Is Saudi Arabia turning to Israel for help against Houthi attacks despite its new defence pact?

Recent reporting says yes — at least on the intelligence front. Diplomatic sources cited separately by Israel Hayom, Walla, and The Jerusalem Post say Riyadh has sought intelligence assistance from Israel through U.S. Central Command as Houthi forces advance along the Red Sea coast, seize strategic islands including Perim, and strike Saudi cities, airbases, and oil infrastructure. Reuters, citing three sources familiar with the matter, separately reported that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has appealed to Washington directly for military assistance. Neither Riyadh nor Jerusalem has confirmed either report on the record.

It’s worth being precise about scope: the reporting describes intelligence-sharing and threat-mapping support, not Israeli military intervention, airstrikes, or a troop presence. That distinction matters. A request for ISR support is a far lower-cost, more easily deniable ask than anything requiring a political decision from treaty allies — which is itself part of why this channel may have been easier for Riyadh to use than Mecca or its existing bilateral arrangement with Pakistan. It’s also not a new channel.

Quiet Saudi-Israel security and intelligence coordination over shared concerns about Iran predates the Mecca pact by years; this looks like continuity of an existing back-channel under acute pressure, not a new dynamic caused by the Mecca framework’s shortcomings.

The pressure is real and multi-fronted. Houthi forces completed their seizure of Perim Island on September 12, closing the last of Saudi Arabia’s functioning oil export corridors a day after drone strikes knocked out the Petroline pipeline, while the Strait of Hormuz remains effectively restricted by the wider US-Iran conflict. Crude has pushed past $100 a barrel. This is a simultaneous, multi-chokepoint emergency, not an isolated strike — and that scale helps explain why Riyadh reached for the fastest available channel rather than waiting on any single partner, old or new.

Saudi Arabia has also asked Britain, Egypt, and other Gulf states for support. CENTCOM commander Adm. Brad Cooper was sent to the kingdom to assess the situation and step up intelligence and targeting assistance, though Washington has been cautious about direct strikes.

This has prompted sharp questions about the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement signed on August 7, 2026 by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan. If the three countries just created a NATO-style pact that treats an attack on one as an attack on all, why is Riyadh looking to Jerusalem instead of Ankara and Islamabad? It’s a fair question, and it deserves a fuller answer than “the pact is too new” — because Riyadh isn’t only bypassing the newest, least-formed leg of its security architecture. It has older, more operational tools sitting unused as well, and it may be seeking a capability its Muslim-world partners aren’t positioned to supply at all.

READ: Houthis claim large-scale missile, drone attack on King Khalid Air Base in Saudi Arabia

Idle tools, plural

Under the 2025 Saudi-Pakistan Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement — which the Mecca pact builds on rather than replaces — roughly 8,000 Pakistani troops, along with fighter jets and an air-defense system, are already deployed inside the kingdom. That is a functioning, bilateral, battle-ready arrangement, not a six-week-old framework still drafting its procedures. Riyadh isn’t activating it for this crisis either. If institutional immaturity fully explained the choice to approach Israel instead of its treaty partners, the existing SMDA deployment would be the obvious first call. It hasn’t been.

More strikingly, Saudi Arabia doesn’t even need Mecca to have a multilateral, Houthi-specific coalition on hand — it already built one, and earlier.

On July 30, three weeks before Mecca was even signed, Riyadh launched the Multinational Maritime Defence Alliance, a 14-nation coalition explicitly created to protect the Red Sea, Bab al-Mandab, and the Gulf of Aden from exactly this threat.

Its founding signatories include both Pakistan and Turkey by name, alongside Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and others. So Riyadh has three separate channels available for this specific crisis — a bilateral troop deployment, a purpose-built multilateral maritime coalition that already includes its two Mecca partners, and the Mecca pact itself — and it is bypassing all three for a discreet, CENTCOM-mediated approach to Israel. That pattern says less about any single framework’s immaturity and more about what Riyadh actually wants: an intelligence capability it apparently doesn’t believe its regional partners, individually or collectively, can supply, obtained without the political exposure of publicly activating any of the three.

A capability question, not only a readiness one

Part of the answer may simply be that Ankara and Islamabad can’t offer what Jerusalem can. Israel’s outreach follows a demonstrated intelligence and ISR track record in exactly this kind of maritime environment — it has already built layers of intelligence on Iranian naval positioning around the Strait of Hormuz for the United States. Neither Turkey nor Pakistan has shown a comparable capability in the Red Sea/Bab al-Mandab theater specifically, even as founding members of the Maritime Defence Alliance. Treating “help from a Mecca or MMDA partner” and “the intelligence Israel is offering” as interchangeable goods overstates what either regional framework would even solve here.

