The latest drone attack against Saudi Arabia—which Riyadh and now the findings of an Iraqi investigation say was launched from Iraqi territory—has once again raised a crucial question: what does the heavily promoted Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, signed on August 7 by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, actually mean in practice?
The answer provided by Turkey’s Foreign Ministry on September 12 falls noticeably short of the automatic activation of a collective-defence mechanism.
In statement No. 176, the Turkish Foreign Ministry condemned “in the strongest terms” the drone attacks launched from Iraqi territory against Saudi Arabia, reiterated its support for the Kingdom’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and praised the Saudi authorities’ restraint aimed at preventing further escalation. It also welcomed the Iraqi government’s decision to launch an investigation and called for an immediate end to similar attacks.
The statement, however, contains no reference to the Mecca Agreement, the activation of its collective-defence clause or Turkish military assistance to Riyadh.
This carries particular weight because the agreement was presented only a month ago as a mechanism under which an armed attack against one of the three states would be considered an attack against them all. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan had even described the commitment in technical terms as comparable to the logic of NATO’s Article 5.
This attack can hardly be dismissed as a merely theoretical test. Saudi Arabia announced that multiple drones struck the strategically important East-West Pipeline in the Riyadh and Medina regions, causing injuries and material damage. The pipeline is vital energy infrastructure because it allows Saudi crude to reach the Red Sea while bypassing the Strait of Hormuz.
Iraq, for its part, took measures that strengthen the assessment that the threat did indeed originate from its territory. The government dismissed a military commander responsible for operations in Maysan province after the investigation confirmed that the drones had been launched from Iraq. It also temporarily closed the Shalamcheh border crossing with Iran while an operation to identify the perpetrators was under way.
Ankara’s position therefore exposes the agreement’s real limits. Despite the signatures, references to collective deterrence and comparisons with NATO, its implementation remains dependent on political decisions, a request from the state under attack and an assessment of the risk of escalation.
