Pakistan’s Strategic Dilemma: Alliance Commitments, Regional Rivalries, and the Limits of Strategic Autonomy

The signing of the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on September 17, 2025 emerges as one of the most consequential developments in Pakistan’s contemporary security policy. Signed in Riyadh by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, with Pakistan’s army chief Asim Munir present, the agreement introduced a collective defence clause stating that aggression against one state would be treated as aggression against the other. Although analysts have cautioned against equating the arrangement directly with North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Article 5, the symbolism of the pact nevertheless signals a major shift in Pakistan’s strategic posture. While the pact signals a historic shift, it simultaneously tethers Islamabad to the volatile security architecture of the Persian Gulf, raising the specter of strategic entrapment.

What initially appeared to be a calculated deepening of Pakistan–Saudi defence cooperation has now produced an acute strategic paradox for Islamabad. Pakistan finds itself navigating competing imperatives: alliance credibility with Saudi Arabia, geopolitical constraints imposed by its border with Iran, and domestic political and sectarian sensitivities. This triangular dynamic illustrates the broader challenge faced by middle powers attempting to maintain strategic autonomy amid intensifying regional rivalries.

Historical Foundations of the Pakistan–Saudi Security Relationship

The defence partnership between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is not deeply institutionalized. Since the Cold War period, Pakistan has maintained close military cooperation with the Saudi state. Pakistani military personnel have long served in advisory and training roles within the kingdom, and at various points Pakistani troops have been stationed in Saudi Arabia to assist with internal and external security.

This relationship has historically been framed within a broader ideological and geopolitical alignment. Saudi Arabia has provided financial assistance to Pakistan during periods of economic crisis, while Pakistan has offered security guarantees and military expertise to the kingdom. For Riyadh, Pakistan’s status as the only Muslim-majority state possessing nuclear weapons has also carried symbolic strategic value.

Despite this deep relationship, Pakistan traditionally exercised caution in formalizing its commitments. Islamabad consistently avoided entering into explicit defence treaties that might obligate it to participate in conflicts involving Saudi Arabia. The most prominent example occurred in 2015, when Pakistan declined Saudi Arabia’s request to join the military coalition fighting the **Houthis in Yemen. Following a parliamentary debate, Pakistan adopted a policy of neutrality, reflecting both domestic sensitivities and concerns about becoming entangled in regional proxy wars.

The 2025 defence agreement therefore represents a notable departure from Pakistan’s historically cautious approach to alliance commitments.

Alliance Politics and Strategic Signalling

From an International Relations perspective, the Pakistan–Saudi defence pact can be interpreted through the framework of alliance politics. Alliances serve several functions: deterrence against adversaries, reassurance among partners, and signalling of strategic alignment.

For Saudi Arabia, the agreement functions primarily as a deterrence signal directed toward Iran and other regional adversaries. Following a series of regional security shocks—including Israeli strikes against Hamas officials in Doha and the perceived erosion of American security guarantees in the Gulf—Riyadh has sought to diversify its security partnerships. Although the United States remains Saudi Arabia’s principal security provider, uncertainties regarding American commitments have encouraged the kingdom to cultivate additional strategic partners.

Pakistan, in this context, offers several advantages. Its large and experienced military, nuclear capabilities, and long-standing institutional ties with Saudi security structures make it a credible secondary security partner. The defence pact therefore strengthens Saudi Arabia’s deterrence posture by implying that an attack on the kingdom might provoke a broader regional response.

For Pakistan, the agreement initially appeared to offer strategic and economic benefits. Closer security cooperation with Saudi Arabia could translate into financial investment, energy security, and continued employment opportunities for millions of Pakistani workers in the Gulf. In addition, deeper ties with Riyadh potentially enhance Pakistan’s diplomatic influence within the broader Muslim world.

Yet alliance theory also highlights a central dilemma: alliances simultaneously provide security and constrain autonomy. By committing itself to Saudi Arabia’s defence, Pakistan risks being drawn into conflicts that do not directly serve its own national interests.

The Iranian Frontier: Geographic Continuity vs. Strategic Departure

The most immediate constraint on Pakistan’s alliance commitments arises from its relationship with Iran. The two countries share a long and porous border stretching across the restive province of Balochistan. Despite periodic tensions, both states have sought to maintain a pragmatic, if guarded, modus vivendi diplomatic and economic relations.

Recent years have seen cautious attempts at rapprochement between Islamabad and Tehran. High-level diplomatic visits, including the 2025 visit of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian to Islamabad, reflected efforts to stabilize bilateral relations and expand cross-border trade.

However, the relationship remains fragile. In January 2024, Iran conducted cross-border strikes targeting militant groups inside Pakistani territory, prompting retaliatory action from Pakistan. Although the crisis was quickly defused through diplomacy, the episode demonstrated the volatility of the border region and the potential for rapid escalation.

