Saudi Arabia & Pakistan - Strategic Defence Pact 2025

 

PAKISTAN – SAUDI ARABIA STRATEGIC DEFENCE PACT – 2025

On 18 September 2025, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia signed a Strategic Defence Pact, under which both nations pledged to assist each other in the event of an attack by any enemy — including nuclear threats. The pact was announced with much fanfare: Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s aircraft was accorded a grand reception, comparable to the welcome extended to U.S. President Donald Trump just weeks earlier. Immediately after signing, PM Shehbaz Sharif and Army Chief General Asim Munir departed for the UNGA conference in the U.S., where they were scheduled to meet President Trump on the sidelines.

While the event is being projected as historic, I hold a contrarian view: this pact is more show than substance. In reality, it represents Washington’s strategy of keeping Pakistan firmly within its orbit, rather than granting it “strategic autonomy.” Free lunches in the White House are never truly free; they always demand repayment in kind. My observations are as follows:

1. U.S. Involvement Cannot Be Ruled Out
   It is difficult to believe this deal was concluded without tacit U.S. approval. Suggesting otherwise is as misleading as claiming Washington was unaware of Israel’s missile strike on Qatar — an attack that was only possible because U.S. radars and A2/AD systems in the region were deliberately turned off. Given that America’s largest Middle East base is in Doha, it is clear that both Riyadh and Islamabad sought U.S. blessings.

2. CENTCOM’s Presence in Riyadh
   U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) chief Admiral Brad Cooper was in Riyadh just as the pact was signed. According to Saudi Press Agency, he met Defence Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman on 16 September 2025 to discuss defence cooperation and regional developments. This underscores America’s role, possibly even as a counter to Israel’s aggression against Qatar.

3. Pakistan’s Nuclear Program Was Never Truly Independent
   Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal was built with Saudi financing and America’s deliberate blind eye. Former U.S. President Ronald Reagan looked away while Pakistan clandestinely developed the bomb, a fact well documented by Pakistani author Ayesha Siddiqui. To claim the U.S. had no knowledge is simply false.

4. Operation “Sindoor” Evidence
   The operation exposed that Pakistan’s nukes are not under its sovereign control. The Nuclear Command shelter at Noor Khan Air Base was U.S.-built, and allegedly around 150 American personnel perished there. This points to deeper U.S. involvement, hidden under layers of denial.

5. Target is Iran, Not Israel
   Saudi Arabia’s real threat comes from Iran and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, not Israel (which has quietly cooperated with Riyadh). Thus, this pact is effectively a nuclear umbrella against Iran, extended indirectly by the U.S. via Pakistan. With this move, Washington solved two issues: easing Saudi fears of Iran’s nukes and guaranteeing cash-strapped Pakistan financial aid from Riyadh. General Munir’s repeated U.S. visits — and his family’s expedited U.S. citizenship in June 2025 — underline this alignment.

6. Wider Regional Fallout
   The pact worsens Saudi-Pakistan ties with Iran and will have ripple effects in Afghanistan, destabilising West Asia further. Instability benefits Washington, enabling it to dominate while rivals remain entangled in crises.

7. China and India in the Crosshairs
   With Pakistan and Saudi Arabia locked into U.S. dependence, Beijing will be forced to deepen ties with Iran. This should also be seen against the backdrop of India’s growing closeness with China. The U.S. is deliberately stirring instability around India — from Bangladesh to Myanmar, Nepal, and Sri Lanka — with China as the ultimate target.

8. Chaos as a U.S. Strategy
   American global supremacy thrives on chaos. The more fragmented and conflict-ridden the world becomes, the stronger Washington’s position remains, while challengers are kept preoccupied with local crises.

9. Implications for India
   For New Delhi, this could be a silver lining. The assumption that India depends entirely on Saudi oil is flawed. Iran could now open up more freely, giving India greater leverage over the Chabahar port and access to Central Asia. Prime Minister Modi must remain wary of U.S. gestures, like Trump’s birthday wishes, which mask policies hostile to Indian interests.

10. Saudi Arabia’s Role in Indo-Pak Conflict
    There is no real threat to India from this pact. If war breaks out, Saudi Arabia’s support to Pakistan will likely be limited to financial aid. In fact, Riyadh might even play a moderating role in restraining Islamabad’s aggression.

