[GaroweOnline] The United Nations ...an organization originally established to war on dictatorships which was promptly infiltrated by dictatorships and is now held in thrall to dictatorships... Support Office in Somalia (UNSOS) has issued a public tender seeking auctioneers to liquidate a vast inventory of equipment, signaling a potential wind-down of operations as the mission faces a critical funding cutoff from the United States.
The request for expressions of interest, published Aug. 6 on the UN Global Marketplace, seeks qualified firms to manage the "commercial sale" of assets ranging from vehicles and heavy construction machinery to medical laboratories and modular housing units.
The move comes as the UN prepares for the potential closure of its logistical support branch by Dec. 31, 2026. On July 1, the U.S. government formally notified the African Union ...a union consisting of 53 African states, most run by dictators of one flavor or another. The only all-African state not in the AU is Morocco. Established in 2002, the AU is the successor to the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), which was even less successful... that it would cease funding for UNSOS when the current mandate for the African Union Support and Stabilization Mission in Somalia (AUSSOM) expires at the end of the year.
Washington, which provides approximately 26% of the UNSOS budget, has signaled it will block any UN Security Council proposal to maintain the existing logistical funding mechanism for AUSSOM. Officials familiar with internal planning say staff has been warned to prepare for every eventuality, including a total office closure within the next five months.
Acting Head of UNSOS Qurat ul Ain Sadozai has described the situation as a critical juncture for the mission’s future in the country.
The planned sale has drawn immediate scrutiny from anti-corruption advocates, who warn that disposing of millions of dollars in assets in a high-risk environment lacks sufficient public oversight. Somalia remains tied with South Sudan ...a Moslem country located in the Horn of Africa. It is noted for its affinity for rule by ex- or current generals, its holy men, and for the oppression of the native Afro population by its Arab conquerors. South Sudan, populated mostly by the natives, split off from Sudan proper, which left North and South Darfur to be oppressed by the guys with turbans... at the bottom of Transparency International’s 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index.
Critics point to a 2025 internal audit by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) that identified significant systemic failures within UNSOS, including a 30% vacancy rate in the procurement section and incomplete records management regarding property disposal.
Civil society analysts in Mogadishu have noted that the auction notice provides no clear mechanism for independent monitoring, arguing that selling off mission infrastructure without transparency risks undermining public trust and could facilitate the illicit diversion of state-owned assets.
UNSOS is seeking firms with a physical presence in Somalia, valid licenses, and registration via the UN Global Marketplace (UNGM). The window for submissions is exceptionally brief; companies have until Aug. 11—just five days after the initial notice—to register their interest. The initial contract is set for three months, with three optional three-month extensions pending satisfactory performance. The UN reserves the right to cancel the requirement or split awards among multiple vendors.
High-level diplomatic discussions remain underway in New York, Addis Ababa, and Mogadishu as officials scramble to find a replacement funding model for AUSSOM. However,
some men learn by reading. A few learn by observation. The rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves... military planners warn that without the integrated logistical backbone provided by UNSOS, the African Union mission may become operationally unsustainable, potentially forcing a premature withdrawal of peacekeepers from the country.
[JtN] The city of McKinney, Texas, recently approved the construction of a new five-acre mosque, despite outcry by residents, including one Iranian-American citizen.
Eddie Isa, a self-proclaimed “Sharia law survivor," spoke to McKinney’s city council last week asking members not to allow the construction of the facility, which will include a sanctuary, classroom building and gymnasium.
“I’m here to tell you this is a dangerous ideology you’re allowing in your country,” he said. “Every country that is an Islamic country now used to be a Christian country,” he continued. “We were soft Christians and allowed them to come in, bring their Sharia law into our countries, and slowly kill us off left and right.”
The McKinney resident also cited the lack of separation between church and state within the Islamic faith as a reason for its incompatibility with the United States.
Today, there are 50 to 56 Muslim-majority countries in the world, 23-27 of which formally declare Islam as their official state religion in their constitutions.
“This is a bad idea, and you’re gonna regret listening to people like us who lived under Sharia law,” Isa warned.
Proponents of the facility, including the McKinney Islamic Association (MIA), labeled opposition as “anger,” “hate,” and “Islamophobia.”
The City Council voted unanimously on Tuesday to approve the facility, which will be located at the corner of Virginia Parkway and Crutcher Crossing, roughly three miles from the group’s current mosque.Texas has been a particular hotspot for Islam in recent years.
In 2025, Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott signed House Bill 4211 to ban “Sharia compounds” following public concern over a 402-acre Muslim community project in North Texas called EPIC City, which would have included housing, a mosque, a K-12 Islamic school, and retail spaces.
Abbott also ordered state and local agencies to investigate North Texas Islamic mediation groups, or “Sharia tribunals,” which he accused of attempting to override state and federal authority.
[IsraelTimes] Former Mosssd ...sees all, knows all, gets 'em all in the end... director Yossi Cohen speaks of having toured Iran’s Fordo uranium enrichment facility several times in the past.
“We toured the Fordo nuclear site many times in order to understand the site,” he is quoted by Hebrew media outlets as saying at the Galilee Forum in Safed, without saying when the visits were or who exactly toured the site.
“Its bombing by the Americans was the fulfillment of all my dreams,” he adds.
The site, along with the Isfahan and Natanz facilities, was severely damaged by US strikes during the 12-day war between Israel and Iran in June 2025.
Reports have said the 440 kilograms of highly enriched uranium stored in the facilities was buried, but Israel believes that Iran transferred some of it to the Pickaxe Mountain site after that war.
