At first glance, the Mecca Agreement between Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan marks a significant development in the regional security landscape. Its principle of “collective defense”, under which an attack on any one of the three parties is treated as an attack on all, would naturally raise concerns among other regional players, particularly Iran. Yet Iranian assessments of the alliance, reflected in media coverage and statements from circles close to decision-making centers in Tehran, are far more nuanced. They range from viewing the pact as a regional attempt to reduce strategic dependence on the US to concerns that any security arrangement around Iran’s borders could ultimately serve to contain it. Iran also has serious doubts about the agreement’s operational viability, given the major differences in the security approaches and strategic interests of its three signatories. Tehran’s response has followed two parallel tracks, reflecting a clear division of roles among its decision-making centers. Diplomats have adopted a cautious tone, while parliamentarians and military circles have been more outspoken. Diplomatically, Iran has sought to avoid escalation, describing the agreement as a reflection of changing regional perceptions that are not necessarily directed against Tehran. Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said at his weekly news conference on Monday that Iran’s policy was to encourage regional states to build mutual trust and achieve “autonomous security” without relying on actors from outside the region. The apparent contrast in Iran’s responses appears to be part of a deliberate foreign policy tactic. Parliament, where security and military concerns have gained prominence, has taken a harder line. Ibrahim Rezaei, a member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, warned that “ink on paper with Türkiye and Pakistan” could not provide a security umbrella. He recalled Saudi Arabia’s “absolute reliance on Washington” and its failure to deter Yemeni missile attacks. Committee chairman Ebrahim Azizi likewise called the agreement an “ill-considered step” that would only fuel the region’s “fires of mistrust.” The apparent contrast in Iran’s responses appears to be part of a deliberate foreign policy tactic. It is sending two messages at once. Tehran wants to keep communication channels open with regional players, while warning that any alliance targeting Iran would face costs far beyond what a paper agreement could guarantee. For Iran, Saudi Arabia appears to be redefining its approach to security. After years of relying heavily on US security, recent regional developments have exposed what Gulf capitals perceive as the limits of Washington’s commitments. This has strengthened the view that exclusive reliance on the US is no longer sufficient. Iranian media have highlighted the same point. The government-linked ISNA news agency described the Mecca Agreement as one of the “clearest indicators” of a gradual move by Gulf states away from complete dependence on Washington. At the same time, many in Iran view the agreement as fragile and vulnerable to internal tensions. Mashregh News, which is associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, called it a “colored mirage” that appears “grand and cohesive” but is undermined by conflicting interests, strategic contradictions and a lack of clear mechanisms for implementation. The three countries may stand together in a political declaration, Iranian assessments argue, but a crisis would expose their separate priorities and make it difficult to turn a temporary convergence of interests into a durable defense commitment. From Tehran’s perspective, Saudi Arabia is primarily seeking stronger deterrence against surrounding threats, particularly to protect energy infrastructure and secure maritime routes. Pakistan, meanwhile, sees the alliance as a way to strengthen its deterrence against other actors, including India and even the Israeli occupation, rather than as a mechanism aimed specifically at Iran. Ultimately, Iran is taking the Mecca Agreement seriously without overstating its significance. Tehran recognizes it as part of a broader restructuring of regional security and a Saudi attempt to build supplementary security arrangements. Türkiye presents a more complicated case. Tehran views Ankara as a geopolitical competitor on several regional issues, while also recognizing its need for cooperation and balance with Iran on others. Iranian media have highlighted this tension as a key contradiction within the agreement. Iran’s official news agency quoted Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan as saying that “Iran is not the target of the Mecca Agreement” and that the alliance is “purely defensive.” Iranian coverage interpreted the need for a senior Turkish official to explicitly state that Iran was not being targeted as evidence that perceptions of the pact as an anti-Iran arrangement had dominated the discussion from the outset. Ultimately, Iran is taking the Mecca Agreement seriously without overstating its significance. Tehran recognizes it as part of a broader restructuring of regional security and a Saudi attempt to build supplementary security arrangements. At the same time, Iran is emphasizing the agreement’s internal divisions, unclear commitments and the differing objectives of its three members. For now, Tehran does not view the Mecca Agreement as an existential or immediate threat. Rather, it sees it as a development in the architecture of regional security that warrants close monitoring. This is an edited translation for an article published in Arabic.
