This analysis is based on the framework and key insights articulated by Husain Nadim, former Head of IPPRI and Founder of 3rd Eye Think Tank. His five-point outline provides the conceptual framework through which the Saudi-Pakistan Mutual Defence Pact has been analysed in this study.
The recent announcement of the Saudi-Pakistan Mutual Defence Pact has sparked debate across global policy circles, especially in Islamabad. For Pakistan, this agreement is more than a typical bilateral deal; it is a pivotal moment at the crossroads of economic survival, geopolitical shift, and military stature.
Husain Nadim’s five key points on the pact highlight that this deal involves Saudi Arabia protecting its security interests, a partial nuclear safeguard, a formal acknowledgement of US unreliability, and Pakistan taking a central role in Middle Eastern security affairs.
From Pakistan’s perspective, the pact offers immediate benefits but also entails long-term risks that require careful consideration.
Saudi Arabia’s Strategic Autonomy: Reality or Rhetoric?
Diversification of Security Dependence
Pakistan reads this deal as Riyadh’s most decisive step yet toward strategic autonomy. While Saudi Arabia has been formally under the US security umbrella since the Quincy Pact of 1945, its leadership, particularly Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has been signalling frustration with Washington’s declining reliability. The US response to the 2019 Abqaiq oil facility attack, seen as hesitant and insufficient, was a turning point. Riyadh has since been actively exploring diversification of its security architecture: deepening ties with China, warming up to Russia, and now formalising a military arrangement with Pakistan.
From Islamabad’s view, this agreement is not about severing ties with Washington but about creating leverage. A Pakistani nuclear umbrella, even if never formally acknowledged, instantly changes the regional threat matrix, particularly vis-à-vis Iran.
Saudi Arabia has effectively “gone nuclear without building a bomb,” as Bob Woodward notes in his book War, quoting MBS: “I don’t need uranium to make a bomb; I’ll just buy one from Pakistan.”
The Limits of Independence
However, Pakistani strategists are realistic about Saudi Arabia’s continued dependence on the US. American military bases in the Gulf, integrated command and control systems, and security assurances through CENTCOM cannot be replicated overnight. Pakistan views its role as a supplement, not a substitute, for US power projection in the Gulf.
This deal, therefore, is a form of insurance policy and a message to Washington: “We have other options if you hesitate.”
Does the Pact Help or Hurt US Interests?
Two Plausible American Calculations. From Islamabad’s vantage point, Washington’s response to the pact could go one of two ways.
The first scenario is tacit approval. The US may quietly support the deal as a low-cost way to reassure Riyadh without committing more troops or hardware to the Gulf. In an era of American retrenchment and focus on the Indo-Pacific, outsourcing part of the Gulf security burden to Pakistan, a longstanding US ally and a Muslim nuclear power, could actually align with Washington’s strategic priorities.
The second scenario is suspicion. If the deal blindsided Washington, it could be seen as a proliferation risk and a challenge to US primacy in the Middle East. Pakistan is aware of its delicate balancing act; any perception of Islamabad enabling Saudi nuclearisation could trigger sanctions, tighter IMF conditionalities, or pressure through the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).
This is why Pakistani policymakers are framing the agreement as a conventional defence pact rather than a nuclear guarantee.
US Pain or Opportunity?
From Islamabad’s perspective, this pact is not a challenge or a provocation to Washington, but a wake-up call. The US must consider whether it wants to relinquish its influence in Riyadh to Beijing and Moscow. For Pakistan, the desired outcome is one where the pact prompts Washington to re-engage with Saudi Arabia on terms that preserve regional stability, allowing Pakistan to act as a bridge rather than a spoiler.
Pakistan’s Gains and Risks: Blessings and Curses
Immediate Dividends
In the short term, the pact is a lifeline for Pakistan. Riyadh is expected to provide fresh deposits to the State Bank of Pakistan, extend deferred oil payment facilities, and invest in infrastructure and mining. These investments and financial support could significantly boost Pakistan’s economy and help alleviate some of its economic challenges.
The Pakistani military establishment, already under pressure from economic crises and political instability, gains international legitimacy and domestic breathing room. The pact signals to the world that Pakistan remains indispensable to Gulf security, and it reinforces Rawalpindi’s narrative of being the ultimate guardian of national interest.