Cohen also states “that 60% enriched uranium is still far from a bomb,” appearing to contradict experts such as David Albright, who say 60% enriched uranium can potentially be further enriched to weapons grade in a matter of weeks or even days.
Cohen has spoken publicly about Mossad activity against Iran in the past. Days after stepping down as Mossad chief in 2021, he gave an extraordinary interview on Israeli television in which he provided details of such activity. He intimated that his agency blew up Iran’s underground centrifuge facility at Natanz, gave a precise description of the 2018 operation in which the Mossad stole Iran’s nuclear archive from safes in a Tehran warehouse, confirmed that Iran’s assassinated top nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh had been in Mossad’s sights for years, and said the regime needs to understand that Israel means what it says when it vows to prevent Iran attaining nuclear weapons.
Speaking on Ilana Dayan’s “Uvda” (Fact) documentary show on Channel 12, Cohen indicated that he was deeply familiar with Iran’s various nuclear sites, and said that, if given the opportunity, he would take Dayan to the underground “cellar” at Natanz, where, he said, “the centrifuges used to spin.”
[IsraelTimes] Israel suspects that two Arab states are plotting to attack Israel by lulling it into a false sense of security through fake diplomatic agreements, according to two separate reports published in the past day by the Kan public broadcaster and Channel 12.
According to the reports, the two countries — neither of which is identified by name — would sign diplomatic agreements with Israel to “anesthetize” the Jewish state and remove any unwanted scrutiny.
HTS Syria and ?? It won’t be Saudi Arabia, because they are still refusing to be seduced into formalizing anything. And it’s a little late for Egypt, which signed an actual, honest to God peace treaty, back in the day, for which Uncle Sugar still pays them beaucoup bucks every year to keep.
They would then be free to plan a major attack on Israel and launch it at a time of their choosing, having pulled the wool over Jerusalem’s eyes, the reports claim.
Hudna! Hudna! Hudna!
According to Channel 12, officials from one of the Arab states approached their counterparts in the other about the idea and encouraged it to join forces.
Mossad was listening closely, it appears…
The alleged plot appears to be modeled on the October 7, 2023, attack, the Kan public broadcaster reports, but would be on an even larger scale. Hamas, led by Yahya Sinwar, launched the deadly invasion after years of working to fool Israel into thinking it no longer desired armed conflict.
The reports come at a time when US President Donald Trump is openly pushing for more countries in the region to normalize relations with Israel by entering the Abraham Accords, first signed by the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain in 2020.
[IsraelTimes] Army Radio says premier approved rebuilding effort two weeks ago without telling public, despite Hamas remaining armed; PM’s office says it’s a UAE-backed temporary housing project
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz have quietly given the go-ahead for rehabilitation work to begin in southern Gazoo
...Hellhole adjunct to Israel and Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, inhabited by Gazooks. The place was acquired in the wake of the 1967 War and then presented to Paleostinian control in 2006 by Ariel Sharon, who had entered his dotage. It is currently ruled with a rusty iron fist by Hamas with about the living conditions you'd expect. It periodically attacks the Hated Zionist Entity whenever Iran needs a ruckus created or the hard boyz get bored, getting thumped by the IDF in return. The ruling turbans then wave the bloody shirt and holler loudly about oppression and disproportionate response... , despite vowing that reconstruction of the badly damaged Strip would only take place once the Hamas ..a regional Iranian catspaw,... terror group was disarmed, Army Radio reported Sunday.
The reconstruction work, which involves building infrastructure for the establishment of residential housing, is taking place in an area of eastern Rafah under Israel Defense Forces control, but near the Yellow Line that forms the frontier with Hamas.
According to the report, Netanyahu and Katz gave the green light two weeks ago, albeit without announcing the move, as the International Stabilization Force set to take control of parts of Gaza readied to deploy.
The report said that Gaza contractors and laborers will carry out the work after undergoing security checks.
In response, the Prime Minister’s Office said the work began months ago, as part of an Emirati-backed project for temporary housing "free of Hamas rule."
"As of now, the area has been cleared of terror infrastructure and tunnels," Netanyahu’s office told Army Radio.
The PMO also said electric, sewer and water infrastructure work will not be performed by Gazooks, and will be under IDF supervision.
In January, Netanyahu insisted that reconstruction in Gaza would be allowed only if Hamas first gave up its weapons, something it has refused to do thus far, though a recent US-proffered agreement, rejected by Israel, appeared to pave the way toward disarming the group.
"I am already hearing the statements that we will allow Gaza’s reconstruction before demilitarization," he said at the time. "That will not happen."
"We want Gaza to recover," she said.
MK Avigdor Liberman, who leads the hawkish opposition Yisrael Beytenu party, claimed in a post to X that "the reconstruction of Gaza is Netanyahu’s payment for his recent meeting with [US] President Trump, who really didn’t want to meet with him."
"Instead of eliminating Hamas, which is still armed, getting stronger and recruiting tens of thousands of terrorists, the October 7 Massacre Government is rebuilding the Strip and hiding it from the citizens of Israel," Liberman continued.
"This is the same ’conception’ that brought us October 7," he said, asserting that Israel’s security strategy had been premised on a mistake. "We have to be decisive."
