Pakistan's response to the ongoing conflict in West Asia has sparked concerns about the strength and credibility of the Saudi–Pakistan Strategic Military Defence Agreement. Recent events involving Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have revealed cracks in ties long projected as strategic and reliable.
"The agreement, first signed with much fanfare, was framed as a partnership in which both nations would support each other in the event of external threats. Analysts at the time likened it to a NATO-style alliance, with the principle that aggression against one would be considered aggression against both. The pact was presented as a symbol of brotherhood and strategic alignment between a wealthy Gulf state and its South Asian partner, with Islamabad positioning itself as a reliable provider of security support," a report in South Africa's 'The Star' stated.
"Fast forward to 28 February 2026, when coordinated strikes attributed to United States and Israel targeted Iranian military and political infrastructure. Tehran responded with retaliatory strikes targetting Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia. In theory, this should have been a moment when Pakistan’s commitment under the defence pact was tested. Yet, Pakistan has not made any visible military contribution, prompting observers to question its role as a dependable partner," it added.
Pakistan, instead of projecting force in support of Saudi Arabia, has remained focused on its conflict with Afghanistan. The recent escalation of tensions has allowed Pakistan to effectively sidestep the more immediate obligations that the agreement with Saudi Arabia might suggest. Analysts have contended that Pakistan's calculated restraint demonstrates domestic constraints and a broader reassessment of what it is willing to commit in international military partnerships.
The current situation showcases a difference between rhetoric and action. For years, Pakistan has projected itself as a strategic anchor for Saudi Arabia's security, however, at the time of demand, the alliance seems less robust than previously suggested. For Saudi Arabia, this gap between expectation and action is likely disconcerting, the report highlighted.
"The kingdom invested significant diplomatic and strategic capital in framing the SMDA as a serious and binding commitment. For years, Saudi officials have cited the pact as evidence of Islamabad’s reliability and as a hedge against regional threats. The present crisis, however, suggests that when tested under real conditions, Pakistan’s support may be more symbolic than operational. The implications of Pakistan’s cautious posture are complex.
"Firstly, it could affect Saudi Arabia's calculations in the West Asia, particularly regarding defence partnerships and dependence on regional allies. Saudi Arabia may now consider alternative arrangements or to deepen cooperation with other partners, including Western states, to compensate for gaps observed in Pakistan's commitment. Secondly, credibility of Pakistan in regional diplomacy could be tested. Other nations observing the agreement's implementation may question on whether they should trust Pakistan for future crisis, impacting its strategic leverage and its standing as a regional actor," The Star report stated.
