What’s Behind the $3.6 Billion Israel-Greece Defense Deal?

A multibillion-dollar Israeli air-defense package for Greece comes as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan begin to implement their new mutual-defense pact 

Greece and Israel are expected to sign a major air-defense agreement in Tel Aviv on Monday, bringing one of Athens’ largest military modernization projects closer to implementation at a moment when new security arrangements are rapidly taking shape across the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean.  

The agreement will advance Greece’s “Achilles’ Shield,” a multilayered air, missile and drone defense architecture designed to protect Greek territory and integrate several defensive systems under a common command network.  

Recent Greek reporting has valued the project at roughly €3.1 billion to €3.5 billion, while Israeli reporting on Sunday put the agreement to be signed at approximately $3.6 billion. Greek officials have also secured at least 25% participation for the domestic defense industry and provisions concerning access to source code. Delivery is expected within 35 months of the contracts entering into force.

The package is expected to include the Spyder air-defense system, Barak MX and David’s Sling, alongside radar and command-and-control infrastructure intended to provide protection against aircraft, ballistic missiles, drones and other emerging threats. The program forms part of Greece’s wider Agenda 2030 military modernization effort, under which Athens plans to invest tens of billions of euros in new capabilities over the next decade.  

Yet the significance of Monday’s signing extends beyond the weapons themselves.  

On the same day, senior officials from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are due to gather in Istanbul for the first high-level meeting under the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, signed by the three countries on August 7. The accord establishes a collective-defense principle under which an armed attack against one signatory is considered an attack against all three. Officials are expected to begin discussing interoperability, defense production, and mechanisms for implementing the agreement.   

The parallel developments do not amount to the creation of two equivalent military blocs. But they expose an increasingly multipolar security landscape in which states from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean are strengthening overlapping defense, technological and economic partnerships as uncertainty over regional conflicts and the future role of the United States pushes governments to diversify their strategic options.  

For Greece, the calculation remains heavily influenced by Turkey.  

Panayotis Tsakonas, Professor of International Relations, Security Studies and Foreign Policy Analysis at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and Senior Research Fellow and Head of the Foreign Policy and Security Programme at the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy, ELIAMEP, said Athens continues to view its relationship with Ankara as the central question shaping its security policy.   

“But well, I assume Greece seems to be preoccupied, still preoccupied with how things would develop with relations with Turkey, which seems to be the major security concern for Greece for more than five decades. There are ups and downs, but the threat is there.” Tsakonas told The Media Line.  

Greece seems to be preoccupied, still preoccupied with how things would develop with relations with Turkey

The Achilles’ Shield, however, should not be read simply as preparation for a Greek-Turkish conflict. Greek Defense Minister Nikos Dendias has presented the system as a response to a broader transformation in warfare, incorporating anti-aircraft, anti-ballistic, and counter-drone capabilities, as well as cyber and space components. The government says the project is fundamentally centered on deterrence.   

Tsakonas made the same distinction.  

Its  [Greece’s] defense doctrine is about deterrence

“Greece has always been prepared for deterrent purposes. Its defense doctrine is about deterrence,” he said.  

He described Achilles’ Shield as a system that extends well beyond conventional air defense.  

“It is based on a layered defense architecture covering air, sea, land, cyberspace, and space. And this is supposed to be happening not only through traditional air defense systems, but also anti-drone missile defense capabilities. So, the main interest of Greece is to manage, to establish, say, a unified deterrence and protection architecture for the entire airspace and maritime domain,” Tsakonas said.  

The urgency surrounding that modernization nevertheless reflects a deteriorating strategic environment around Greece. Athens and Ankara have experienced a period of relative calm since their rapprochement began in 2023, but longstanding disputes in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean remain unresolved. At the same time, Turkey’s growing military capabilities, expanding defense industry, and wider regional role have changed the balance Athens must consider.  

Tsakonas said the more immediate danger was not necessarily a deliberate decision to begin a war, but the possibility that a limited confrontation could escalate.  

“So what we probably face at the end of the day is not a hot war, by all means, but this might turn into a hot incident, which will in turn turn into a hot war,” he said.  

Don't Let AI Explain the Middle East

AI noise, algorithmic bias, and misinformation fuel global hate and antisemitism.

Independent journalism is a vital line of defense for democracy.

Without boots on the ground, you can't tell the full story.

The Media Line is on the ground in 12 Middle Eastern countries.

This Holiday Season Invest in Truth.

Make a holiday gift which supports journalism with integrity.

DONATE

So what we probably face … [is] a hot incident, which will in turn turn into a hot war

From the Israeli side, however, the development of relations with Greece and Cyprus should not be interpreted simply as the construction of an anti-Turkish military alliance.  

Dr. Gallia Lindenstrauss, Senior Researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies and editor of its journal Strategic Assessment, said the Israel-Greece-Cyprus relationship predates the current upheaval and has progressively deepened since the beginning of the last decade.   

“The Israel-Greece-Cyprus relations goes back to 2010 and since 2016, it was intensified by trilateral meetings at the leadership level biannually or annually,” Lindenstrauss told The Media Line.  

“And this has been going on for some time. Of course every year we do see a deepening of the relationship, but it’s not an alliance in the sense that the partners are not committed to defend each other. There is no mutual defense clause like we now have in the Mecca agreement between Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. So it’s a very close partnership. It’s a very fruitful relationship, but it’s not an alliance in terms of a mutual defense,” she added.  