[IsraelTimes] Jerusalem reportedly noted graves in Beirut and Sidon belonging to people whose relatives are now in Israel; Lebanon's Jewish community has shrunk to no more than a few dozen
Israel has requested the transfer of the remains of Jews buried in cemeteries in Leb ...The Lebs maintain a precarious sectarian balance among Shiites, Sunnis, and about a dozen flavors of Christians, plus Armenians, Georgians, and who knows what else?... to Israel as part of negotiations between Jerusalem and Beirut over a permanent agreement, according to a report on Monday.
The Israeli side has pointed to a large number of Jewish graves in Beirut and Sidon which belong to people who have relatives currently living in Israel, Hezbollah-affiliated Lebanese newspaper al-Akhbar reported.
Jews resided in Lebanon for centuries. Lebanon was the only Arab country whose Jewish population grew after the establishment of Israel in 1948, reaching around 10,000 people. But the community quickly dwindled after that, numbering in the low hundreds in the 1970s, and has since shrunk to just a few dozen at most today.
The issue was reportedly raised in the context of talks over Lebanese prisoners who were detained during the war in Lebanon and are being held in Israel, whose release Lebanon is demanding.
According to the report, Israel proposed transferring the remains from Lebanon as part of what it called a "civilian prisoner exchange deal," which would include the transfer of the remains and the release of only some of the detained Lebanese, excluding Hezbollah operatives.
The Saudi Asharq News TV station reported last week that the talks in Rome included a "legal" track which dealt with Lebanese prisoners held by Israel — separate from detained Hezbollah operatives.
The channel called the atmosphere on the issue "positive."
At negotiations in Washington in June, Israel and Lebanon agreed to a framework deal that involves the disarmament of Hezbollah, a gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon’s south and the deployment of the Lebanese army to the region, starting in test areas known as "pilot zones."
Last week the sides met for the seventh round of Washington-mediated talks since Hezbollah drew Lebanon into the Middle East war in March with rocket fire at Israel in support of its backer Iran.
Two days after the US and Israel attacked Iran ...a theocratic Shiite state divided among the Medes, the Persians, and the (Arab) Elamites. Formerly a fairly civilized nation ruled by a Shah, it became a victim of Islamic revolution in 1979. The nation is today noted for spontaneously taking over other countries' embassies, maintaining whorehouses run by clergymen, involvement in international drug trafficking, and financing sock puppet militias to extend the regime's influence. The word Iran is a cognate form of Aryan. The abbreviation IRGC is the same idea as Stürmabteilung (or SA). The term Supreme Guide is a the modern version form of either Duce or Führer or maybe both. They hate JewsZionists Jews. Their economy is based on the production of oil and vitriol... on February 28, Hezbollah fired at Israel in solidarity with Tehran. Israeli forces responded with aerial bombardments and a ground assault, seizing a strip of land extending about 10 km (6 miles) deep into southern Lebanon. More than a million Lebanese civilians were forced to flee their homes. Israel has been destroying significant terror infrastructure in the captured areas.
[IsraelTimes] Shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz fell to six yesterday, compared with a 10-day average of about 11 vessels, shipping data showed, amid fading hopes of a peace deal between the US and Iran.
Four commodity vessels, including two empty oil product tankers, entered the waterway, data from Kpler shows as of 0420 GMT. Two vessels — a small tanker laden with liquefied petroleum gas and another carrying residual fuels — exited the Strait, the data showed.
In pre-war days, about 130 to 140 ships typically transited the strait.
Yesterday, 25 vessels transited the Bab el-Mandeb Strait on the Red Sea, broadly unchanged when compared with the 10-day average of nearly 24 ships, Kpler data shows.
[TT] The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is preparing to remove nuclear material from a clandestine Syrian facility known as "Site 99." Axios reported late Monday, citing Israeli and U.S. officials, that the move follows a monthslong, previously unreported diplomatic effort by the Trump administration that averted a potential military escalation involving Israel, Syria, and possibly Türkiye.
Syria's Atomic Energy Commission confirmed Monday that an IAEA delegation will visit Damascus in the coming days, following the Axios report that the U.N. nuclear watchdog is preparing to extract material from the hidden site.
The material at the site, part of the former Al-Kibar reactor project developed under the Assad regime, includes yellowcake, a powder derived from uranium ore that can later be processed and enriched as part of a nuclear fuel cycle, along with other residue from the Al-Kibar site, according to Axios, which cited a U.S. official.
While the material cannot be used to build a nuclear weapon, officials said it could be used in a "dirty bomb," a conventional explosive device that disperses radioactive material to contaminate an area rather than produce a nuclear explosion.
Israel bombed the Al-Kibar reactor in 2007, largely destroying Syria's nuclear program at the time, though several research, development and storage sites remained, mostly inactive, according to Axios. After the fall of the Assad regime, the IAEA signed an agreement with Syria's new government allowing it to visit Al-Kibar and other sites tied to the country's past nuclear activity, Axios reported.
Iron-fisted ruler of Syria and occupied Lebanon 2000-2024, since then reportedly ruler of a spacious flat in Moscow. Before that he was a London ophthalmologist until his brother died in a car crash, after which he went through a crash course in how to be a Baathist dictator, which he passed with flying colours.
[TurkiyeToday]. A criminal court in Damascus on Tuesday sentenced former Syrian President Bashir Pencilneck al-Assad Despoiler of Deraa... to death in absentia after convicting him of premeditated murder, torture, arbitrary detention and crimes against humanity, the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported.
Assad's brother, Maher Assad, was sentenced to death in the same case after being convicted of premeditated murder, torture and incitement.
Additionally, the court sentenced Assad's maternal cousin, Atef Najib, to death for leading the security crackdown in the southern province of Daraa that helped spark the 2011 uprising and the civil war that followed.
