Josh Marshall highlights a story that is more important than the attention I've seen attached to it. Turkey and Pakistan seem to be committing troops to help protect Saudi Arabia. Turkey and Pakistan have...complicated relationships with Iran. In both cases there are minority ethnic groups (Kurds and Baluchis) that cross the respective borders with Turkey and Pakistan. There's a universe where those countries work with Iran to suppress separatists sentiments. Yet, they are likely following Saudi money to be effectively hired mercenaries to defend the House of Saud.
Now, I think Houthi control of the Bab al-Mandab is a global red line. Iran and it's proxies cannot control both straits. That simply cannot be allowed to happen. Having Turkey and Pakistan step up is promising from that perspective.
The subtext of this is that the US cannot be relied upon. After all the bribes and emoluments that the Gulf States have poured into Trump's sweaty palms, the US under Trump is simply not a reliable security partner. We have fully embraced the Putin-esque theory of Great Power autonomy. We will act in our interests and no one else's. We will sabotage alliances for short term - very short term - gains.
Historically, when a country hires foreign nationals to underpin their domestic security, it doesn't always go the way they planned. People will fight and die for their own people, but not necessarily for others. Also, if you've proven you can't defend yourself, what's to stop the mercenaries from deposing you? I am not saying that will happen, but there is a history of it happening.
The central theory underpinning the Pax Americana has been the idea of interlocking relationships - usually but not always with the US at the hub. NATO and SEATO are two concrete examples, but so it the World Bank, the IMF and even the UN, despite the US's complicated role there. We developed relationships through USAID, the CDC and a host of NGOs. We helped create the institutions that would lead to the European Union. At every step until Trump, the US had at least acknowledged the benefit of having more friends than enemies and trying to bring enemies to the table to become friends.
Take admitting China to the WTO. It may not have worked, but it was an honest effort to shape China into a responsible member of the world community. If anything it worked too well, as China is now surpassing us as the "essential country" even if they have not embraced political liberalism.
The situation with the Mecca Pact is a stark example of how the US is no longer at the center of a defensive architecture to prevent war. What's most worrisome is that this emerging multi-polar world is likely to be less stable than what preceded it. Iran and Ukraine's successful drone warfare has tipped the balance away from traditional militaries and traditional military strengths.(Lord knows colossal fuck up, Pete Hegseth, isn't going to fix that.)
Without drones, Iran could not hope to control the Straits of Hormuz against the US Navy, but now they can. How many other aspiring regional powers will make the same calculations? Will Argentina build drones to try and seize the Falklands again? What simmering dispute in sub-Saharan Africa will come to boil because one side has just enough money to create a drone force?
Great Power conflicts are unlikely - primarily because of nuclear weapons. However, Middle Power conflicts can eventually draw in Great Powers against their will. An unstable world is a dangerous world, and the fact that the US has withdrawn from its stabilizing role is deeply concerning.