Syria’s Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani said on August 21, 2026, that Damascus was considering joining the so-called Mecca defense agreement but had not made a final decision. Regardless of whether Syria ultimately joins the agreement among Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan, the development is yet another example of Turkey’s growing influence over Damascus.
The interim Syrian government may view membership in the nascent Sunni alliance as an insurance policy against threats from countries such as Israel and Iran. After all, a prominent clause in the agreement, modeled after NATO’s Article 5, stipulates that an attack on one member of the alliance is considered an attack on all members, requiring them to defend it.
The interim Syrian government may view membership in the nascent Sunni alliance as an insurance policy against threats from countries such as Israel and Iran.
Turkey brings military power, Pakistan offers nuclear capabilities, and Saudi Arabia provides the financial resources. If the Mecca Pact is indeed a defensive alliance, as its patrons have advertised it, the question is what Syria would bring to the alliance.
The country barely has a functioning military, which is effectively a patchwork of Islamist factions. Whatever little discipline the Syrian military may possess is largely attributable to the recent integration of the U.S.-trained, Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces. But Kurdish forces account for less than 10 percent of the Syrian military. Syria needs years to build a professional military capable of joining regional alliances.
Therefore, a Syrian membership in the Mecca Pact now would be largely cosmetic, while also affirming Damascus’s subordination to other members, particularly Turkey.
The Mecca Pact may appear to be a Saudi-led initiative, but Turkey has long-term plans to expand its influence as the leading Muslim power, and the alliance could serve that purpose. By including weaker, subordinate countries such as Syria, Ankara would ensure that it maintains the upper hand within the bloc. Although the agreement ostensibly has brought Saudi Arabia and Turkey closer together after years of strained relations, the two countries’ rivalry and respective ambitions for dominance in the Sunni Muslim world run deeper than any temporary reconciliation.
Syria’s entry into a regional alliance, especially a defensive one, would carry significant risks because the country remains in a fragile political transition. Its institutions are still being rebuilt after years of civil war, and its political authority remains unstable under an Islamist leadership. Premature involvement in a regional security bloc could be costly for Syria’s stability and that of the region. The country is by no means in a position to meet the defensive commitments required by such an agreement.
Instead of pursuing regional alliances and taking risky sides, Syria should focus on domestic priorities that can improve the lives of its citizens.
If the Turks, Saudis, and Pakistanis believe their alliance could help stabilize the region, they would be mistaken to think that Syria is currently capable to contribute to that effort. If anything, Syria could become a liability for the bloc. Damascus has unresolved security issues with nearly every neighboring country. Would members of the Mecca Pact be expected to respond militarily to Israeli strikes against threats inside Syria, occasional Jordanian cross-border strikes against smuggling networks, or attacks by Shiite militias from Iraq and Hezbollah along the Syria-Lebanon border?
Instead of pursuing regional alliances and taking risky sides, Syria should focus on domestic priorities that can improve the lives of its citizens, who have endured years of conflict and displacement. Most Syrians live below the poverty line and joining the Mecca Pact would do little to provide them with the resources needed to overcome poverty.
The Assad dynasty invested heavily in defense and regional security entanglements for more than five decades, but those investments brought only repression, poverty, and insecurity to the Syrian people—let alone terrorism and instability to the broader region. The new regime in Damascus should avoid repeating the same mistake.