DOHA, Qatar — President Trump’s efforts to bring peace to Gaza earned the United States enormous credibility in capitals across the Middle East — but this week’s flex of American diplomatic muscle was too little, too late for one Gulf power upset over Israel’s stunning early September strike on Qatar.
Eight days after Israeli missiles struck Hamas leaders in Qatar’s capital, Saudi Arabia formalized a mutual defense pact with nuclear-armed Pakistan that Gulf officials say marked the end of the region’s exclusive reliance on American protection.
The Sept. 17 agreement came as a direct response to what Saudi officials privately describe as Washington’s failure to defend even its closest Gulf allies. When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sent jets to bomb Doha on Sept. 9 — targeting Hamas negotiators in a capital hosting 10,000 U.S. troops — the attack drew only a muted American response.
“Targeting Qatar is effectively a strike against the whole Gulf and Gulf collective security,” Hesham Alghannam, a Saudi academic close to government circles, told The Washington Times. “After this attack, it has become clear to the Saudi leadership that Israel operates with a free hand in the region, and the United States continues to give it the green light.”
The Saudi pact with Pakistan, the Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement, declares that “any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both” — language that has sparked intense speculation about whether Saudi Arabia now falls under Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella.
Mr. Trump brokered a Netanyahu apology to Qatar on Sept. 29, but the diplomatic cleanup only underscored Washington’s impossible position: unable to prevent a strike on an ally hosting its largest regional base, then forced to mediate the aftermath.
The pact has triggered swift regional fallout. Egypt, traditionally the Arab world’s largest military power, was blindsided by Riyadh’s choice of Pakistan as its formal defense partner.
“Saudi Arabia is clearly working hard to variegate its defense and security partnerships and alliances,” Ahmed Abdel Meguid, an Egyptian political researcher, told The New Arab, reflecting Cairo’s frustration at being passed over.
At the Arab-Islamic summit convened after the Doha strike, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi called Israel “an enemy” — the first time he has used such terminology since taking office in 2014.
Muhammad Faisal of Australia’s Lowy Institute called it “a pivotal moment in South Asian security” that “binds the security of the Indian subcontinent to that of the Gulf region.”
Harsh V. Pant of India’s Observer Research Foundation noted that the Saudis have long extended support to Pakistan over the issue of Kashmir, and he warned that the pact could embolden Islamabad in its rivalry with New Delhi.
Pakistani officials have sent conflicting signals about the nuclear dimension. Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif initially suggested Pakistan’s nuclear “capabilities … will be made available” to Saudi Arabia, before hastily insisting nuclear weapons were “not on the radar.”
Saudi officials have been deliberately vague. A senior Saudi official described the pact as “a comprehensive defensive agreement that encompasses all military means” — language carefully crafted to keep adversaries guessing.
Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, speaking in London on Sept. 29, tried to calm concerns. “The bottom line of the agreement is that if anyone attacks one of the brother countries, the attack will be seen as against the other. And both will combat it together with consultation,” he said.
Pakistan brings substantial firepower: 654,000 active soldiers, more than 500,000 reserves, and ballistic missiles with 1,700-mile ranges — technically capable of reaching Israeli territory, though officials insist they target only India.
Saudi Arabia contributes a $75 billion defense budget that ranked fifth globally in 2024, plus $6 billion in recent assistance to Pakistan. Nearly $900 million flows monthly from Pakistani workers in the Kingdom back to Islamabad.
The pact faced its first real test within weeks — not from Iran or Israel, but from Afghanistan.
In early October, Pakistani and Afghan Taliban forces exchanged deadly cross-border fire. Pakistan’s military said 23 soldiers were killed while claiming to have neutralized more than 200 Taliban militants. The fighting erupted over Pakistan’s accusations that Kabul harbors militants blamed for attacks that killed 19 Pakistani soldiers in mid-September.
