The deeper significance of the Makkah Agreement lies not simply in its provisions, but in what it represents: the erosion of confidence in the existing Middle Eastern order and its security architecture, and the search for an alternative. The agreement reflects a growing recognition that regional security cannot be left entirely dependent on an externally guaranteed order. It may therefore be viewed as part of an emerging multipolar regional security architecture that is likely to extend beyond bilateral or trilateral defense arrangements. The previous order was increasingly shaped around an Israel-centred regional security architecture, with the Abraham Accords serving as a key component of this strategic vision by promoting Arab-Israeli normalisation and creating greater space for Israel's integration into the broader Middle Eastern security framework. Yet the post-Cold War, US-led regional order failed to deliver lasting stability. At the same time, the Iran War has further reinforced perceptions of the limits of American deterrence, influence and capacity to lead the regional order.

What makes this agreement distinctive is the perception that it has emerged primarily from the strategic autonomy pursued by three regional powers, rather than from a security blueprint designed in Washington or Tel Aviv. The strategic logic of the US-led order in the Middle East broadly followed a sequential process: Arab-Israeli normalisation, Israel's deeper regional integration through the Abraham Accords, and the pursuit of stability within a US-led security architecture. The emerging order reflects a different set of regional dynamics and priorities: strategic autonomy, indigenous deterrence,........

© The Express Tribune