The decision is the first issued under Syria's transitional authorities since they began trying former government figures in person and in absentia this year.
SYRIAN COURT'S FINDINGS
Judge Fakhr al-Din al-Aryan of the Fourth Criminal Court in Damascus stated that consistent witness testimonies firmly established Assad's role as "the highest decision-maker" who utilized state institutions to facilitate the atrocities. According to Al-Ikhbariya, the judge noted that the corroborating witness statements left no possibility of collusion or fabrication.
The court ruled that the crimes committed by the Assad government in Daraa in 2011 amounted to crimes against humanity. Consequently, the tribunal unanimously convicted the fugitive Assad of murder and incitement to murder, sentencing him to death. The broadcaster reported that the judge deemed Assad a "moral perpetrator" who bore ultimate responsibility for mobilizing the state apparatus to commit these crimes.
Separately, the court convicted Najib, a former Syrian army brigadier general who headed the Political Security Branch in Daraa province in 2011. He was found guilty of torture leading to death and premeditated murder, including "the intentional killing of children under 15."
Investigations and witness testimonies proved Najib’s direct involvement in interrogating detainees after the Daraa protests erupted. Furthermore, evidence showed that his Political Security Branch, alongside other security forces, stormed the Omari Mosque in Daraa. The judge added that, according to Najib’s own interrogation records, the former general had led the brutal security campaign against civilians known as "the trap."
The court described the acts attributed to Najib as "crimes against humanity" and handed down "the harshest punishment against him, which is the death penalty."
Al-Ikhbariya reported that the court decided to merge the penalties against Najib and carry out the most severe, the death sentence, and that the ruling against him is subject to appeal by cassation.
Amid tight security, Najib stood inside a cage wearing a prisoner's uniform as the judge read the sentence.
ASSAD'S FLIGHT TO MOSCOW
Assad and his brother Maher fled to Russia after insurgent forces marched into Damascus in December 2024. In the wake of the recent death sentences, the Damascus Criminal Court has ordered an international pursuit of both men.
Meanwhile, Najib, who was detained in January 2025, remains one of the highest-ranking former officials to face trial under the new transitional system.
These legal actions address a brutal, roughly 14-year conflict that left an estimated 500,000 people dead. The devastation of the war was severely compounded by the Assad regime's repeated deployment of chemical weapons against civilian populations, a practice that continued until at least 2018.
[IsraelAlma] A series of security incidents recorded in Syria and Lebanon in early August 2026 points to two phenomena that warrant monitoring:
ISIS Cell in Khan Arnabah: On August 9, Syrian Internal Security Forces announced the arrest of nine ISIS operatives in Khan Arnabah (approximately 5 km from the Israeli border) in Quneitra Governorate. The cell was engaged in stockpiling weapons, preparing and transferring explosive devices, and supporting the activities of ISIS cells in southern Syria.
The cell was headed by Musab Khalil al-Sheikh (مصعب خليل الشيخ), known as “al-Sini” (الصيني), a known ISIS operative who was linked to the organization’s infrastructure in southern Syria. The origin of his nickname is unknown, and no information has been found to date confirming that he is a foreign operative or an operative of Uyghur, Uzbek, or Chinese origin (whose facial features could be relevant to the nickname).
The significance of the exposure stems primarily from its location and the nature of the activity: Khan Arnabah is in the Quneitra area near the Israeli border, and the cell was engaged in operational and logistical infrastructure, rather than merely propaganda activity. ISIS continues to maintain infrastructure in southern Syria.
Weapons Smuggling from Syria to Lebanon: In parallel, several weapons-related incidents were recorded within a matter of days in Syria and along the Lebanese border.
Skipping to the end:
We are witnessing smuggling attempts every week. We know what has been seized, but we do not know what has not been seized. Syria continues to serve as a logistical space for transferring weapons to Lebanon, even under the current government and alongside its efforts to thwart such activity. For Iran and Hezbollah, the smuggling routes through Syria remain a significant component of their ability to preserve and rebuild the organization’s military capabilities.
[Rudaw] Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba "Autopen" Khamenei has appointed Hossein Taeb, the former head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Intelligence Organization, as head of the Corps' paramilitary Basij Organization, semi-official Iranian media reported on Monday.
The appointment of Taeb, whose name has been tied to human rights ...which are often intentionally defined so widely as to be meaningless... violations against dissidents and who is sanctioned by the US, comes shortly after Khamenei appointed Mohsen Rezaei, another controversial figure, as secretary of Iran's powerful security body, the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC).
The semi-official Mehr News Agency ...And if you can't believe Mehr News Agency who can you believe?... reported that Khamenei on Monday issued a decree appointing Taeb as head of the IRGC's Basij Organization, a volunteer paramilitary force and one of the five primary branches of the IRGC, whose forces have for years been widely deployed to suppress nationwide anti-government protests.
Khamenei detailed that Taeb's tasks include "expanding the culture of the Basij and the resistance" against the "Zionist [Israeli] and American arrogance" to "build a strong and united Iran ...a theocratic Shiite state divided among the Medes, the Persians, and the (Arab) Elamites. Formerly a fairly civilized nation ruled by a Shah, it became a victim of Islamic revolution in 1979. The nation is today noted for spontaneously taking over other countries' embassies, maintaining whorehouses run by clergymen, involvement in international drug trafficking, and financing sock puppet militias to extend the regime's influence. The word Iran is a cognate form of Aryan. The abbreviation IRGC is the same idea as Stürmabteilung (or SA). The term Supreme Guide is a the modern version form of either Duce or Führer or maybe both. They hate JewsZionists Jews. Their economy is based on the production of oil and vitriol... and safeguard the Islamic Revolution," as well as strengthening the intelligence organization by "enhancing necessary skills and training" and "utilizing modern technologies for people-based defense against enemy threats."
