Pakistan-Saudi Mutual Defence Agreement: A Shockwave in the Global Security?

The Pakistan-Saudi Mutual Defence Agreement, signed on September 17, has stirred ripples across the global security order, causing discomposure among states and their alliances. The shockwaves are being felt through the international arena, raising questions about whether an ‘Islamic NATO’ is emerging at a crucial moment in West Asia, undermining Washington’s traditional security duties in the region. An alternative defence architecture is signalling diversified partnerships to counter the US monopoly as the sole security guarantor.

Pakistan-Saudi relations date back to 1947, when Pakistan gained independence from the British Empire. Their shared Islamic solidarity, along with decades of economic and defence cooperation, has long bound them together. As the custodian of Islam’s holiest sites, Saudi Arabia has enjoyed a special place in Pakistan’s foreign policy, with Islamabad leaving no stone unturned to strengthen the relationship. Strategic alignment between the two countries has developed over decades due to mutual interests, most notably Saudi oil supplies and financial assistance to Pakistan during times of sanctions. Moreover, Pakistan has long contributed military expertise through training Saudi officers, conducting joint exercises, collaborating in counterterrorism, and intelligence sharing – further deepening bilateral ties.  The economic benefits, coupled with security and political cooperation, paved the way for the signing of the recent pact, which has raised global speculation.

The bilateral defence pact signed between the two countries is a harbinger of stronger ties in the making. Its key clause states that ‘aggression against one country will be considered aggression against both.’ The agreement emphasises the creation of a robust collective defence framework and joint deterrence against major threats. This pact elevates commitments beyond a typical bilateral arrangement, presenting itself as a unified Muslim stance against adversaries and crossing traditional thresholds. According to Pakistan’s official statements, the “doors are not closed” for other Arab countries to join.

Consequently, the defence pact has triggered unease worldwide. Islamabad has described the agreement as purely defensive in nature and not directed against any other state. Nevertheless, India has expressed a visibly unsettled response. In a statement issued by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs soon after the pact was signed, it said New Delhi was studying the implications the pact may have on India-Saudi relations. India has adopted a cautious stance, stressing that the agreement should not undermine its interests. It has repeatedly emphasised that Saudi Arabia should respect mutual interests and ‘sensitivities’ in its relations with India when announcing initiatives that could spark apprehension in the South Asian landscape. While India views the pact with unease, for the United States (US), it poses an even greater ‘strategic dilemma’.

The US now faces an impasse, as the pact has the potential to undermine its traditional security guarantees in the region and may force Washington to reconsider its role. Any attempt in the context of pushing back, discouraging the pact by the US, risks igniting tensions in West Asia. Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state, and even if “nuclear weapons are officially not on the radar” of the pact, it has sparked a debate among analysts that de facto extended deterrence towards Saudi Arabia might result due to Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities. Moreover, the possible nuclear implications are reportedly under consideration within the Oval Office.

Looking ahead, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has extended all the praise and support to the Pak-KSA defence pact at the United Nations General Assembly recently. Given Iran’s geographic proximity to both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the defence agreement, particularly its nuclear and deterrence dimensions, might raise serious concerns in Tehran later on if not immediately. The country will become more militarily alert, suspicious, and diplomatically hedging. Relations with Saudi Arabia could be a source of concern for Tehran, as the country’s strategic calculations may appear unsettled.

From an analytic perspective, Israel too has reason for concern, as Arab states appear more unified now than at any point in modern history. A strengthened Arab deterrence posture could pose serious challenges for Tel Aviv. The possibility of a shared nuclear umbrella, if realised, could further complicate Israel’s security environment. While Israel has long relied on its strategic partnership with the US to conduct military operations with relative impunity, a cohesive bloc of Muslim states with robust defence strategies now presents an unprecedented challenge. While Tel Aviv grapples with the strategic anxieties of emerging Arab unity, Gulf capitals find themselves caught in a neutrality dilemma. From the former’s perspective, a collective alignment from Muslims is taking shape, while the Gulf states are not uniformly aligned: Qatar, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are now faced with a dilemma, whether to remain neutral or align with one side. This current scenario is dominating international relations discourse: analysts are scrutinising the pact and its implications closely, writing several pieces, as it holds the potency to shape future global politics. The Gulf states, feeling compelled, whether to join or detach, have become a central talking point in discussions on various national and international platforms.

Meanwhile, NATO and Western unease is evident. Any notion of shared deterrence could undermine the region’s security architecture and threaten Washington’s strategic ally: Israel. It is to be noted that Gulf monarchies are also US partners, but with parallel security compacts; if built, loyalties would overlap and be reshaped. Alongside this, the risk of the pact to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) scrutiny is highly concerning. Although Pakistan is not a member of the NPT, it is still bound to follow the broader global system of norms and safeguards. Moreover, the pact demonstrates implications for the NPT regime as a whole due to the fact that Saudi Arabia is bound by it, and in the case of nuclear guarantees by Islamabad, the IAEA will be attentive, and proliferation concerns will be taken seriously.

For Pakistan, the agreement marks a significant gain in prestige, strengthening its global standing and positioning it as a rising power in West Asian affairs. For Saudi Arabia, it presents a diversification of its security partnerships, moving gradually away from reliance on the US.

Although the Islamabad-Riyadh partnership is not inherently ominous, apprehensions arise over the possibility of Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities extending to Saudi Arabia. The pact’s ‘open-door’ clause for other Muslim states further signals a recalibration of power to deter adversaries. For opponents, the prospects of nuclear umbrellas and the spectre of an ‘Arab NATO’ have triggered considerable anxiety. For allies, it is a test of loyalty and commitment to peaceful regional settlements in an already volatile landscape.

The timing of the pact is equally significant. It coincides with Israeli strikes on Doha, Washington’s tacit support for Tel Aviv’s aggressive posture toward Gaza, and growing doubts about US credibility in resolving the Palestinian crisis, all of which contribute to a broader regional realignment. Whether the pact remains a bilateral security assurance or evolves into a wider security bloc will ultimately depend on how the key players choose to act in the coming months.