Saudi Arabia’s response was notably measured. “The kingdom calls for restraint, avoiding escalation, and embracing dialogue and wisdom to contribute to reducing tensions and maintaining security and stability in the region,” the Saudi Foreign Ministry said.
That cautious statement revealed practical limits to the sweeping mutual defense language: Riyadh wants a capable ally but no part of Pakistan’s messy frontier wars.
The pact creates unprecedented linkages between Middle Eastern and South Asian conflicts, binding rivalries across two regions in ways that could reshape future crises.
Pakistan now finds itself formally committed to potential confrontations with Iran, Israel, and the Houthis — far beyond its traditional focus on India. Its Shaheen-III missiles can technically reach Israeli territory, a capability that takes on new significance under a mutual defense framework.
Yet the October Afghanistan clashes exposed an awkward reality: Pakistan wants Saudi backing against India, while Saudi Arabia wants Pakistani muscle against Iran and Israel. Neither may deliver when conflicts actually erupt.
The arrangement is already triggering counter-alignments. Analysts say India may deepen its strategic partnership with Israel in response, potentially creating an India-Israel axis to balance the Saudi-Pakistan one. Some suggest the UAE and India could explore their own mutual defense pact.
For Iran, the calculus has shifted. Tehran now faces two nuclear-armed powers in the region — Israel as adversary, and Pakistan as Saudi Arabia’s potential defender. That arithmetic may constrain Iranian adventurism, or it may accelerate Tehran’s own nuclear ambitions.
The result is a new security architecture that fuses Gulf and South Asian conflicts into a single, volatile system. A crisis between India and Pakistan could now ripple through the Gulf. A strike on Saudi Arabia could pull Pakistan into Middle Eastern wars.
“For Pakistan, the power projection into the Middle East is huge, even though it has inserted itself into a volatile region,” said Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States. “Pakistan has the military capability and, in turn, what we get is economic strengthening.”
Israel has made no official comment, though analysts warn even Pakistan’s India-focused arsenal could reach Israeli territory. Israeli researcher Yoel Guzansky cautioned in the Jerusalem Post that “Israel should avoid misinterpreting the pact as a hostile alignment aimed directly at it,” arguing Riyadh seeks “self-reliance and strategic diversification, not confrontation.”
Tensions have already flared. In September, Israeli forces intercepted a Gaza aid flotilla and detained former Pakistani Sen. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, triggering protests in Lahore and intensifying pressure on Islamabad to confront Israel more directly.
The Trump administration faces an impossible balancing act. After years of viewing Pakistan through what Heritage Foundation analysts call a lens of “extreme duplicity” — citing $33 billion in U.S. aid since 2001 yielding what Mr. Trump called “nothing but lies and deceit” — the White House has signaled an unexpected thaw.
Mr. Trump hosted Pakistani Field Marshal Asim Munir and Mr. Sharif at the White House in September, touting economic partnerships in critical minerals and energy.
Yet the Saudi-Pakistan pact represents a stinging rebuke to American reliability. As one senior analyst noted, the pact is “complementary, not alternative” to U.S. guarantees — but that framing itself reveals how even Washington’s closest Gulf partners now hedge their bets.
“America remains central, but Riyadh will not leave its future hostage to hesitation,” Mr. Alghannam said. “Targeting Qatar undermines the collective security of the entire Gulf region.”
Other Gulf states may follow suit. Analysts say the United Arab Emirates or Qatar could pursue similar arrangements, building a regional security architecture through bilateral pacts rather than waiting for Washington to lead.
The defense pact marks a stark new reality: Gulf powers are done waiting for American protection that may never materialize. Whether this signals a fundamental rupture or tactical adjustment depends on how Washington responds to its allies’ growing independence.
Mr. Alghannam said Saudi Arabia’s message is clear. “Ensuring its own security comes before any other priority or interest,” he said. “The pact does not replace existing partnerships; it strengthens Saudi Arabia’s independent defense posture and diversifies its instruments, providing a binding framework for joint response and deterrence.”
Please read our comment policy before commenting.