Taeb is widely regarded as one of the most controversial figures in Iran's security apparatus. During his tenure as head of the IRGC's intelligence organization, he built the agency into a power center rivaling Tehran's intelligence ministry, aggressively targeting political moderates, journalists and activists.
He was removed from his post in June 2022 following a series of high-profile intelligence failures. Taeb has also been sanctioned by the US, EU, and UK for human rights violations, chiefly his central role in suppressing the 2009 anti-government protests. Even after leaving his post, he remained an active hardline figure, continuing to push for tough security measures, anti-Western deterrence, and the targeting of political rivals.
Notably, the appointment of Taeb as head of the IRGC's Basij Organization comes less than a day after the Iranian supreme leader, on Tuesday, named Mohsen Rezaei - a veteran IRGC commander - as secretary of Iran's top decision-making body for national defense, foreign policy, and intelligence, the SNSC.
Rezaei, also a controversial figure both internationally and domestically, has drawn criticism for hawkish calls for aggressive military responses and, more recently, for urging Iran to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and close the strategic Strait of Hormuz - remarks often seen as threatening to Tehran's diplomatic efforts.
Posted by: trailing wife ||
08/11/2026 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[216 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited by Kirill Semenov
[REGNUM] Last weekend, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan signed a joint defense agreement in Mecca. The agreement, which took nearly two years and eight months to finalize, was hailed by Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan as a historic step toward creating a new regional security architecture.
Congratulations! I’m sure it will be as effective as the United Arab Republic (1958-1971, comprising Egypt and Syria until the Syrian army coup overthrew their socialist government in 1961 and withdrew, then Egypt kept the name another ten years until Anwar Sadat stopped pretending). There have been a number of equally successful confederations in the Arab world over the year, so the tradition is firm.
At the same time, its historical scale and prospects depend on whether the signatories can transform the political declaration into a sustainable mechanism and overcome accumulated mutual contradictions.
Much will depend on the willingness of the largest Sunni states to act together.
Indeed. I know how the smart money is betting, which is why Pakistan is trying to get them moving against Israel right now…
The final name of the new alliance has not yet been approved; currently, the options "Mecca Alliance" and "Mecca Defense Alliance" are being used.
According to Fidan, Egypt is a natural partner for the alliance members on all issues, and Cairo's accession is only a matter of time. There are still some technical issues that stand in the way.
Are there? How odd.
A General Secretariat, headquartered in Saudi Arabia, is planned to be established to manage the alliance. One of the key areas of work will be ensuring the interoperability of armed forces. This includes exercises and training, intelligence sharing, logistics, and the interoperability of weapons systems and communications.
Participants intend to devote special attention to the defense industry: cooperation in this area has become one of the main topics of discussion between the leaders of the three countries and involves the mutual use of technologies and the development of joint projects.
The key factor behind the signing of the agreement was the systemic vulnerability of the Sunni world, exposed by recent conflicts, particularly the US-Israeli war against Iran. Throughout this period, Sunni states became targets of external influence. They were neither party to the conflict, nor arbitrators, nor even observers with whom decisions were negotiated.
They were simultaneously influenced by Iran, whose missile program and network of regional proxies posed a constant threat to the monarchies' security, and Israel, whose aggressive actions aimed at redrawing the region's map, disregarding the interests of its Arab neighbors.
Sunni countries found themselves on the receiving end of foreign missiles as punishment for foreign actions. They were unable to respond, propose their own solutions, or present a consolidated position. They became objects of geopolitics, not its subjects.
It was precisely the desire to overcome this state that became the main motive for the creation of the new bloc: the three largest Sunni powers declared that from now on they intend to act, and not just react, to shape their own agenda, without adapting to that of others.
Fidan stated that regional states must gradually take responsibility for their own security. "External hegemons don't solve the region's problems; they only exacerbate them, and the cost is very high," the minister emphasized.
The historical context must also be taken into account. For a century, the Sunni world lacked a single decision-making center. Unlike the Shia world, where the Iranian doctrine of wilayat al-faqih ensures a vertical religious-political power structure, Sunni Islam did not develop a comparable institutional framework after the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924.
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt all claimed leadership at various times, but none of these states was able to secure its status as the undisputed center. The result was chronic fragmentation, which external players consistently exploited.
INCORRECT LABEL
The label "Islamic NATO" used in the global media in relation to the Mecca Agreement distorts the nature of the signed document and replaces its content with the exact opposite meaning.
The basis for this comparison was the formal similarity between Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and the corresponding clause of the Mecca Agreement. Technically, the agreement's mechanism does indeed correspond to NATO's principle of collective defense: any armed aggression against one of the three signatories is considered an attack on all, and the remaining countries are obligated to come to their aid with whatever means they deem necessary.
Fidan clarified that an attack on one of the participants does not automatically mean that other states will send troops. The country under attack will have to request the necessary assistance, which could include intelligence, logistical support, ammunition, and, if necessary, military units.
Specific decisions will be made by the bodies provided for in the agreement, namely, a unified political-military committee with the participation of the ministers of foreign affairs and defense, and the chiefs of the general staff.
