THE CONTEXT: Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SDMA) was signed by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (Saudi Arabia) and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif (Pakistan) on 17 September 2025, at Riyadh.
KEY PROVISIONS
1. Mutual Aggression Clause: Any aggression (attack) against one country shall be considered aggression against both.
2. Strengthening Joint Deterrence & Defence Cooperation: The pact aims to develop aspects of defence cooperation and strengthen joint deterrence against any aggression.
3. Comprehensive Defensive Agreement: It “encompasses all military means”, per at least one senior Saudi official.
4. Historic / Strategic Foundations
-
-
-
- The agreement builds on nearly eight decades of ties between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
- Elements of cooperation include: training of Saudi personnel by Pakistan, past deployments, joint exercises.
-
-
5. Defensive, Not Offensive: Pakistan’s Defence Minister noted this is a defensive arrangement, not an aggressive pact. There is no naming of any specific country as a threat.
6. Openness to Expansion: The “doors are not closed” for other Arab nations to join the mutual defence arrangement.
Unclear / Not in Public Domain Yet
-
- Operational Details: How joint responses will be coordinated (command chain, command & control), logistics, military readiness, deployment specifics.
- Nuclear Weapons Clause:
- Pakistan is nuclear-armed, and some statements suggest that all military means are included in the defensive umbrella.
- However, Pakistan has emphasized that nuclear weapons are not on the radar as an explicit part of the pact.
- Trigger Mechanisms: What constitutes “aggression”, how thresholds are defined, what support must be provided (troops, intelligence, material), timelines etc. Not yet detailed publicly.
- Geographic / Scope Limitations: It is not yet public if there are limitations to certain territories, or if threats must come from external vs internal actors.
Context of the pact
-
- Regionally, tensions have increased due to Israeli actions (e.g. strike on Doha) and concerns in Gulf states about reliance on the U.S. security guarantees.
- For Pakistan, the deal formalises a decades-old relationship that included training of Saudi forces, and close military cooperation.
- For Saudi Arabia, it appears to be part of an effort to diversify defence partnerships beyond traditional reliance on the West, and create credible deterrence in face of regional threats.
Comparative view
| Feature | SMDA (Saudi–Pakistan) | NATO Article-5 (collective defence) | U.S.–Japan Security Treaty (bilateral) | GCC / regional defence arrangements |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Bilateral (but open to expansion). Signed 17-Sep-2025. | Multilateral alliance; treaty (1949) with standing mutual-defence Article-5. | Longstanding bilateral mutual defence/security treaty (revised 1960). Allows US basing and explicit US security commitment to Japan. | Multilateral regional cooperation; variable commitments (mainly GCC joint air/sea/missile defence systems). |
| Core obligation | “Attack on one = attack on both.” Wording echoes Article-5 but operational detail not public. | Article-5: collective response if an Ally is attacked. Clear treaty text and institutional mechanisms. | Mutual defence for territories under Japanese administration; US guarantees and forward basing. Clear presence/authority of US forces in Japan. | Commitments typically cover shared air/sea defence and crisis response; no formal Article-5-style universal trigger. |
| Nuclear dimension | Ambiguous: Pakistan is nuclear-armed; public debate whether Pakistan’s deterrent could be extended to Saudi Arabia. Officials partially ambiguous. | NATO: security guaranteed conventionally; US nuclear role is part of NATO deterrence (nuclear sharing). Explicit, institutionalised. | U.S. nuclear umbrella covers Japan informally via the U.S. strategic posture — long established and publicly accepted. | Generally non-nuclear; some GCC members seek external deterrence (historically US). |
Policy implications, risks & likely reactions
-
- Deterrence vs. proliferation risk: If Pakistan’s deterrent is perceived as extended to Saudi Arabia, this may deter adversaries but could stimulate regional arms dynamics and political backlash (India, Israel, Iran). Several analysts have flagged proliferation and strategic-stability concerns.
-
- Credibility hinge: Without published operational details (C2, basing, thresholds), the pact’s deterrent value depends on political signalling and leaders’ willingness to follow through. Skeptical analysts stress that “paper” commitments are weaker than institutionalised alliances.
- Risk of escalation: Ambiguity about nuclear roles can raise crisis instability—adversaries may misread thresholds during a conflict. Experts warn nuclear ambiguity can deter but also risk inadvertent escalation.
- Wider geopolitical shift: The pact illustrates Gulf efforts to diversify security partnerships beyond Washington — important in light of recent events that have shaken Gulf confidence in U.S. guarantees. That recalibration will be watched closely by regional players and external powers.
THREATS TO INDIA
Whether India should worry about this strategic partnership?
1. Not necessarily. It past as well, both had partnership although not defence type. There were over 20000 Pakistani force deployed in Saudi for protecting internal security.
2. But by 1990s, all forces were withdrawn and their relationship became a bit sour.
3. Pakistan has kept itself away from Arab conflicts including Hama-Israel conflicts even if Arabians have tried for Pak-help.
4. It is a very unlikely that Saudi will help Pakistan in case of Pak-India conflicts as India has a robust relationship with Saudi Arabia.
5. Saudi Arabia needs market as it is diversifying itself to reduce burden on oil-based economy. It is expected to invent in India over $70 billion and India provides biggest market.
CONCLUSION:
Although it is an important development for the Arabian world and it could not have been possible without consent or positive signals of US, India needs to be watchful of this development and should align its defence strategy to guarantee full-proof to India’s security like operationalisation of Sudarshan Chakra.
Spread the Word