarantees they promised Saudi Arabia just yesterday.
A defense paper that does not receive even verbal backing in real-time is not only "toothless" but produces the opposite effect. It signals to Iran and the Houthis that Saudi Arabia's new regional umbrella is mainly a diplomatic decoration.
Bottom line, time will tell, but if in routine times vague formulations of military agreements apparently serve deterrence, then in real-time, silence works against it. The alliance was signed during a war and was supposed to have added value beyond the steps and statements that each country made anyway. Last night proved that between Fidan's bombastic statements and the willingness to take risks for the new partner in the Gulf, there is a big gap.
If an alliance in Mecca is unable to produce even a "verbal shockwave" in response to an attack on strategic energy facilities, especially a few hours after the signing, readers and players in the region are entitled to ask themselves: what is the paper signed in Mecca actually worth?
Perhaps only for Turkey—the foothold it aspired to in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab. Perhaps such and other dividends for Saudi Arabia and Turkey vis-a-vis (nuclear) Pakistan and for others vis-a-vis Saudi money.