However, the spirit of the Mecca Agreement, its political logic, internal structure, and strategic goals differ significantly not only from the North Atlantic Treaty but also from its Middle Eastern counterparts. Therefore, calling it an "Islamic NATO" is inaccurate.
It is enough to recall what exactly was meant by the “Middle Eastern NATO” project, which Washington has been promoting for several years.
The idea was to create a unified military alliance that would include Israel alongside the Arab states, with the United States providing strategic leadership and coordination. Washington wanted to institutionalize its dominance in the region through a multilateral structure, while simultaneously ensuring Israel's security through the Arabs themselves and deploying them together against Iran.
A "Middle East NATO" was intended to be a tool for entrenching an external presence, not regional independence. The Abrahamic Accords served as a political prelude to this construct: normalizing relations between several Arab states and Israel was seen as the first step toward the formation of an integrated security system in which Israel would occupy a central place.
Therefore, if we are to speak of a "Middle Eastern NATO," the fragments of this failed organization are the informal military alliances between Israel, the UAE, and Morocco. The Mecca Agreement is the antithesis of this model. It does not include Israel or the United States as a guarantor or coordinator.
Its very existence signifies that the "Middle Eastern NATO" project, as conceived by Washington, has failed. It is telling that the signatories of the Mecca Pact are precisely those states that rejected the logic of the Abrahamic Accords and have no intention of making compromises with Israel.
At the same time, in its internal structure, the Mecca Pact reveals a significantly greater similarity to the blocs of the First World War era—the Entente or the Triple Alliance—and, to an even greater extent, to 19th-century constructs: the Holy Alliance of 1815 or the Alliance of the Three Emperors.
What all these formations had in common was that they did not assume the existence of a single dominant center of power to which the other participants would submit in exchange for security guarantees.
On the contrary, it was about the agreement of several major powers to assume collective responsibility for the fate of a region or even an entire continent, while maintaining formal equality and sovereignty.
CENTER OF ATTRACTION
Nevertheless, it's clear that the main initiative belongs to Saudi Arabia. Of the three countries, it was the kingdom that was most exposed to external threats.
Houthi missile attacks, attacks on oil infrastructure, threats from Iran, and Israel's aggressive military policies, which are destabilizing the entire region, have all created a situation in Riyadh in which security ceased to be an abstract strategic objective and became an everyday reality.
In this regard, the union at the current stage should be viewed primarily as a group of countries ready to ensure the security of Saudi Arabia.
This doesn't diminish the pact's importance for Ankara and Islamabad, but it was Saudi Arabia's vulnerability that became the practical imperative that transformed the idea of collective defense from a theoretical possibility into a political necessity. Without the threat to the kingdom's security, this alliance would likely have remained a subject of expert debate for a long time, rather than a signed document.
The agreement could hypothetically include the deployment of Turkish and Pakistani armed forces in Saudi Arabia. It's worth remembering that such a presence is not unprecedented: during the Iran-Iraq War, between 15,000 and 20,000 Pakistani troops were already stationed in the kingdom.
Thus, the very idea of a foreign military contingent on Saudi soil has a historical precedent. The difference is that this support can now be formalized through treaty obligations, rather than limited to ad hoc bilateral agreements.
It is possible that the Turkish military presence will also take on an institutional form: Turkey already has experience deploying military bases in neighboring Qatar, and it is reasonable to assume that similar infrastructure could appear in Saudi Arabia, becoming an integral part of the new collective security architecture.
It is fundamentally important that in this case we will not be talking about overseas armed forces of non-Muslim states, as has been the case for decades with the American contingent in the region.
The armed forces of Islamic states will now also carry out the mission of protecting Muslim holy sites – Mecca and Medina.
In this context, the very location of the agreement's signing takes on symbolic significance. The fact that the pact was concluded in Islam's holiest city, and that it represents a bloc of Sunni countries striving for collective agency, leaves no doubt that this alliance has a distinct religious component.
Many experts and even representatives of the signatories themselves prefer to downplay or ignore this aspect, reducing everything solely to security pragmatism. However, completely ignoring the spiritual dimension of the Mecca Pact would be wrong.
LIMITS OF CONFRONTATION
Although the Mecca Agreement was signed against the backdrop of attacks by Yemeni Houthis and Iraqi Islamic Resistance on Saudi Arabian territory, it would be a serious oversimplification to reduce the content of this document to an anti-Iranian orientation.
Fidan emphasized that the agreement is not directed against any specific country, including Iran. "At this point, we do not have any common threat outlined in the document. We are making a commitment: from now on, we will closely protect each other's security," the minister explained.
Of course, Turkey and Pakistan will be willing to provide some assistance to the Kingdom in countering threats from Yemen or Iraq. However, this is neither the primary goal nor the primary objective of the agreement. Just as confrontation with the Islamic Republic of Iran or protecting Saudi Arabia from the Iranian threat do not constitute the strategic core of the Mecca Pact.
The Iranian factor is present in the signatories' calculations, but it does not determine the alliance's architecture. Neither Türkiye nor Pakistan views Iran as a strategic adversary.
It should also be borne in mind that all countries participating in the Mecca Agreement, as well as Egypt, acted within the framework of the so-called "Islamabad Four" and held multiple meetings at the level of foreign ministries, during which a consensus position was developed on the need to resolve all disagreements with Iran exclusively by peaceful means and bring Tehran and Washington to the negotiating table.
It is significant that even during the Iranian attacks, neither Saudi Arabia nor Pakistan considered it necessary to resort to force, despite the fact that a mutual defense agreement was already in effect between Riyadh and Islamabad.
