By S. M. Hali
Hailed as a milestone in Islamic solidarity, the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement risks deepening sectarian divides, unsettling India and Israel, and forcing recalibrations in Ankara and Tehran.
The signing of the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in September 2025 has been hailed by both governments as a historic milestone. The pact, which declares that an attack on one will be treated as an attack on both, formalizes decades of informal military cooperation and elevates the bilateral relationship into a binding security partnership. Yet, beneath the symbolism of brotherhood and solidarity lie complex pitfalls and ripple effects that will shape the strategic landscape of South Asia and the Middle East.
To understand the significance of this accord, one must recall Riyadh’s earlier opposition to alternative Islamic alliances. In 2019, then-Prime Minister Imran Khan of Pakistan sought to forge a new bloc with Turkey and Malaysia, supported by Iran, through the Kuala Lumpur Summit. Saudi Arabia resisted this initiative, perceiving it as a challenge to its leadership of the Muslim world.
Saudi Arabia’s Opposition to the Kuala Lumpur Summit
Saudi Arabia’s resistance to the proposed Pakistan-Malaysia-Turkey alliance was rooted in several factors:
Threat to OIC Dominance: Riyadh feared the summit would create a parallel platform to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), headquartered in Jeddah and historically led by Saudi Arabia. The participation of leaders like President Erdoğan, Prime Minister Mahathir, and President Rouhani raised alarms that the summit could evolve into an alternative pole of Islamic leadership.
Economic Leverage Over Pakistan: At the time, Pakistan was heavily reliant on Saudi financial assistance, including a $6 billion bailout. Riyadh reportedly pressured Imran Khan to withdraw from the summit, underscoring Islamabad’s limited autonomy in foreign policy.
Ideological Divergence: Saudi Arabia’s conservative Wahhabi orthodoxy clashed with the more populist, reformist, and pan-Islamic narratives promoted by Turkey and Malaysia. The inclusion of Iran, Riyadh’s regional rival, further deepened Saudi suspicions.
Geopolitical Calculations: The proposed bloc was seen as leaning toward non-Western powers like China and Russia, potentially undermining Saudi Arabia’s close ties with Western security frameworks.
Diplomatic Fallout: Imran Khan’s withdrawal was a setback for Pakistan’s regional ambitions and highlighted the delicate balancing act Islamabad must perform between ideological aspirations and economic realities.
This episode revealed Riyadh’s determination to safeguard its role as the de facto leader of the Islamic world. The SMDA with Pakistan, therefore, can be seen as a way for Saudi Arabia to consolidate its leadership by binding Islamabad more tightly to its orbit.
The Pitfalls of the Saudi-Pakistan Defence Pact
While the SMDA is being celebrated as a “shield of brotherhood,” it carries several risks:
Risk of Regional Polarization:
Iran may interpret the pact as the consolidation of a Sunni bloc, deepening sectarian divides.
Other Muslim-majority nations excluded from the pact may feel alienated, undermining broader Islamic unity.
Escalation of Strategic Rivalries:
India and Israel, both adversaries of Pakistan, may perceive the pact as a direct threat, prompting military posturing or accelerated defence spending.
The “attack on one is attack on both” clause risks entangling either country in conflicts not of their own making.
Ambiguity Around Nuclear Deterrence:
Pakistan’s nuclear status adds complexity. If Saudi Arabia is seen as gaining indirect access to nuclear deterrence, it could trigger anxieties in Iran and Israel.
The lack of clarity on whether nuclear capabilities are covered under the pact leaves room for dangerous misinterpretation.
Economic and Strategic Overextension:
Pakistan, already grappling with economic crises and border security concerns, may struggle to meet Saudi expectations for rapid military support.
Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 could be burdened by defence commitments that divert resources from domestic transformation.
Undermining Multilateralism:
The bilateral nature of the pact may weaken platforms like the OIC, which aim to foster collective security.
It could complicate Riyadh’s relations with Western allies, especially if seen as a pivot away from U.S. security guarantees.
Operational Challenges:
Differences in command structures, interoperability, and intelligence-sharing could create friction.
Rapid institutionalization without clear protocols risks miscommunication during crises.
Strategic Misalignment:
While rooted in shared religious and cultural ties, Riyadh and Islamabad’s strategic priorities may diverge—particularly in conflicts involving Iran, Yemen, or Israel.
If either party is drawn into a conflict the other does not endorse, the alliance could strain or fracture.
Regional Reactions
Turkey: Opportunity and Caution
Turkey, which has long aspired to lead the Muslim world, may view the pact with mixed feelings. On one hand, it strengthens Islamic defence cooperation, a concept Ankara has supported. On the other, it sidelines Turkey from a central role. Ankara may seek to align with Pakistan to ensure it remains relevant, but it will be cautious not to be overshadowed by Riyadh’s leadership.
Iran: Strategic Scepticism
For Iran, the pact is a cause for concern. Tehran may interpret it as a Sunni military bloc aimed at containing its influence. The possibility of Saudi Arabia gaining indirect access to Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent is particularly alarming. Iran is likely to respond by strengthening ties with Qatar, Oman, and Russia, while reinforcing its “axis of resistance” with Syria, Hezbollah, and other allies.
Israel: Heightened Deterrence Calculus
Israel will view the pact through the prism of deterrence. The possibility of a Sunni nuclear umbrella complicates its strategic planning. The pact may also signal greater Arab solidarity in the wake of Israeli actions in Gaza and Qatar, potentially isolating Israel diplomatically. In response, Israel is likely to deepen intelligence cooperation with the U.S. and India.
India: Strategic Restraint
India has reacted cautiously, stating it will “study the implications” of the pact for national and regional security. New Delhi is concerned about Pakistan gaining a Saudi-backed security umbrella, but it will avoid public escalation. Instead, India will reinforce its military preparedness, deepen ties with Gulf states like the UAE and Oman, and strengthen its partnerships with the U.S., Japan, and Israel.
Conclusion: Between Symbolism and Substance
The Saudi-Pakistan Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement is both a symbol and a strategy. It symbolizes Islamic solidarity, echoing Allama Iqbal’s call for unity “from the Nile to Kashgar.” Yet, in substance, it is a calculated move by Riyadh to consolidate leadership and by Islamabad to secure a powerful ally.
The pitfalls are real: regional polarization, nuclear ambiguity, economic overextension, and strategic misalignment. The reactions from Turkey, Iran, Israel, and India underscore the pact’s far-reaching implications. For Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the challenge will be to ensure that this alliance strengthens security without triggering instability. For the region, the pact is a reminder that the old certainties are fading, and new alignments are reshaping the future.
