Pakistan–Saudi Arabia Defence Pact: A Strategic Shift in Regional Security

On September 17, 2025, in Riyadh, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia signed the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA), a pact being hailed as one of the most significant military alignments in the modern Muslim world. The core pledge — that “any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both” — echoes the language of NATO’s Article 5, positioning it as a collective defence arrangement with potentially far-reaching consequences (SPA).

This agreement did not emerge in a vacuum. It came against the backdrop of heightened regional insecurity, including an Israeli strike in Doha, Qatar, which jolted Gulf states into reassessing their vulnerability (Reuters). For Riyadh, the pact signals a diversification of its security architecture beyond the United States, whose reliability has increasingly come under question. For Islamabad, the deal is both a reaffirmation of long-standing ties and a strategic opportunity to leverage defence for economic and political dividends.

But as much as the pact represents a bold signal, it is also wrapped in ambiguity. Analysts caution that without defined operational protocols, it remains “signal-heavy but detail-light.” This first part of our three-part deep dive explores the structure, symbolism, and strategic signals embedded in the agreement.

Core Clauses Explained

The Saudi Press Agency announced the agreement with language that was both simple and profound: “Any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both.” This clause positions the pact as a mutual defence treaty, obligating both states to respond to threats not only against their own territories but also against their partner (SPA).

A senior Saudi official, quoted by the Financial Times, added that the commitment involves “all defensive and military means deemed necessary depending on the specific threat” (FT). The wording is deliberately broad, leaving space for flexible interpretation depending on the nature of aggression — whether conventional attacks, missile strikes, or hybrid threats.

Ambiguities in Wording

Despite its bold promise, several ambiguities are apparent:

• What defines “aggression”? Would cyberattacks, proxy operations, or attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure qualify?

• Which domains are covered? Land, air, and sea seem obvious, but are cyber, space, and nuclear included?

• How automatic is the response? NATO’s Article 5 includes discretion — members decide how to respond. Does the SMDA require military retaliation or just political/diplomatic support?

• What about conflicts with third parties? If Pakistan faces escalation with India, would Saudi Arabia be obliged to step in, or is the scope limited to external threats to Gulf stability?

These grey areas leave much to interpretation, underscoring why experts have called the pact more of a political signal than a clearly operational treaty (CFR).

Historical Background

To understand the weight of this agreement, one must look back at decades of Pakistan–Saudi military cooperation.

Defence Ties Since the 1960s

• Pakistan began providing military training and advisory support to Saudi Arabia in the early 1960s.

• Over the decades, thousands of Pakistani officers have trained in Saudi military academies, while Saudi officers have studied in Pakistan’s National Defence University.

Pakistani Troop Deployments

• In the 1980s and 1990s, Pakistan stationed 10,000+ troops in Saudi Arabia, including at critical bases and holy city perimeters (Brookings).

• During the Iran–Iraq War, Pakistani pilots reportedly flew Saudi aircraft on patrol missions.

• In the Gulf War (1990–91), Pakistani troops were deployed for Saudi defence, though Pakistan avoided direct combat in Iraq.

• In 2015, when Saudi Arabia led a coalition in Yemen, Pakistan’s parliament voted against direct troop involvement — a reminder that while ties are deep, they are not unconditional.

From Informal to Formal

Until 2025, these arrangements were largely informal and transactional, based on shared religion, strategic necessity, and financial support. The SMDA represents the first formal codification of Pakistan’s role as a defender of Saudi Arabia, transforming decades of practice into a treaty-based commitment.

Context: Why Now?

The Israeli Strike in Qatar

The timing of the pact was not coincidental. In early September 2025, Israel launched strikes in Doha, targeting facilities suspected of supporting hostile groups. The strike rattled Gulf states, demonstrating how even wealthy energy powers remained vulnerable (The Diplomat). For Riyadh, the incident reinforced the need for additional security guarantees beyond Washington.

Waning U.S. Reliability

Saudi Arabia has long relied on the United States for security, but recent years have seen growing skepticism. Events such as the 2019 Abqaiq oil facility attack — where U.S. support was deemed insufficient — and Washington’s pivot toward Asia have heightened Gulf anxieties. Analysts at the Atlantic Council describe the pact as part of Riyadh’s “evolving strategic calculus” to diversify security partnerships (Atlantic Council).

Pakistan’s Strategic Needs

For Pakistan, the pact is not only about geopolitics but also economics. Facing chronic fiscal crises and reliant on Saudi loans and investments, Islamabad benefits from cementing its role as Riyadh’s military partner. The KSE-100 stock index surged after the pact, with analysts noting improved investor confidence (AP News).

