ProDentim Review
57 minutes ago
Tuesday, September 8, 2026
Candidates for that special place in Hell....
Four NY kids killed in grandma, mom’s murder-suicide were poisoned with allergy meds, kratom: report
What Is The Significance Of The Mecca Pact?
What Is The Significance Of The Mecca Pact?
America must rethink its policies and priorities in the volatile Middle East.
Last month, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan signed the Mecca Pact, a defense alliance moving toward autonomous security arrangements and away from America’s shield. President Donald Trump hailed the pact, saying the Middle East is coming together. Some analysts called it an incipient “Islamic NATO.” But there are far too many complexities, and events are still unfolding.
For one, the pact—though three years in the making—finally took shape after the joint U.S.-Israeli military action against Iran and the subsequent U.S.-Iran MoU, brokered by Pakistan. During the conflict, Iran did not spare refineries, civilian areas, or military targets across many Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, a longtime U.S. ally. It continues to obstruct shipping, battering the economies of these oil-producing countries.
America’s participation with Israel in the attack on Iran, which triggered a crisis that the Gulf countries had not provoked, has been viewed unfavorably. Since then, Saudi Arabia has hardened its stance against both Israel and Iran, which it sees as equally responsible for regional destabilization.
Before the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel and the subsequent retaliation, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MbS) was enthusiastic about an American defense deal, a civilian nuclear program, and recognition of Israel. That enthusiasm has waned, and after the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran, Riyadh is holding back on the Abraham Accords, which aim to establish diplomatic relations between Arab nations and Israel. Riyadh is also insisting on a solution to the Palestine issue.
Although MbS says he’s personally neutral on Palestinian nationhood, he acknowledges that it resonates emotionally with the Saudi people, especially the youth. Riyadh now characterizes Israel’s defensive war as “genocidal.” As for Riyadh recognizing the Jewish state—which predates Islam by 2,000 years—it seems impossible, since Islam’s most important leader would not want to be seen as violating Muslim identity and the aspirations of the global ummah.
At first glance, the Mecca Pact appears to be a Sunni alliance serving as a counterweight to both Israel and Shiite Iran. Saudi Arabia competes directly with Iran for regional hegemony. Yet inconsistencies and broader entanglements—chiefly stemming from belligerent Turkey and Pakistan—make the pact both an enigma and a potential trigger for nuclear conflagration.
The first inconsistency is that Saudi Arabia and Turkey have had a troubled relationship and have competed for influence in the Sunni world. During the 2011 Arab Spring, relations turned bitter when Ankara supported the protests. During the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar in 2017, Turkish troops tried to help Qatar break the blockade, which was seen as open hostility.
When Riyadh outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and declared it a terrorist group in 2014, Ankara supported and financed popular MB-inspired uprisings. The 2018 killing of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Ankara—allegedly by Saudi agents on MbS’s orders—was another flashpoint. From these lows, the two countries have moved toward rapprochement and a strategic alliance.
The second inconsistency is that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have a history of failing to honor defense agreements. The Mecca pact includes a clause similar to NATO’s Article 5, which provides for a collective response to an attack on a member. But it’s nebulous and unlikely to work in practice.
Despite the 2025 Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement between the two, Pakistan failed to assist Saudi Arabia when Saudi Arabia was attacked by Iran or the Houthis. Pakistan even sheltered Iranian aircraft during the recent Gulf conflict. Saudi Arabia, too, has kept its distance from Pakistan’s many skirmishes with India.
Since the Mecca pact, Saudi tankers, oil facilities, and a port it uses in Mocha, Yemen, have faced four attacks by Iran and the Houthis—on August 9, August 14, August 24, and September 3. Neither Turkey nor Pakistan came to Saudi Arabia’s aid. In fact, they haven’t even issued statements indicating they are prepared to respond. The U.S. immediately retaliated
The third inconsistency is that Turkey is an important NATO member, fielding the alliance's second-largest military after the U.S. and maintaining a military presence across three continents. It is difficult to fathom how it will balance commitments to both pacts. For the record, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have stated that the Mecca pact is not directed against any country, but all defense pacts, including NATO, make similar declarations.
The bigger problems the pact engenders are drawing India and China into the picture and expanding conflicts into South and Central Asia. This will increase the risk of nuclear war, since Pakistan, the only Islamic nuclear power, is waging a proxy war against India. Erdogan, too, aims to arm Turkey with nuclear bombs.
Alarmed by the pact, India has expressed concern that future strikes on terrorist training camps in Pakistan could prompt a more vigorous response, potentially involving participation by Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Already, Turkey has been supplying Pakistan with advanced weaponry and intelligence; since the pact, Turkish military transport flights to Pakistan have increased.
India imports 14% of its crude from Saudi Arabia and maintains a vital economic and energy partnership worth $43 billion. Both countries are working on the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC). Trade ties go back centuries, and 2.7 million Indians live in Saudi Arabia. So, India will leverage these factors with Riyadh or build counter-alliances, given that Pakistan continues to foster terrorism.
Both Pakistan and Turkey maintain strong ties with China. While Pakistan seeks to counterbalance New Delhi’s regional superiority through partnerships with Beijing, Erdogan seeks to leverage Chinese influence to align the Turkic nations of Central Asia into a strategic axis through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). China is Pakistan’s largest supplier of military hardware, providing fighter jets, missiles, and training, and has invested heavily in Pakistan’s infrastructure, including transport networks, industrial zones, energy and digital projects, and ports. The two countries also presented a five-point plan to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.
