What the Pakistan-Saudi Arabia defence pact means for the world

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan signed a historic mutual defence pact on Wednesday, sending ripples far beyond Riyadh and Islamabad. 

The agreement, formally known as the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement, declares that any aggression against either country will be considered an aggression against both. It carries deep calculations, fears, and ambitions that could reshape security in the Middle East and South Asia.

Saudi Arabia has long relied on the US as its ultimate guarantor of security. For decades, American bases, arms sales, and implicit protection underpinned Riyadh's defence posture. Yet, in recent years, doubts have crept in. The US response to missile and drone strikes on Saudi oil facilities in 2019 was viewed in Riyadh as hesitant, even inadequate. 

More recently, Washington's shifting priorities — pivoting toward Asia, grappling with domestic divisions, and reevaluating its military footprint in the Middle East — have left Gulf leaders wondering whether America's shield remains as reliable as before.

Pakistan, meanwhile, finds itself navigating its own precarious security environment. Hemmed in by a hostile India to the east, a fragile Afghanistan to the west, and an uneasy relationship with the US, Islamabad has sought to leverage its one undeniable asset: nuclear weapons. 

Pakistan is the only Muslim-majority nation to possess a nuclear arsenal, and that reality has always loomed large in Saudi calculations. Riyadh has invested heavily in Pakistan over the years, from financial bailouts to infrastructure projects, and the ties between their militaries run deep. The new pact is less a sudden revolution than the institutionalisation of a long-standing partnership.

Reshaping power dynamics in both regions

What makes the Saudi-Pakistan pact so consequential is not only what it says but also what it leaves unsaid. 

The agreement speaks of mutual defence, but it does not spell out the precise mechanisms. How many troops will be committed? Will Pakistani forces be stationed permanently in the kingdom? What kinds of aggression would trigger the pact — missile strikes, cyberattacks, proxy warfare, or only a full-scale invasion? 

The biggest question, however, revolves around nuclear weapons. Analysts were quick to interpret the pact as Riyadh securing a kind of "nuclear umbrella". After all, Pakistan's atomic arsenal is its ultimate guarantee of survival, and Saudi Arabia has long been suspected of desiring nuclear cover of its own. 

However, both sides officially deny that nuclear sharing is part of the deal. Pakistani leaders insist their nuclear deterrent is strictly national, not for export. Yet the very possibility that Saudi Arabia could call upon Pakistan's nuclear shield in a crisis introduces new uncertainties into the regional equation.

For Iran, this development cannot be ignored. Tehran already views Riyadh as its principal rival in the Gulf, and the prospect of Riyadh aligning more closely with a nuclear-armed partner heightens those concerns. 

The pact could push Iran to double down on its missile programmes, strengthen its network of regional proxies, or accelerate covert nuclear activities — all of which could deepen instability. Israel, too, will be watching closely. Though its covert ties with Riyadh have warmed in recent years, the idea that Saudi Arabia might gain access, even indirectly, to nuclear deterrence from Pakistan will feed Israeli anxieties.

Across the Arabian Sea, India is also watching it closely. New Delhi has cultivated strong economic ties with Saudi Arabia, importing vast quantities of oil and courting investment. But India remains locked in a bitter rivalry with Pakistan, and any perception that Pakistan's nuclear capabilities are being extended to protect Riyadh complicates the strategic picture. 

The pact could also prompt India to strengthen its security ties with other Gulf states or intensify its own military modernisation.

Not quite an 'Islamic NATO'

In the flurry of commentary that followed the announcement, one comparison surfaced repeatedly: is this pact the beginning of an "Islamic NATO"? 

At first glance, the language of collective defence does resemble NATO's famous Article 5. Yet the differences are stark. NATO is a sprawling alliance of thirty-plus nations, underpinned by decades of institutional structures, integrated commands, and binding treaties. The Saudi-Pakistan pact, by contrast, is bilateral. It lacks a joint command, a secretariat, or the kind of political cohesion that NATO embodies.

What it does represent is an experiment in Muslim-majority security cooperation, anchored by the unique leverage Pakistan brings as a nuclear power. 

It is not a multilateral Islamic alliance, nor does it signal a grand ideological project. Rather, it is a pragmatic calculation: Saudi Arabia hedging against the uncertainties of American protection, Pakistan securing financial and strategic dividends, and both sending a message to their rivals that they are not isolated.

The symbolism, however, should not be underestimated. For decades, talk of a unified Muslim military bloc has flared up and faded away, from proposals for an "Islamic Defence Force" in the 1970s to the more recent Saudi-led Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition. 

Most of those initiatives faltered due to rivalries, lack of cohesion, or reluctance of member states to commit. The Saudi-Pakistan pact is far narrower, but because it ties together the wealth of the Gulf's largest power and the nuclear arsenal of South Asia's Muslim giant, it resonates more deeply.

A look at other defence pacts at play today

Defence alliances remain a cornerstone of global security. They provide both deterrence and strategic cooperation among nations. Among multilateral pacts that are active till now, NATO and the CSTO are the most prominent examples.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), established in 1949, is widely regarded as the most powerful military alliance in the world. Its foundational principle, enshrined in Article 5, declares that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all, forming the basis of transatlantic collective security. 

Initially created to counter the Soviet Union during the early Cold War, NATO has expanded to 32 member states and has evolved to address a wide array of modern threats, including terrorism, cyber warfare, and regional conflicts. 

Despite occasional internal disagreements among members, the alliance continues to act as a formidable deterrent, exemplified by its collective response and support for Ukraine following Russia's invasion. NATO's structure combines political consultation with military integration, enabling rapid and coordinated action when required.

In contrast, the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), formed in 2002, represents Russia's effort to maintain influence in the post-Soviet space. Comprising six member states — Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan — the CSTO also commits members to collective defense against external aggression. 

However, unlike NATO, the CSTO's cohesion has often been questioned. Internal divisions, varying national interests, and recent distancing by Armenia highlight its limitations, though it continues to function as a formal framework for regional security under Moscow's leadership.

Besides multilateral ones, there are bilateral defence pacts that are another key pillar of security, particularly in Asia. 

The US–Japan Security Treaty (1960) ensures Japan's protection while allowing US forces to operate on Japanese soil, establishing a strategic deterrent in the Indo-Pacific. Similarly, the US–South Korea Mutual Defense Treaty (1953) underpins the Korean Peninsula's stability, with the US maintaining a significant troop presence to deter North Korean aggression. 

The US–Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty (1951) obligates both nations to respond to external attacks, reaffirming Washington's commitment to regional security amid rising tensions in the South China Sea.

In South Asia, the India–Bhutan Treaty of Friendship, first signed in 1949 and revised in 2007, provides Bhutan with a security guarantee from India while respecting its growing autonomy. Indian forces assist in safeguarding Bhutan's borders, reflecting a cooperative approach to regional defense in the Himalayas, particularly in response to Chinese activities.

In 2017, both countries signed two defence agreements, and in 2023, they held the fifth Annual Defence Dialogue to further strengthen cooperation.