Ambiguities & Grey Areas

Nuclear Umbrella Speculation

The most controversial question is whether Saudi Arabia now falls under Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence. Defence Minister Khawaja Asif initially hinted at this possibility, sparking media headlines (Reuters). Later, he clarified that nuclear weapons are “not on the radar” of the agreement (AP News).

Experts remain divided:

• Belfer Center (Harvard): sees the pact as political signalling, not nuclear assurance (Belfer Center).

• Chatham House: frames it as precedent for “extended deterrence” in the Muslim world.

• Middle East Institute: stresses that without operational MOUs, the pact remains symbolic.

Undefined Triggers

Another grey area lies in activation thresholds. Unlike NATO, where an attack on a member is broadly defined, the SMDA’s text is absent from public view. This lack of clarity risks miscalculation in crises (CFR).

Symbolism vs. Substance

Symbolism

• Positions Pakistan as guardian of the Holy Land, strengthening its prestige across the Muslim world.

• Projects Saudi Arabia as having an alternative deterrent shield beyond U.S. protection.

• Sends a strong message to rivals: aggression against one will invite collective response.

Substance

• Operational vagueness leaves the pact untested.

• Implementation will depend on joint exercises, defence MOUs, and follow-up protocols.

• Analysts argue that the symbolic value itself has deterrent weight — adversaries must now consider the possibility, however undefined, of dual retaliation (MEI).

What Fuels the Pakistan–Saudi Strategic Alignment?

The signing of the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in September 2025 has been described as a game changer in regional geopolitics. For the Kingdom, it represents diversification beyond its long-standing reliance on the United States. For Pakistan, it offers not only geopolitical prestige but also potential economic and strategic dividends.

But beneath the symbolism lie pragmatic motivations and calculated interests on both sides. This second part of our deep dive explores the drivers behind the pact, from Saudi Arabia’s security anxieties to Pakistan’s quest for economic relief, and evaluates how this defence partnership reverberates across India, Iran, Israel, and the United States.

Saudi Arabia’s Strategic Motivations

1. Diversification Beyond the U.S. Umbrella

For decades, Saudi Arabia has relied on the United States as its principal security guarantor. Yet, episodes such as the 2019 Abqaiq–Khurais oil facility attack — widely blamed on Iran — exposed vulnerabilities in U.S. deterrence credibility. Analysts note that Riyadh increasingly questions Washington’s willingness to intervene decisively when Saudi security is threatened (Atlantic Council).

The Israeli strike in Qatar in September 2025 further jolted Gulf leaders, confirming fears that regional flashpoints could escalate without U.S. involvement (Reuters). Partnering with Pakistan, therefore, represents strategic diversification, reducing sole dependence on Washington.

2. Extended Deterrence Through Nuclear Optics

Saudi Arabia lacks nuclear weapons, but by aligning with Pakistan — the only nuclear-armed Muslim-majority state — it gains extended deterrence optics. Even without explicit nuclear guarantees, adversaries such as Iran and Israel must consider the possibility of Pakistani backing in a crisis.

The Chatham House think tank notes that this pact marks a precedent for “extended deterrence in the Muslim world” — a concept long applied by Western alliances, now adapted for Gulf realities (Chatham House).

3. Protection of Critical Infrastructure

Saudi Arabia’s energy economy depends on vulnerable assets: oil refineries, pipelines, ports, and desalination plants. These have been targets of missile and drone attacks, particularly from Houthi rebels in Yemen. The pact opens space for Pakistani forces to play a more active role in protecting strategic sites, especially in the Red Sea and Gulf.

4. Political Leverage and Economic Diplomacy

Saudi Arabia is one of Pakistan’s largest benefactors, providing billions in loans, oil on deferred payments, and direct investments. By binding Pakistan through a defence pact, Riyadh not only strengthens its military security but also consolidates political leverage over Islamabad (Atlantic Council).

Pakistan’s Incentives

1. Formalizing Historic Defence Ties

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have shared military cooperation since the 1960s. Pakistani troops have long been stationed in Saudi Arabia, providing training, advisory, and defensive roles. At times, more than 10,000 Pakistani soldiers were based in the Kingdom (Brookings).

Until now, this cooperation remained informal. The SMDA formalizes it into a binding mutual defence treaty, elevating Pakistan’s role from supportive partner to strategic guarantor.

