Saudi Arabia looks for post-US security with Pakistan, Türkiye

The idea of an "Islamic NATO" came to prominence last year when Saudi Arabia and Pakistan signed a landmark treaty named the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement or SMDA. That idea, which may still be rather far-fetched, came a step closer to fruition on 7 August, when Türkiye joined the other two in signing the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement or MJDA. 

This brings three significant regional entities under one defence umbrella: Saudi Arabia with its vast financial and energy resources; Türkiye with its large military and growing arms industry including cutting-edge weapons systems; Pakistan with its battle-hardened military and sizeable stockpile of nuclear weapons. 

But the combination of financial and military muscle and strategic depth offered by the geography of the three nations will not amount to much unless the alliance is solidified by clear political goals and military commitment. The Makkah summit has demonstrated their political desire to work together to confront an as-yet-undefined threat. 

A common threat perception is critical for the success of any military alliance. European nations work with the US in NATO because they have a shared fear of Russia (originally Soviet Union). More recently, the Quad was floated as a bulwark against China in the Indo-Pacific region. 

The new alliance's major weakness is that the three countries do not have a shared threat perception. Pakistan's "enemy" is India, which sits on the wrong geographical side of the MJDA. Saudis clearly see Iran as a threat. Many feel that Türkiye would eventually confront Israel for control of the eastern Mediterranean including Syria. With such disparate threat perceptions, the efficacy of MJDA as a military alliance is open to question. 

Dangerous vacuum in the Gulf

What has clearly happened is, with the US failure to achieve its objectives in the war against Iran, a dangerous vacuum has emerged in the region. The small Arab Gulf states, already battered by Iran, are in no position to fill that vacuum. 

Iran has shattered the idea of US deterrence, and now the Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia need new partners who would present a more credible deterrence. A regional alliance to replace the "security guarantees" the US could not fulfil, appears to be a logical forward step. 

On paper, the MJDA is designed to deter aggression against the three members. On paper again, an attack on one of them would be regarded as an attack on all three. This smacks of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or NATO, where an attack on any of its 32 members would trigger a response from the alliance as a whole. 

In reality though, the MJDA is unlikely to behave in the same way as NATO. The Brussels-based western alliance has an integrated command structure with an American at the top, interoperability of weapons systems, a well-defined enemy or source of threat, and a firm commitment to send troops to fight if any of the 32 members came under attack.  

The Makkah Declaration did not give any such details, making it more of a political commitment than a military response plan. However, those details would need to be worked out in the months ahead, or the alliance will remain where it is at the moment - on paper. 

Expanded 'Islamic NATO'

Even without any operational details, some in the alliance are already dreaming about expanding the MJDA to include other Muslim countries, to turn it into a truly "Islamic NATO." Pakistan's defence minister Khawaja Asif has already floated the idea of bringing in other members. 

The new alliance's major weakness is that the three countries do not have a shared threat perception. Pakistan's "enemy" is India, which sits on the wrong geographical side of the MJDA. Saudis clearly see Iran as a threat. Many feel that Türkiye would eventually confront Israel for control of the eastern Mediterranean including Syria. With such disparate threat perceptions, the efficacy of MJDA as a military alliance is open to question.

"The doors really cannot be closed to other countries, this should not be an exclusive club," Asif told a Pakistani TV station on 8 August. "I think that Muslim countries should put their own differences aside and stand together on this platform." 

There is already talk of Egypt, another major military power, joining the alliance in the near future. Other Muslim-majority nations may soon be lobbied hard, with Saudi dollars helping to ease any concerns. 

Such an expansion would carry its own dangers. NATO in Europe works because European nations have largely ironed out their bilateral issues. They no longer go to war with each other. This is not the case with diverse Muslim countries spread across three continents. 

For instance, Afghanistan and Pakistan have very recently traded bullets, leading to mass casualties. Libya remains at war with itself, 25 years after Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown and murdered. African nations such as Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso etc are embroiled in wars with Islamist terror factions. 

Iran the target?

The formal announcement of the MJDA in the middle of an intermittent war between the United States and Iran has naturally raised many eyebrows. In particular, the recent entry of the Ansarallah group in Yemen, popularly known as the Houthis, into the war has added a new dimension to the conflict in the Gulf. 

The Houthis are closely aligned with Iran, and have recently launched attacks on Saudi oil installations in retaliation for a recent air attack on the international airport at the capital Sanaa. The attack was blamed on the Saudis. The Houthis clearly view the new tripartite alliance as a threat. 

The joint US-Israeli war on Iran exposed America's vulnerability in the Gulf, especially when facing an enemy that is well-prepared for asymmetric warfare with a resolute leadership. Iran's response to the US-Israeli attack brutally exposed the utter helplessness of America's small allies in the Gulf which have, until now, been willing to host US military bases and operational HQs on their territory.

When a new alliance involving three regional players who are aligned with the US in one form or another, is announced, then the speculation is bound to point to Washington as the "instigator" and Tehran as the possible "target." A lot of the chatter in social media is going in that direction, but that may well be too simplistic an explanation. 

Encirclement of Iran

Supporters of the alliance have been at pains these past few days to explain that the MJDA is not aimed at Iran. The Turkish foreign minister has gone on record, saying Iran is not the target and the alliance is merely defensive. Iranians, who see Saudi Arabia as the main actor behind this alliance, are not taking their words at face value.

"Saudis must know that a paper agreement with Türkiye and Pakistan will not bring them security, just as years of one-sided nursing to the Americans did not bring them security," member of parliament Ebrahim Rezaei, who is also a member of Iran's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, posted on the social media X. "Reform your policies so that you don't need to beg for security from others." 

There is strong suspicion that the entire alliance was formed at the behest of Saudi Arabia, in order to deter both Iran and the Houthis. Saudis have most likely concluded that the US no longer offers the kind of security it requires in order to survive as a prosperous nation. 

What the clubbing together of these three countries does is to put Iran in a semi-encirclement: Pakistan borders south-east Iran, Türkiye shares some of Iran's northern borders and Saudi Arabia lies to the west, just across the Persian Gulf. These are vast countries, heavily armed with large armies, and geographically positioned to carry out a full-scale invasion of Iran. 

There is another twist to this alliance. Pakistan is practically in a state of war with its large neighbour India. They fought out a short air war only a year or so ago. There is every likelihood that the two countries would come to blows again in the future. 

Would India be deterred by the alliance from launching any military adventures in the future? That seems mostly unlikely, which would pose a huge question for the alliance and their "an attack on one is an attack on all" motto. 

Sketch: TBS

The writer is a journalist and podcaster. Email: sabir.mustafa@gmail.com. X handle: @Sabir59