Erdogan, meanwhile, dreams of restoring to Turkey the glory of the Ottoman Empire, which at its peak spanned three continents. He views the West as an enemy, spurs illegal migration into Europe as a form of demographic jihad, hosts Hamas leaders, and seeks to unite the Islamic world against Israel and Zionism, which he calls a “radical, occupying, genocidal ideology.” He is building the army of Syria’s Islamist regime, led by Ahmed al-Sharaa, who fought with ISIS against U.S. forces in Iraq in 2003 and later joined an al Qaeda group.
Turkey has a long-standing rivalry with Iran but avoids military confrontation. Instead, it remains focused on establishing itself as the leading power in the Sunni world. In this soft-power contest rooted in ideological differences, history weighs in Turkey’s favor: for over 350 years, the Ottoman Empire was the custodian of Mecca and Medina; the House of Saud assumed control only in the 1920s, after World War I. Naturally, Erdogan remained at odds with Saudi Arabia until the Mecca Pact.
Saudi Arabia, with its oil wealth, prominent positions in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and, most importantly, its status as the spiritual center of Sunni Islam, has been steadily uniting Islamic countries into strategic alliances. It recently formed a maritime defense alliance with 14 countries, including Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan. There is speculation that Egypt, Qatar, and Kuwait may join the Mecca Pact.
Therefore, despite its fault lines, the pact—bearing the Saudi imprimatur and the symbolism of being signed in Islam’s holiest city—could achieve critical mass, compelling signatories to combine forces if an event is perceived as a major crisis. With so many countries involved, spanning a wide swath from Europe to South and Central Asia, including some major military and nuclear powers, the outcome could be catastrophic.
America must rethink its policies and priorities in the volatile Middle East.
The Unbearable Ignorance — And Arrogance — Of Ro Khanna
The Unbearable Ignorance — And Arrogance — Of Ro Khanna
A couple of weeks after successful entrepreneur Mark Cuban said that California’s “billionaire tax” would strangle the state’s economic future, California Rep. Ro Khanna, a lifetime politician, took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to tell people like Cuban that they don’t know nothin’ about birthin’ no new businesses.
Cuban, who’s been a prominent supporter of Democrats, warned that if California’s Prop 40 passes, “only idiot startup founders stay in Cali,” adding that “I will make NOT being in California a prerequisite for an investment.”
Khanna calls the tax, which would be a supposed one-time levy on the wealth – not income – of billionaires unfortunate enough to reside in California, “a pro-business measure” that “will deliver economic benefits for all.”
But in trying to defend the wealth tax, Khanna managed only to discredit the idea … and himself. Here’s the basic outline of his argument.
The 1950s show that we can tax the rich and still have growth. Khanna points out that the top marginal income tax rate then was 90%, and the economy thrived. Let’s leave aside the fact that those were income taxes, not taxes on wealth. But why limit the comparison to tax brackets? In the wonderful 1950s, federal spending accounted for just 15.3% of GDP (it’s 23% today). Nearly two-thirds of that money went to the military (it’s 13% today). There was no Medicare or Medicaid. No Education Department. No Environmental Protection Agency. Women accounted for less than 30% of the workforce. Jim Crow was still in force in the South. Hispanics accounted for only 2% of the population (it’s around 19% today), blacks 10% (now above 12%), and there were just 100,000 Muslims. Should we go back to those numbers as well to boost growth?
Rich people will keep working at higher tax rates. “Would any of them [referring to a few named billionaires] have worked less … if they had expected higher taxes?” Khanna didn’t actually ask any of the billionaires he names, but we know that Ronald Reagan once said that when his money from making movies hit the 90% income tax bracket, he’d stop making movies. “Why should I have done a third picture, even if it was ‘Gone with the Wind’? What good would it have done me?” Incentives matter. Any fool would know that.
Sustained innovation. Khanna then veers off into a confusing tangent about how “some societies generated sustained innovation while others fail” and that “inclusive institutions” (by which he presumably means socialist governments) do better than “extractive institutions” (free market capitalism). Well, let’s see. The U.S. has generated sustained innovation for 250 years that no other country has come close to matching in human history. The U.S. has almost four times as many Nobel Prize winners as the next in line, the United Kingdom, and 10 times as many as the left’s beloved Sweden. In 2020, the U.S. Patent Office issued more than 380,000 patents, a number that has been increasing consistently for decades (there were 66,000 issued in 1980). The only thing that can derail this innovation engine is the public policy that Khanna and his socialist brethren want to impose.
A healthier and better-educated workforce is good for business. Khanna says Prop 40 is pro-growth because it will “invest” in health care and education. We don’t disagree with his point that healthier and smarter workers are more productive. But the idea that more government spending on healthcare and public education will produce those results is fatuous. You need only to look at Khanna’s home state for proof. Spending for Medi-Cal (California’s version of Medicaid) has doubled in the past decade, while per-pupil spending has gone up some 70%. Yet Medi-Cal is plagued with doctor shortages, quality complaints, and is rife with fraud. The state’s reading and math scores are abysmal. And the businesses and families that supposedly benefit from these investments are fleeing the state in droves. Why should anyone believe that dumping still more taxpayer money into these programs will produce better results?
Shared prosperity. Khanna’s last point is that a wealth tax “supports a competitive market economy that can deliver on a promise of shared prosperity.” But, despite the endless braying on the left about income inequality, the U.S. already enjoys an unprecedented level of shared prosperity. Sure, there are lots of fabulously rich people in the country, but even the poorest 20% of Americans are richer than the average person in most European nations. California, which, as much as any state has pursued Khanna’s vision of “shared prosperity,” is struggling with the country’s highest unemployment rate, a mass outbound migration, crumbling infrastructure, high rates of poverty and homelessness, and is nobody’s model for a vibrant, healthy economy.
In the end, Khanna ends up making a strong case. He makes a strong case that he’s an economic illiterate who should never be anywhere near the levers of power.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