2. Economic Lifeline

Pakistan faces a chronic financial crisis with high debt, low foreign reserves, and recurring IMF bailouts. Saudi Arabia has historically stepped in with loans and aid. By deepening military alignment, Islamabad strengthens its bargaining power for economic support.

Indeed, soon after the pact was signed, Pakistan’s KSE-100 stock index surged, with analysts citing the deal as a confidence booster for investors (AP News).

3. Expanding Strategic Footprint

Traditionally focused on South Asia, Pakistan now extends its strategic influence into West Asia. The pact positions Islamabad as a stakeholder in Gulf stability, giving it new weight in Middle Eastern security dynamics (The Diplomat).

4. Prestige and Islamic Solidarity

For Islamabad, being formally recognized as a defender of the Holy Land enhances prestige within the Muslim world. It strengthens the narrative of Pakistan as a leader among Islamic nations, elevating its standing in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

Regional Consequences

Impact on India

• Official Response: India’s Foreign Ministry stated it would “study the implications” of the pact while affirming its commitment to national security (NDTV).

• Strategic Concerns:

  • Raises the risk of entanglement if an India–Pakistan conflict escalates.

  • Forces New Delhi to consider Gulf states as potential stakeholders in South Asian disputes.

• Alternative View: Some analysts argue the pact is more about deterring Israel and Iran than India (The Wire).

Impact on Iran

• Iran is likely to interpret the pact as a counter-alignment, strengthening Saudi Arabia’s security bloc.

• May provoke proxy escalations in Yemen, Iraq, or the Gulf, where Iran has leverage through militias.

• Analysts at ISPI warn the pact could complicate Iran’s outreach efforts for Gulf détente (ISPI).

Impact on Israel

• Seen as a warning signal after its strike in Qatar.

• Raises uncertainty for Israel: any future Gulf operations could risk Pakistani involvement, however symbolic.

• Analysts note that while the pact may not guarantee military retaliation, it complicates Israel’s strategic calculus (The Diplomat).

Impact on the United States

• The pact underscores waning U.S. credibility as the Gulf’s ultimate protector.

• Signals a drift toward a post-American Gulf order, where regional states adopt parallel defence partnerships (IPS Journal).

• The U.S. may respond by strengthening its own defence initiatives in the Gulf to counterbalance Pakistani involvement.

Expert Assessments

• Brookings: Frames the pact as a signal more than substance but stresses its long-term impact in elevating Pakistan’s role.

• Middle East Institute (MEI): Calls it largely symbolic unless supported by operational MOUs and joint drills (MEI).

• Chatham House: Highlights its precedent-setting nature in extended deterrence for the Muslim world.

• Atlantic Council: Describes it as a reflection of Gulf states’ strategic recalibration away from exclusive U.S. reliance.

The High-Stakes Gamble of Pakistan–Saudi Defence Cooperation

The Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) signed between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in September 2025 has been hailed as a milestone in Muslim world security cooperation. Yet, the pact is also fraught with risks, unanswered questions, and ambiguities. Its vague language — “any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both” — creates powerful deterrent symbolism, but without defined operational protocols, it risks misinterpretation, escalation, and even over-extension (SPA).

This final part of our deep dive examines the nuclear ambiguity, the undefined triggers, the regional entanglements, and the implementation hurdles that could determine whether the pact becomes a functional military alliance or remains a symbolic deterrent gesture.

Nuclear Ambiguity

Conflicting Signals

Perhaps the most controversial issue is whether Saudi Arabia now sits under Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella. In the days after the signing, Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif suggested that the Kingdom could benefit from Pakistan’s deterrence capability, sparking headlines worldwide (Reuters).

However, he later clarified that “nuclear weapons are not on the radar” of the agreement, calling the speculation exaggerated (AP News).

Expert Analysis

• Belfer Center (Harvard): Argues that the pact is “not a nuclear umbrella” but a political shield designed to reassure Riyadh without changing Islamabad’s nuclear doctrine (Belfer Center).

• Chatham House: Views the agreement as precedent-setting for “extended deterrence in the Muslim world,” even if nuclear specifics are deliberately left vague (Chatham House).

Why Ambiguity Matters

The deliberate vagueness may be strategic: ambiguity complicates adversaries’ calculations. But it also risks misinterpretation — Israel or Iran might assume Saudi Arabia enjoys a nuclear guarantee and act accordingly, escalating crises.

Undefined Triggers and Thresholds

What Counts as “Aggression”?

Unlike NATO’s Article 5, which broadly covers attacks against members, the SMDA has not published activation criteria. This leaves critical questions unanswered:

• Does a cyberattack count as aggression?

