“Pakistan–Saudi Defense Pact: A Blow to U.S. Influence Amid Israel’s Gaza War”

Pakistan-Saudi Arabia mutual defense treaty

1. On 17 September 2025, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia entered a Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement (SMDA).
2. Under the treaty, any aggression or attack on one country will be treated as an aggression against both.
3. It commits the two nations to strengthen defense cooperation and enhance joint deterrence. (Al Jazeera)

Participants and Context

The agreement was signed in **Riyadh**, between Pakistani Prime Minister *Shehbaz Sharif* and Saudi Crown Prince *Mohammed bin Salman*. Senior military officials were also present, reinforcing its strategic nature.

Key Details & Ambiguities

1. The treaty uses strong language: “any aggression against either shall be considered aggression against both.”
2. It is described as “comprehensive” in terms of defense cooperation. However, the details are vague in terms of what kind of military means are included.
3. One point of particular interest is whether Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent is also covered under this treaty. One Saudi official said the pact “encompasses all military means deemed necessary depending on the specific threat.”
4. That said, neither Pakistan nor Saudi Arabia has made a clear official statement confirming nuclear weapons are explicitly included. Pakistan has historically kept its nuclear doctrine ambiguous.

Strategic Significance

1. This marks one of Saudi Arabia’s most explicit security guarantees in recent years, especially with a nuclear-armed state.
2. Signals a shift (or possible shift) in regional security alignment: showing that Saudi Arabia is willing to deepen defense ties beyond traditional arrangements.
3. It may also serve as a message to Israel, Iran and other regional powers, in view of the recent escalation of conflict dynamics with the Gaza war, and incidents involving Qatar.

Why Now — Triggering Factors

Part of the timing seems linked to **recent regional tensions**, particularly an Israeli airstrike in Doha (Qatar) targeting Hamas leadership. Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, have reportedly been reassessing their security dependencies—especially on the United States— amidst what they see as unpredictable behavior in the region.

Strategic Significance

1. This marks one of Saudi Arabia’s most explicit security guarantees in recent years, especially with a nuclear-armed state.
2. Signals a shift (or possible shift) in regional security alignment: showing that Saudi Arabia is willing to deepen defense ties beyond traditional arrangements.
3. It may also serve as a message to Israel, Iran and other regional powers, in view of the recent escalation of conflict dynamics with the Gaza war, and incidents involving Qatar.

Potential Implications

1.Deterrence:

The treaty could act as a stronger deterrence against attacks on either country, as aggressors must consider bilateral reaction.

2.Nuclear Concerns:

Even though nuclear weapons are not explicitly confirmed, the possibility of including them adds a layer of complexity to regional nuclear diplomacy.

Diplomatic Repercussions:

Countries like India, Israel, Iran, and the United States will pay close attention. It may alter how they view Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy and alliances.

Regional Stability:

While some might see it as a stabilizing step—strengthening defense collaboration—others could view it as escalating militarization or shifting balance, possibly provoking counter-reactions.

US-Saudi Relations:

The move could be seen as Saudi Arabia diversifying its security dependencies, which might have implications for its relations with the United States.

U.S. Military Footprint in the Region

1. The U.S. maintains **major bases in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the UAE**.
2. Its **5th Fleet headquarters** is in Bahrain, and **CENTCOM forward HQ** operates from Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base.
3. For decades, Gulf monarchies relied on Washington for security against Iran, terrorism, and regional conflicts.
Rekhta - Urdu Poetry

How the Treaty Could Be a U.S. Concern

1. Diversification Away from U.S. Security Umbrella

By turning to Pakistan, Riyadh signals that it does not want to rely solely on the United States for protection.
This suggests waning U.S. influence in the Gulf, a region Washington considers strategically vital for oil routes and counterterrorism.

2. Strategic Autonomy for Saudi Arabia

The pact allows Riyadh to pursue **independent defense options**, reducing Washington’s leverage over Saudi foreign policy.
If Pakistan is seen as offering even an implicit *nuclear shield*, this undermines U.S. dominance in setting regional “red lines.”

3. Potential U.S.–Israel Friction

Israel depends heavily on U.S. support. If Saudi Arabia now has a credible backup ally in Pakistan , it complicates Washington’s ability to balance its commitments to Israel and Saudi Arabia simultaneously.

4. Fear of Parallel Defense Architecture

The U.S. runs the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) + U.S. defense framework.
A Saudi–Pakistan bloc creates a parallel security system outside U.S. oversight, possibly weakening NATO-aligned strategies in the Middle East.

5. Risk of Nuclear Ambiguity

Washington has always been sensitive to Saudi Arabia’s rumored interest in nuclear capability.
This treaty with nuclear-armed Pakistan may be read in Washington as a stepping stone toward a de facto Saudi nuclear umbrella — something the U.S. has strongly opposed.

Why It May Not Be an Open “Threat” Yet

1. The treaty does not expel or challenge U.S. bases in the Gulf.
2. Saudi Arabia still values American technology, arms, and intelligence.
3. Pakistan has deep defense ties with the U.S. too, so Islamabad may avoid framing this as anti-American.

Bottom Line

1. It’s not a **direct military threat** to the United States — no U.S. bases are at risk immediately.
2. But it is a **strategic warning sign**: Saudi Arabia is hedging its bets, showing Washington it has **other options** (Pakistan, and perhaps China in the future).
3.For the U.S., this is less about bases being attacked and more about **losing monopoly control** over Gulf security, which could weaken its influence over both Riyadh and regional geopolitics.

Shifting of Countries Toward Other Blocs

Because of this declining trust, nations are diversifying alliances:

Saudi Arabia & Gulf states:

Engaging more with China, Russia, and now Pakistan, while still balancing ties with the U.S.

Turkey & Iran:

Leaning into multipolar frameworks like BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).

Pakistan:

Strengthening links with Saudi Arabia, China, and Russia — beyond traditional U.S. alignment. Global South (Africa, Latin America, Asia): Increasingly skeptical of U.S. dominance and supportive of multipolarity.

Decline of U.S. International Status

1.Diplomatic isolation:

At the UN General Assembly, the U.S. often stands with only a handful of countries (sometimes just Israel) against overwhelming global majorities.

2.Economic challenge:

China’s Belt & Road and BRICS currency discussions offer alternatives to U.S.-dominated systems (IMF, SWIFT, dollar hegemony).

3.Military overstretch:

The U.S. has bases worldwide but faces simultaneous crises in Europe, the Middle East, and the Pacific — eroding its ability to dictate outcomes everywhere

The Emerging New Block

The shift is toward a multipolar world, often seen as:
BRICS+ (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, plus new members like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, Egypt).
SCO (Russia, China, Pakistan, Central Asia, Iran, India).
Non-Western alliances that reject unilateral dominance and emphasize sovereignty. These blocs don’t fully agree on everything, but they share one goal: reducing dependence on the U.S. and resisting its one-sided policies.

✅ Summary:

U.S. support for Israel, despite accusations of genocide, has damaged its global image and accelerated the shift of many countries toward alternative blocs like BRICS and SCO. This treaty between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is one clear sign of that realignment.
Visit My Website
I asked this question on Quora some Answers I want to show you here
Answer from indian citizen
Answer of a researcher from boston university on quora