That distinction is increasingly important.  

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan have moved further by formally committing themselves to collective deterrence. The Mecca agreement states that an armed attack against one member will be regarded as an attack against all three, language resembling the collective-defense principle at the heart of NATO. Ankara and Islamabad have nevertheless emphasized that the pact is defensive and is not formally directed against Israel, Iran, or any other country.

The agreement also remains potentially open to expansion, although what such an expansion would mean for its mutual-defense commitment remains uncertain.   

Lindenstrauss argued that expansion could create complications.  

“However, once you add more actors, it even complicates further the question of whether you can employ the mutual defense clause, because there will be disagreements about whether this does indeed constitute a threat that the clause is in place,” she said.  

On the other side of the emerging strategic landscape, the relationships connecting Israel, Greece, and Cyprus are increasingly intersecting with India.  

The Greece-India relationship was elevated to a strategic partnership following Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Athens in 2023, and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis has increasingly presented Greece as a potential gateway for India into Europe. During a meeting with Modi in New Delhi in February, the two sides identified defense, shipping, infrastructure, and the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) among the areas in which cooperation should deepen.   

Cyprus has followed a similar trajectory. During Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides’ state visit to India in May, New Delhi and Nicosia formally elevated their ties to a strategic partnership, including stronger defense ties, technology cooperation, and a shared vision of Cyprus as a connector between the Indo-Pacific, the Middle East, and Europe.   

Israel, meanwhile, has been pursuing deeper defense-industrial cooperation with India. In June, a senior Israeli Defense Ministry delegation held meetings with India’s defense leadership on expanding bilateral defense and industrial projects. Days later, Israeli Defense Ministry Director General Amir Baram publicly called for a broader regional architecture extending “from India through the UAE to Greece and Cyprus.”   

The Eastern Mediterranean component is already institutionalized to a considerable degree. Greece, Cyprus and Israel signed their 2026 Joint Action Plan and bilateral Greek-Israeli Military Cooperation Programme in December, providing for joint operational activities, special-forces training and military consultations. Their leaders have also identified IMEC, maritime security, energy infrastructure and the Greece-Cyprus-Israel-US “3+1” format as components of their longer-term regional strategy.   

Tsakonas described India’s growing role as part of a broader balancing process.  

“It’s a kind of a regional balancing dynamic vis-à-vis the emerging alignment between Turkey and Pakistan,” he said.  

Lindenstrauss similarly acknowledged that the Mecca pact could reinforce incentives for greater cooperation among Israel, Greece, Cyprus, India and the UAE, but cautioned against portraying those relationships as simply a reaction to the new agreement.  

“Again, it’s true that the Mecca Accord perhaps strengthens the enthusiasm of Israel, Greece, Cyprus, UAE, and India to cooperate. But this is not what triggered this relationship in the first place,” she said.  

The resulting map is therefore more complicated than two fixed opposing camps.  

Saudi Arabia, for example, is now formally bound to Turkey and Pakistan under the Mecca agreement, yet maintains extensive relationships with other regional and global partners. Greece itself has deployed a Patriot battery to Saudi Arabia, an example Lindenstrauss cited when explaining how defense cooperation can cross apparent geopolitical dividing lines.  

“Of course, UAE, because of its position in the Gulf, Greece and Cyprus also, there is a limit to how much they want to tie themselves up with Israel,” she said.  

“So these are very close relationships, they are significant, they assist these countries in dealing with the threat they face, but they are not a defense pact with a commitment to assist each other in time of need against an adversary state,” she added.  

These are very close relationships …  but they are not a defense pact with a commitment to assist each other

That distinction helps define the emerging multipolar order.  

Rather than a simple return to Cold War-style blocs, the region is seeing states construct several layers of security relationships at once: formal collective-defense agreements, bilateral arms partnerships, trilateral military frameworks, energy corridors, infrastructure projects and defense-industrial cooperation.  

The United States remains an important part of that architecture. Lindenstrauss rejected the idea that Washington has ceased to be the dominant global power, noting Israel’s continued reliance on the US during the Iran war.  

“We have to differentiate, of course, between the global level and the regional level. It’s true that there are changes also in the global level but I think the US is still by far the strongest power and Israel of course has a very close relationship with the US,” she said.  

But the simultaneous strengthening of regional partnerships suggests that governments increasingly see bilateral and regional capabilities as necessary additions to their relationships with Washington.  

For Greece, that means an unprecedented modernization program anchored partly in Israeli technology while strengthening its strategic relationship with India and maintaining the Greece-Cyprus-Israel framework. For Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, it has produced something more formal: a collective-defense agreement now moving from political declaration toward military planning.  

Monday’s meetings in Tel Aviv and Istanbul are therefore separate developments with different origins and legal weight. But occurring simultaneously, they illustrate the same broader transformation.  

The Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean are no longer organized around a single security relationship or a single dominant external power. Instead, defense systems, trade corridors, technology partnerships, and overlapping strategic relationships are increasingly connecting the Mediterranean, the Gulf, and the Indian Ocean into a single geopolitical space.  

For Lindenstrauss, the Greek-Israeli agreement is ultimately evidence of continuity amid that transformation.  

“But of course, this is a successful culmination of a long-discussed deal. And it’s an indication that, despite all the changes and events in the region over the last three years, Greek-Israel relations remain a stable element of the strategic environment in the Eastern Mediterranean,” she said.