• Would a Houthi drone strike on Saudi oil facilities trigger the pact?

• If Pakistan faces conflict with India, would Saudi Arabia be obliged to respond?

Without clear thresholds, the risk of mismatched expectations between Riyadh and Islamabad grows (CFR).

Command and Coordination

Equally uncertain is how the two militaries would coordinate in real time. Who makes the decision to invoke the pact? Is there a joint defence council or a coordination cell? Until such mechanisms are created, operational reliability remains untested.

Over-Extension Risks

Pakistan’s Challenge

Pakistan already faces:

• A volatile relationship with India.

• Internal security challenges from militancy.

• An economic crisis that constrains military spending.

Committing to defend Saudi Arabia risks strategic over-extension. Analysts at the Middle East Institute warn that the pact is “signal-heavy but substance-light,” and unless carefully managed, Pakistan may find itself pulled into conflicts far from its core interests (MEI).

Saudi Arabia’s Reliance

Conversely, Riyadh risks over-reliance on Islamabad. Pakistan’s willingness to deploy troops in Yemen was limited, suggesting that domestic politics can restrain commitments. If Pakistan hesitates in a future crisis, Saudi Arabia could face a credibility gap.

Regional Entanglements

India’s Concerns

India’s Ministry of External Affairs cautiously noted that it would “study the implications” of the pact (NDTV).

• Risk of entanglement: If a crisis escalates in Kashmir or along the LoC, Saudi Arabia could be diplomatically pressured to support Pakistan.

• Strategic recalibration: India may now accelerate its own Gulf partnerships to balance Saudi–Pakistani alignment (The Wire).

Iran’s Reaction

Iran is likely to interpret the pact as a counter-alignment, potentially escalating proxy conflicts in Yemen, Iraq, or Syria. The Italian think tank ISPI warned that the pact could undermine Gulf de-escalation efforts and push Tehran to test Saudi resolve through asymmetric means (ISPI).

Israel’s Dilemma

After its strike in Qatar, Israel now faces a more complicated calculus. Even if Pakistan’s commitment is ambiguous, the perception of extended deterrence could deter Israeli preemptive operations against Gulf states (The Diplomat).

The United States

The pact signals waning confidence in U.S. security guarantees. As the IPS Journal notes, it reflects a trend toward a post-American Gulf order, where regional states build parallel defence structures (IPS Journal).

For Washington, the challenge will be to maintain influence without appearing threatened by Saudi–Pakistani cooperation.

Implementation Hurdles

For the SMDA to move from symbolism to substance, several steps are critical:

1. Publishing Core Terms: Even a summarized white paper clarifying triggers and scope would reduce miscalculation risks.

2. Operational MOUs: Agreements on intelligence-sharing, logistics, and cyber defence are essential (Atlantic Council).

3. Joint Exercises: Tri-service drills, naval patrols, and air-defence integration would prove operational credibility.

4. Crisis Mechanisms: A 24/7 joint coordination cell could ensure rapid communication during emergencies.

5. Consistent Messaging: Both governments must avoid contradictory public statements, especially regarding nuclear matters.

Future Scenarios (12–24 Months)

Scenario 1: Structured Shield (Best-Case)

• Detailed annexes and MOUs signed.

• Regular joint drills and air-defence exercises.

• Establishment of a joint defence council.

• Effect: Strengthens deterrence and builds operational trust.

Scenario 2: Symbolic Deterrence (Baseline)

• Pact remains mostly political.

• Limited exercises, nuclear ambiguity persists.

• Operational depth does not materialize.

• Effect: Symbolism retains deterrent value, but reliability in a real crisis remains uncertain.

Scenario 3: Stress Test (Worst-Case)

• A regional conflict (e.g., drone strike on Saudi oil fields, naval clash in the Gulf) triggers calls for activation.

• Lack of clarity causes delays or disagreements.

• Adversaries exploit gaps in coordination.

• Effect: Risks exposing pact as hollow, undermining credibility.

Final Thoughts

The Pakistan–Saudi Arabia defence pact is a landmark in Muslim world geopolitics, but it is also a fragile experiment. Its strength lies in its symbolism, yet its weakness lies in its vagueness.

• If backed by clear protocols, joint drills, and disciplined messaging, it could evolve into a functional security alliance with real deterrent weight.

• If left ambiguous, it risks being tested in ways that expose its limitations.

Ultimately, the SMDA is both a promise and a gamble: a promise of solidarity, but a gamble on whether symbolism alone can deter adversaries in a region as volatile as the Middle East.