There is also a structural reason for Ankara and Islamabad to stay out of it — one sharper than simple institutional immaturity. Pakistan’s army chief flew to Tehran even as the Mecca pact was being finalized, and Turkey maintains real economic and energy ties with Iran; activating a Sunni-led operation against an Iran-aligned actor would cut against both countries’ stated strategy of hedging rather than choosing sides. For Pakistan specifically, there’s an added domestic constraint:

Islamabad has no diplomatic relations with Israel, and Israel is deeply unpopular at home. Any hint of coordination adjacent to Saudi-Israel intelligence-sharing — even indirect, even unconfirmed — would be politically costly for a government that now also leads the Mecca secretariat. Staying visibly uninvolved isn’t just prudent; for Islamabad, it’s close to mandatory.

A pact still writing its own rules — and not yet law everywhere

The Mecca Joint Defense Agreement is barely six weeks old. Its first institutional meeting took place in Istanbul on August 31, where the three founders agreed to establish a secretariat in Saudi Arabia — to be headed initially by a Pakistani secretary-general for three years — and gave the grouping a formal name, the Mecca Defense Alliance. A Strategic Political and Defense Committee was created to steer implementation. That is the extent of the institutional architecture so far; the agreement does not establish a joint command, standing forces, or a specified trigger mechanism, and its full text has not been made public.

READ: Satellite images show damage to Saudi fuel depot, military site after Houthi attacks

More concretely than that general immaturity, a senior Turkish official told Middle East Eye that Ankara will only submit the agreement to its own parliament “possibly in October” — meaning the pact may not yet carry binding domestic legal force in Turkey at all, several weeks after signing. As the official put it, “people don’t want to understand but what we founded is not only a security alliance but actually an international organisation.” That is a genuine legal gap, not merely a political one, and it undercuts any expectation that Ankara could have moved militarily even if it wanted to.

A Pakistani Foreign Office spokesman said in early September that “significant work lies ahead to finalise the organisation’s structure, mechanisms, and procedures.” Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has said the three founders must first set principles and standards before the arrangement can be considered mature, adding that expansion — Egypt, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Bangladesh have all been floated as candidates — will come later, once the founders finish the rulebook. That the pact is still recruiting members rather than operating as a closed, functioning bloc is itself a sign of how early-stage this remains.

In other words, the Mecca Accord is a political declaration plus the first scaffolding of an institution that, in at least one signatory capital, hasn’t finished becoming law. It is not yet a functioning military alliance with standing procedures for rapid joint action.

NATO itself did not rush in

The NATO comparison is useful precisely because it undercuts the demand for instant action. NATO has 75 years of integrated command, detailed Article 5 procedures, and a history of operations. Even so, NATO as an alliance did not enter the recent U.S.-Iran fighting as a unified combatant force; many members emphasized de-escalation instead. If a mature, battle-tested alliance did not automatically join a major war at its most powerful member’s request, it is unreasonable to expect a six-week-old pact — one still awaiting ratification in one of its three capitals — to launch strikes on the Houthis.

Collective-defense clauses rarely work like a fire alarm. They require a request from the attacked party, consultation among members, and a political decision on the form of assistance. Houthi attacks also raise a definitional question the founders have not answered in public: does a campaign by a non-state actor against infrastructure and shipping constitute the “armed attack” the pact’s language contemplates?

What the Accord is for

The Mecca arrangement is better understood as an attempt to build a longer-term regional security architecture among three countries that already had deep bilateral ties, not as a rapid-response mechanism. It signals that Riyadh, Ankara, and Islamabad want more options than exclusive reliance on any single external power — a project measured in years, not days.

None of this makes the optics costless. Even granting the institutional and capability explanations, Riyadh reaching toward Israel while three separate frameworks with Ankara and Islamabad — a bilateral deployment, a maritime coalition, and the Mecca pact itself — sit unused still costs Turkey and Pakistan something in credibility.

A security guarantee that isn’t invoked when the guarantor needs help quietly raises the question of what it’s actually for. It’s also worth remembering that the entire premise rests on unconfirmed reporting from outlets with their own interest in signaling warming Gulf-Israel ties; if Riyadh or Jerusalem denies it outright, the underlying question changes considerably.

The right test of the Mecca Accord isn’t whether Turkish or Pakistani jets flew this week. It’s whether Turkey completes parliamentary ratification, the secretariat finalizes the charter and decision-making procedures still under discussion, and the three countries follow through on the defense-industrial cooperation and joint-exercise agenda set out at the Istanbul meeting. Those are the milestones to watch over the coming months — not this week’s silence.

OPINION: Sovereignty without consent: Afghanistan’s Taliban and the limits of control

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.