Strategic Overexposure
The risks, however, are considerable. Pakistan has historically tried to avoid being sucked into Middle Eastern conflicts. During the Yemen crisis (2015), Islamabad refused Riyadh’s request for troop deployments, fearing backlash from Iran and sectarian blowback at home. This pact, mainly because it bypassed parliament and civilian institutions, suggests a far deeper commitment, one that could make neutrality impossible in the future.
Iran’s reaction is particularly crucial. Tehran could interpret the pact as Pakistan formally siding with the Saudi bloc, leading to increased cross-border militancy along the Balochistan frontier, covert support for sectarian groups inside Pakistan, and closer Iran-India security cooperation that complicates Pakistan’s western flank.
Similarly, India may seek to exploit Pakistan’s military commitments in the Gulf by testing its readiness along the eastern border, calculating that Islamabad cannot afford a two-front confrontation. These potential risks highlight the delicate geopolitical balance Pakistan must maintain.
At the same time, India may seek to exploit Pakistan’s military commitments in the Gulf by testing its readiness along the eastern border, calculating that Islamabad cannot afford a two-front confrontation.
Can Pakistan Sustain This Pact Without Burning Itself?
Balancing Act Between Riyadh, Tehran, and Beijing
For Pakistan to avoid ‘burning itself,’ it must pursue a careful balancing strategy. Islamabad’s diplomatic corps will need to intensify engagement with Tehran to reassure it that the pact is defensive, not offensive. This delicate diplomatic dance underscores the complexity of Pakistan’s position.
Simultaneously, Pakistan must leverage its ties with China to frame this as part of a broader regional security order rather than a zero-sum anti-Iran move. Beijing’s quiet backing of the Riyadh-Tehran rapprochement in 2023 gives Islamabad an opening to argue that its involvement could be stabilising rather than escalatory.
Domestic Political Costs
The bypassing of parliament in finalising this pact has already raised concerns about democratic oversight. If Pakistan becomes embroiled in a Gulf conflict, public backlash could be severe, particularly if there are Pakistani casualties or a spike in sectarian violence.
The military regime must therefore prepare a narrative that frames the pact as essential to Pakistan’s economic revival and national security, not merely a transactional arrangement for foreign aid.
SWOT Analysis of Pakistan’s Position
Strengths. Pakistan’s strategic leverage over Riyadh, bolstered by its nuclear capability as a bargaining chip and the influx of fresh financial inflows and energy support, significantly enhances its geopolitical standing.
Weaknesses. Domestic sectarian vulnerabilities, lack of parliamentary oversight, and dependence on external financing.
Opportunities. Position as a bridge between Saudi Arabia, China, and the US; economic revival; potential role as a regional stabiliser.
Threats. Iranian retaliation, India exploiting overstretch, and possible Western sanctions if the deal is perceived as nuclear proliferation.
Conclusion: A Strategic Tightrope
From a Pakistani perspective, the Saudi-Pakistan Mutual Defence Pact is both a strategic windfall and a stress test. It secures economic relief, enhances Pakistan’s international profile, and reasserts its military relevance beyond South Asia. Yet, it also heightens exposure to Gulf conflicts, risks antagonising Iran, and places Islamabad under greater scrutiny from Washington.
For Saudi Arabia. Yes, Riyadh can diversify its security risks and assert a more independent posture, but complete decoupling from the US is neither feasible nor desirable. Pakistan is a force multiplier, not a substitute.
For the US. The pact could benefit Washington if it is used as leverage to re-anchor Saudi Arabia in the US-led security order. If misread, it could accelerate Riyadh’s drift toward Beijing and Moscow.
For Pakistan. The deal is sustainable only if Islamabad practices careful diplomacy, maintains deterrence on the eastern front, and avoids being drawn into offensive operations in the Gulf. Overreach could lead to economic, political, and security blowback.
This is not a blank cheque for adventurism but a high-stakes insurance policy. How Pakistan manages it will determine whether this pact becomes a cornerstone of national revival or a costly miscalculation in the decades ahead.