The signing of the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement by Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan has opened a new chapter in the security politics of the Muslim world. Signed in Mecca on August 7, the agreement declares that an armed attack on one member will be treated as an attack on all. Though its architects insist that it is defensive and directed at no particular country, the pact inevitably raises a larger question. Why is Egypt, one of the Arab world’s most important military and political powers, not a founding member? The answer is less about Egypt being excluded and more about Cairo’s longstanding preference for strategic autonomy.
Egypt is hardly an outsider to the emerging security arrangement. Turkiye’s foreign minister has even identified Egypt as a potential future member, while Turkiye, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt already cooperate in the informal “R4” grouping. The door, therefore, appears to remain open. But joining a mutual-defence pact is a far more consequential step than participating in diplomatic consultations. An agreement based on the principle that an attack on one is an attack on all can create military obligations that may conflict with a country’s existing alliances, diplomatic priorities and national interests. For Egypt, this is particularly important. Cairo has traditionally sought to preserve room for manoeuvre between competing regional and global powers. Its armed forces are among the most significant in the Arab world, while its strategic geography controlling the Suez Canal and bordering both Libya and Gaza gives it interests that are broader than those of any single regional bloc. Egypt also has a complicated relationship with Türkiye. Relations between Cairo and Ankara deteriorated sharply after the 2013 overthrow of Mohamed Morsi, whose Muslim Brotherhood government had enjoyed Turkish support. Although relations have improved considerably since 2022, important differences remain. A recent academic study notes that the relationship moved from serious confrontation to rapprochement, but that Egypt’s regional policy continues to be shaped by security concerns and its relationship with Saudi Arabia and the United States.
It would therefore be premature to assume that Cairo is ready to place its defence policy inside a framework in which Türkiye plays a central role. There is another consideration. Egypt does not need a new security identity to establish its regional importance. It already possesses substantial military capabilities, longstanding defence relationships and considerable diplomatic influence. Cairo has historically preferred bilateral arrangements and flexible coalitions rather than binding itself permanently to a single regional military architecture.
The timing of the Mecca pact also matters. The agreement comes amid severe regional instability and heightened tensions involving Iran. Although the signatories insist that the pact is not directed against Tehran, analysts naturally view it through the prism of the wider regional confrontation. Egypt may therefore be reluctant to join an arrangement that could be interpreted as part of an emerging anti-Iran or anti-Israel bloc. Cairo has its own calculations regarding Gaza, the Red Sea, Libya, Sudan and the wider Arab order. It cannot afford to have its foreign policy reduced to the strategic priorities of another coalition. There is also a question of institutional clarity. The Mecca agreement is significant, but it is not yet a fully developed NATO-style alliance. Its precise military commitments and operational mechanisms remain to be worked out, and Turkish officials have said that further details will be discussed by a ministerial committee. For Egypt, waiting may therefore be wiser than rushing in.
Cairo can observe how the pact develops, assess its credibility and determine whether membership would genuinely strengthen Egyptian security. If the agreement evolves into a broader regional defence mechanism with clear rules and responsibilities, Egypt may eventually find membership attractive. If it becomes primarily an instrument of rivalry among regional powers, staying outside may prove the better choice.
The absence of Egypt should consequently not be read as a rejection of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Türkiye. Nor should it be interpreted as evidence that Egypt has become irrelevant to the emerging regional order. Egypt’s decision to remain outside for now may reflect its recognition that strategic independence is itself a form of power. In a Middle East increasingly defined by shifting alliances, Cairo may prefer to keep every door open rather than lock itself behind one. The Mecca pact may grow. Egypt may eventually join it. But for now, its cautious distance appears deliberate and given the uncertainties surrounding the region, strategically understandable.
49