11. Afghanistan – An Opportunity for India
    India should seize the chance to engage with the Taliban regime. In the event of conflict with Pakistan, Afghanistan could serve as a second front.

12. OIC and Gulf Council – A Theatrical Display
    Recent meetings of the OIC and Gulf Council were largely symbolic, aimed at placating Qatar. None of these states took real action against Israel. Most, including Saudi Arabia, maintain covert ties with Tel Aviv.

13. Aimed at Isolating Iran and Distracting China
    Ultimately, this pact seeks to pull Pakistan away from Iran and force China into a difficult position. For India, it opens opportunities in Afghanistan and Central Asia through Chabahar.

14. Pakistan’s Limited Capability
    Realistically, Pakistan cannot offer Saudi Arabia meaningful defence when it struggles against the Afghan Taliban and domestic insurgents like the BLA/BLF. Operation Sindoor exposed the hollowness of its nuclear deterrent. This pact is therefore more psychological than strategic — designed to widen rifts within the Muslim world.

Conclusion

This defence pact lacks real substance. The U.S. will never allow Israel to attack Saudi Arabia, which confirms the pact is directed solely at Iran. It provides Saudi Arabia with psychological assurance, not genuine security. The true test will come if Saudi Arabia asks Pakistan to commit forces against Yemen’s Houthis — something Pakistan refused to do under Nawaz Sharif in 2014–15. What has changed now?

In essence, this is a sell-out of Pakistan to the U.S., engineered by General Asim Munir. Whether the pact can be implemented effectively remains doubtful, given Saudi Arabia’s equally close ties with India — as seen when it conferred its highest national award on PM Modi. For now, this agreement appears less a strategic breakthrough and more a geopolitical manoeuvre serving American interests.

India has lost the Test Match that too in a humiliating manner. None would have expected this till India were bundled out for 76 in the first day. Even then, all would have thought that we will lose the match on the final day. Salt was rubbed on our wounds when two of the Proteases scored hundreds.

India is notorious for its inconsistency. It has a star-studded team however, the instances of all the stars performing together is pretty rare. All the Indian pitches are belters and the batsmen will have enough time to hit the ball all around the ground. Under such circumstances, it is the openers’ responsibilities to take care that the dew (whatever remains) is taken off and it becomes a batting-paradise for the team to follow.

A team bundling out within 20 overs is a matter of shame. Of late, this is happening at decent intervals. Earlier, we were bundled out for 66 runs against South Africa, it happened in Caribbean islands. Till the time I followed cricket (say up to 1987), the only low score match was 42 against England where Chris Old and Arnold literally bundled us out.

Happened is happened. The media that went gaga over the triple ton of Sehwag (irony is he was compared to Lara and Donald Bradman and SMS contests were held) literally scrubbed the nose of the Indian team after their buckle. I do agree that media has to appreciate and suggest but going over-board on both the occasions would make them lose their credibility.

Immediately after the bundling, Harbhajan Singh commented on the basis of the pitch and recommended for Spin-oriented pitches. The excuse they take is “Play to your strength. Every country is preparing pitches according to their strength and why not we do so?” Ajit Wadekar (under whom the notorious 42 all out had happened) initiated such practice and Azharuddin became the most successful captain of India and Indians were labeled as tigers at home and rats outside. This practice had blunted the talents of all our players and we lost most of them unknowingly.

Similar thing happened to hockey (by playing only on grass and not on turf) led us to be out of the Olympic race. However, we are not learning even now. Kumble immediately contacted the curator of Green Park and recommended spin-assisting pitch. The selection of team confirms this. Piyush Chawla and Ramesh Powar (who was long forgotten) got a call and included in the team.

One cannot say, Indians might win the match at Green Park and take a sweet revenge. Both the cricketing boards are happy because each team won a match the money is shared. If India loses, the profits would shrink. Why to lose money? Let us prepare pitches as to make a fool of cricket lovers, fool of themselves, fool of cricket. All they want money.

In which way preparing a pitch assisting local players is different from match-fixing?
If the umpires can be neutral, why cant the venues be?
Why cant the curators of the pitches be neutral?

Will the ICC listen to this if they are really interested in promoting cricket? If they want to promote business in the name of cricket let the present system continue.