Saudi Arabia itself, which was directly under attack, did not request Pakistan's protection. This indicates that Riyadh views Iran not as a site for military confrontation, but as an area for deterrence and diplomatic resolution.
On the contrary, the actions of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan during the recent 39-day war clearly demonstrate their reluctance to engage in a confrontation with Tehran. Ankara essentially sided with the Islamic Republic when Israel and the United States attempted to orchestrate an invasion of its territory by Kurdish militias.
Türkiye issued a harsh ultimatum, declaring that if Kurdish groups participated in the aggression, it would strike their bases, thereby effectively thwarting the attempt to open a second front against Iran.
Saudi Arabia, in turn, blocked the American operation Project Freedom, which Donald Trump intended to carry out against Iran. Over 100 US Air Force and Navy combat aircraft were ready to deploy to bases in the Persian Gulf, and the operation's goal was to forcibly secure shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
However, at the last minute, Saudi Arabia, whose airbases and airspace were critical to the operation's logistics, categorically denied the Pentagon access. Pakistan, meanwhile, openly denounced the actions of the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic as aggression.
It was precisely thanks to the joint efforts of this trio, along with Egypt, that the US-Iranian memorandum of understanding, which put an end to the active phase of the confrontation, became possible.
The head of the Turkish Foreign Ministry also admitted that in the future, Iran could participate in the formation of a regional security system after the existing contradictions are resolved.
"When Iran resolves its problems in the region and the need arises for its contribution to constructive regional policy and this collective sphere, its role will also be necessary," the minister said.
Thus, the signatories see the Mecca Agreement not as a tool for isolating Iran, but as a structure that, in the long term, could be open to all states in the region willing to engage constructively.
THE ISRAELI FACTOR
The trigger that launched the formation of the Mecca Pact was Israel's actions.
Turkey and Pakistan have long had serious grievances against the Jewish state. And these grievances have only deepened in the wake of the events around Gaza. The scale of destruction, the loss of civilian lives, and the systematic disregard for international law have transformed the Palestinian issue from a matter of diplomatic maneuvering into a factor of domestic political legitimacy for both Sunni republics.
Israel, for its part, has begun to openly view Turkey and Pakistan as hostile states. Moreover, the Israeli strategic establishment has come to believe that the threat posed by a consolidated Sunni world is potentially far greater and more dangerous than that posed by the Shiite axis.
Against this backdrop, Saudi Arabia was long perceived as a country ready to sign the Abrahamic Accords and normalize relations with Israel. However, here too, everything has changed.
For a long time, Riyadh viewed Israel through the prism of cold pragmatism, seeing it as a tactical ally against Iran. However, this paradigm collapsed when Israel shifted from a shadow war to its first direct aggression against Iranian sovereign territory.
So Israel is only ok when it can be waved about as a threat, but not when Israel does something to reduce or remove the problem? Kinky.
Unprecedented strikes demonstrated that the Israelis are willing to unilaterally provoke conflicts, ignoring the risks to their neighbors and disregarding the interests of regional countries.
The Saudi establishment experienced genuine shock after Israel's strikes on Qatar. Riyadh immediately projected this attack onto itself, recognizing the new emerging reality: the Jewish state could strike any country it perceived as a threat. Against the backdrop of the kingdom's growing ambitions and its desire for regional leadership, which could alarm Israelis, the risks of Israeli aggression ceased to be a mere hypothesis.
And persistent calls to join the Abrahamic Accords as a guarantee of non-aggression were perceived in Riyadh as an attempt to draw it back into the orbit of foreign interests. It was after the Israeli attack on Qatar that the defense pact between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan was concluded, which became the prelude to the Mecca Accords.
Israel's Syrian policy was no less alarming for the House of Saud. Its actions against the new Syrian authorities and its efforts to maintain its status as a failed state were perceived as a direct challenge to Saudi interests. Riyadh hoped to turn a renewed Damascus into a regional stronghold and, through it, return to Lebanon, restoring its lost influence there.
The destabilization of Syria was seen as only the first link in a far-reaching Israeli strategy: chaos would inevitably spread to Iraq through the provocation of sectarian conflict, and through the targeted use of the Kurds and Baloch, to Iran.
As a result, the kingdom risked finding itself caught between two arcs of instability, each capable of spilling over into its territory at any moment. This was a scenario in which Saudi security would be held hostage to someone else's strategy of managed chaos.
Such concerns fueled the search for an autonomous strategic umbrella. Islamabad offered Riyadh what Washington could not: nuclear potential and the largest army in the Islamic world, independent of American political considerations. Thus was born the Saudi-Pakistani axis, which became the foundation of a new security architecture in a context where former partners had become sources of direct threat.
The process was not limited to a bilateral format. The next trigger was Israel's expansion into the Horn of Africa. Attempts to gain a foothold in Somaliland, which Israel alone recognizes, and to gain access to the ports of the Gulf of Aden were aimed at controlling the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
For Saudi Arabia, this posed a threat to its western maritime flank and Red Sea projects.
Why? Is there some reason that Israel would feel a need to turn against Saudi Arabia, when they have quietly got along for a couple of decades now?
For Turkey, which had invested colossal resources in its military base in Mogadishu, the emergence of a new player was an unacceptable challenge. The convergence of Saudi concerns and Turkish ambitions paved the way for Ankara to join the bloc, bringing advanced military technology and NATO standards to the bloc.
