The Mecca Pact's Missing Partner: Israel

The Mecca Pact's Missing Partner: Israel

By Daniel Rosen, President of the American Jewish Congress

Three important American partners—Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey—have created a new defensive arrangement at a moment when Iran and its armed networks continue to threaten the region.

We can debate the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement's mechanisms another day. The more important question is simpler: if the objective is to deter Iran, why would the region's most capable partner against Iran remain outside the room?

That partner is Israel.

This is not an ideological argument but a practical one. Israel has spent decades studying Iran's nuclear program, missile capabilities, Revolutionary Guard, proxy networks, and internal security architecture. Its intelligence penetration of Iran is unusually deep. Its military has demonstrated the ability to strike Iranian capabilities directly. Its missile-defense, cyber, intelligence, and operational experience are already integrated into a close working relationship with the United States.

If the purpose of a new regional security architecture is deterrence, Israel is already doing some of the hardest work.

We're not ignoring realities. Saudi Arabia does not have diplomatic relations with Israel. Pakistan does not recognize Israel. Turkey and Israel have serious political disagreements.

Those facts are real. But so is Iran.

It would be unfortunate to waste this historic opportunity for America's regional partners to jointly confront the challenge from Iran because of transient political differences.

Politics Should Not Block Strategy

Serious countries should be able to separate political disagreements from common security interests. Washington does this every day. Gulf governments do it too. Pakistan can maintain dialogue with Tehran while strengthening Saudi security. Turkey can disagree sharply with Israel while recognizing that Iranian expansion threatens Turkish interests as well.

Regional security does not require every government to agree about every issue. It requires them to recognize where their interests converge. And on Iran, the convergence is difficult to miss.

I am not suggesting that Israel must formally join the Mecca agreement tomorrow.

That is not the point.

The point is that whatever develops from this agreement should connect with the wider U.S.-led security architecture that already includes Israel rather than creating parallel systems that work around it.

Air and missile defense should talk to air and missile defense. Intelligence systems should share relevant warnings. Maritime security in the Red Sea and Gulf should connect countries facing the same threats. Counter-drone technology, cyber defense, and early-warning systems should become increasingly interoperable.

Said briefly: the architecture matters more than the photograph.

Saudi Arabia has spent years trying to protect its economic transformation from regional instability, only to see Iran and its proxies attack Saudi territory, energy infrastructure, shipping routes, and regional partners. Israel has confronted the same network from another direction.

There is an obvious strategic logic here.

Saudi Arabia brings regional weight, geography, resources, and leadership in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Israel brings intelligence, technology, operational experience, and military capabilities that have already imposed enormous costs on Iran's military infrastructure.

Those strengths complement each other.

The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and other American partners can help connect the two sides. Pakistan and Turkey bring additional military weight and strategic depth.

What is missing is not capability. It is connectivity, and the critical expertise Israel can contribute to the wider effort to contain the Iranian regime.

The American Opportunity

For Washington, this should be an attractive idea. President Trump has consistently asked America's allies to do more for their own defense while supporting wider normalization between Israel and the Arab and Muslim worlds.

These objectives reinforce each other.

The United States should not have to carry every regional security burden itself. Its greatest advantage is its ability to connect capable partners that already share many of the same threats.

A regional system linking Israel, Saudi Arabia, Gulf partners, Turkey, Pakistan, and the United States makes strategic sense from almost every angle.

And it would send Tehran a very different message: pressure against one American partner will not isolate that country. It will bring America's partners closer together.

The Middle East has spent too many years allowing political disagreements to prevent obvious strategic cooperation.

That approach has benefited Iran.

But the Mecca agreement gives the region an opportunity to think differently.

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey have decided that deterrence requires greater coordination. But if this grows into something larger, the strategic question will become unavoidable:

Can a serious regional architecture designed to deter Iran afford to leave Israel outside the room? I do not believe it can.

For the objectives of the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement, Israel is part of the answer—not a problem to work around.