The final blow came with events in Yemen, where Riyadh watched the actions of the Southern Transitional Council (STC) with growing irritation. With direct support from the UAE, STC separatists began advancing into Hadramaut province, which shares a long border with Saudi Arabia, driving out pro-Saudi forces.
The kingdom's strategists clearly saw "Israeli ears" in this activity. The Jewish state, acting as "number two" in the shadow of Abu Dhabi, intended to establish a network of intelligence and logistics hubs in the kingdom's southern underbelly and the Socotra Archipelago. For Riyadh, this meant an attempt to pin the peninsula, exploiting Arab tensions to create a perimeter of containment.
Ultimately, a classic security dilemma played out. By seeking to preemptively eliminate any threats and keep its neighbors in a state of permanent weakness, Israel achieved the exact opposite strategic effect. It forced three competing powers to overcome their mutual friction and unite.
Turkey provided the coalition with technology and military expertise, Saudi Arabia with finances and control of the straits, and Pakistan with nuclear deterrence. Israel, attempting to ensure its absolute security by force, provoked the creation of a bloc that is now viewed as the main source of instability from the Middle East to the Indian Ocean.
Back in February 2026, when the alliance's outlines were just beginning to emerge, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outlined a plan for a so-called "axis of nations" that would counter the consolidation of Muslim states. "We have a serious interest in creating our own axis—an axis of states that oppose both axes of radical Islam," Netanyahu declared.
Realizing that local methods would not be enough to deal with the new bloc, Netanyahu announced the creation of a global counter-coalition: “In the long term… we will create an entire system – a kind of hexagon of alliances… including India, Arab countries, African states, Greece, and Cyprus.”
Netanyahu's concerns were fully shared by former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who in the same February 2026 sounded the alarm, pointing out Israel's main vulnerability to the new alliance: "Turkey is trying to turn Saudi Arabia against us and create a hostile 'Sunni axis' with nuclear Pakistan."
For Israel, the phrase "nuclear Pakistan," coupled with Turkish ambitions and Saudi finances, sounds like a death sentence for its monopoly on strategic dominance in the Middle East. Much can be made of the fact that the Mecca Agreement itself isn't directed against Israel, but Israel doesn't see it that way, perceiving the alliance as the primary, existential threat.
Israeli concerns were heightened by Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif : speaking after the signing of the agreement, he called Israel a threat to all Islamic states and called for unity. He emphasized, "Normalizing relations with Israel offers no benefit to Muslims. Solidarity with the Palestinians is one of the most important principles of Islamic policy."
A VIEW FROM MOSCOW
Moscow approaches the formation of a new security architecture in the Middle East with healthy pragmatism, and the Russian side certainly has certain doubts and objections.
The formation of such a powerful military-political bloc, possessing nuclear potential (thanks to Pakistan), colossal financial resources (Saudi Arabia) and advanced military technologies (Turkey), creates a new, extremely ambitious and independent player on the southern borders.
Ankara, despite all the rhetoric about strategic autonomy, remains a member of NATO, and the strengthening of its influence could lead to increased competition with Russia in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Black Sea.
Moreover, the concentration of such military power always carries the risk of unintended escalation: even an essentially defensive alliance could provoke a new arms race and the hardening of fault lines, potentially affecting Russian security interests, requiring Moscow to exercise extreme diplomatic flexibility.
However, despite these risks, from Russia's perspective, the emergence of the Mecca Alliance largely serves its long-term strategic interests. The formation of a new, powerful center of power fits seamlessly into Russia's concept of a multipolar, or more accurately, polycentric, world.
Moscow consistently advocates for a global architecture based not on the hegemony of a single state, but on a balance of several independent poles, each with a sovereign voice. In this context, the desire of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan to assume responsibility for their region's security represents an unprecedented bid for genuine regional sovereignty.
Fidan's statement, citing external hegemons as the source of exacerbating regional problems, resonates entirely with Russian diplomatic doctrine. Russia has long promoted the idea of creating indivisible and equal security, in which regional states negotiate with each other rather than wait for instructions from overseas.
The Mecca Pact clearly demonstrates that the era when the Greater Middle East was just a chessboard for Washington strategists is irrevocably a thing of the past.
Regional players are no longer content to play the role of extras and are now shaping their own agenda, relying on their own resources and institutions.
Following the 39-day war between Israel and the United States against Iran and the subsequent series of upheavals, the region found itself in a state of profound imbalance. The United States, which had served as the Arab monarchies' security guarantor for decades, not only failed to prevent the escalation but also became its source, leaving behind a gaping vacuum in the security architecture.
The Mecca Pact aims to fill this vacuum by restoring internal equilibrium among regional powers. It allows countries in the Middle East to maintain strategic balance after external interference destroyed the previous system of checks and balances.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
...a Moslem country located in the Horn of Africa. It is noted for its affinity for rule by ex- or current generals, its holy men, and for the oppression of the native Afro population by its Arab conquerors. South Sudan, populated mostly by the natives, split off from Sudan proper, which left North and South Darfur to be oppressed by the guys with turbans...
...sees all, knows all, gets 'em all in the end...
..a regional Iranian catspaw,...
...The Lebs maintain a precarious sectarian balance among Shiites, Sunnis, and about a dozen flavors of Christians, plus Armenians, Georgians, and who knows what else?...
Despoiler of Deraa...
...a theocratic Shiite state divided among the Medes, the Persians, and the (Arab) Elamites. Formerly a fairly civilized nation ruled by a Shah, it became a victim of Islamic revolution in 1979. The nation is today noted for 