For Islamabad, treating Iran purely as an adversary would carry significant strategic risks. Instability inside Iran could produce spillover effects across the border, including refugee flows, militant activity, and heightened insurgency in Balochistan. From a geopolitical perspective, the fragmentation of Iran or the expansion of Israeli influence toward Pakistan’s western frontier represents a scenario that many Pakistani policymakers view with deep concern.

Consequently, Pakistan must carefully balance its alliance commitments to Saudi Arabia with its geographical and strategic realities vis-à-vis Iran.

Domestic Politics and Sectarian Dynamics

Pakistan’s internal political landscape further complicates its strategic calculations. With a Shia minority estimated at 15–20% (approx. 35–45 million people), Pakistan’s internal stability is functionally linked to Middle Eastern de-escalation. Any perception of Pakistan acting as a ‘Sunni proxy’ could reignite dormant sectarian fault lines, transforming a foreign policy choice into a domestic security crisis.—which has historically mobilized around developments affecting Iran and the broader Shia world.

Events in the Middle East often resonate deeply within Pakistan’s domestic political environment. The assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, for instance, triggered widespread protests across Pakistan, illustrating the extent to which regional developments can generate internal unrest.

Sectarian militancy also remains a persistent security challenge. Hence, Pakistan’s foreign policy choices cannot be separated from the internal security implications they may produce.

Navigating the Trilemma: Islamabad’s Policy Pathways

Given the structural constraints of the 2025 Pact, Pakistan’s policy space is defined by a “Trilemma” of competing interests: alliance credibility, territorial integrity, and internal cohesion. Analysts identify three primary paradigms through which Islamabad may operationalize its new commitments:

1. The Mediator Paradigm: Diplomatic Hedging

The most sustainable path for Pakistan remains the role of a “Strategic Bridge.” By maintaining a functional modus vivendi with Tehran while honoring the spirit of the Riyadh pact, Islamabad can position itself as a neutral arbiter.

• Strategic Logic: This leverages Pakistan’s unique position as a nuclear-armed state with deep institutional ties to the Gulf and a shared land border with Iran.
• Objective: To prevent the “entrapment” scenario by ensuring regional tensions never reach the threshold of active conflict where the 2025 collective defense clause would be triggered.

1. The “Defensive Shield” Paradigm: Calibrated Cooperation

In this scenario, Pakistan fulfills its treaty obligations through “Non-Kinetic” or “Point-Defense” support. Rather than projecting power into Iranian territory, Pakistan provides the “hardware” of security.

• Tactical Focus: Intelligence sharing, cyber-defense cooperation, and the deployment of advanced interceptor batteries (such as the HQ-9/P or indigenous missile defense systems) to protect Saudi critical infrastructure.
• The “Firewall” Effect: By limiting its role to defensive measures, Islamabad can argue to Tehran that its actions are not “aggression” but “stabilization,” thereby minimizing the risk of Iranian retaliatory strikes on the Balochistan border.

III. The Interventionist Paradigm: High-Intensity Alignment

The least probable—yet most volatile—option involves direct military participation in offensive operations against Iran or its proxies.

• The Risk of Overextension: Such a move would likely trigger a “two-front” security crisis: a conventional conflict on the western frontier and a domestic “insurgency” fueled by sectarian mobilization and the return of transnational militias like the Zainabiyoun.
• Political Economy: While this might secure massive short-term capital inflows from the GCC, the long-term cost of domestic destabilization and the permanent loss of strategic autonomy would likely outweigh the economic dividends.

 

Strategic Autonomy in a Polarizing Region

Pakistan’s predicament ultimately reflects the broader challenge of maintaining strategic autonomy in an increasingly polarized regional order. As geopolitical competition intensifies across the Middle East, states are facing growing pressure to align with competing blocs.

Historically, Pakistan attempted to navigate these rivalries through a strategy of balanced engagement—maintaining close ties with Saudi Arabia while simultaneously preserving working relations with Iran. The 2025 defence pact, however, has complicated this balancing act by introducing formal alliance expectations.

The situation underscores a classic dilemma in alliance politics identified by International Relations scholars: the tension between “entrapment” and “abandonment.” States fear being entrapped in conflicts initiated by their allies, yet they also worry that failing to honour alliance commitments may undermine their credibility and lead to abandonment.

Pakistan now faces precisely this dilemma. If it refuses to support Saudi Arabia in a moment of crisis, the credibility of the newly signed defence pact could be called into question. Conversely, fulfilling its alliance commitments too enthusiastically risks provoking confrontation with Iran and destabilizing Pakistan’s internal political environment.

The 2025 Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement marks a watershed moment, transitioning Pakistan’s security posture from one of “calculated ambiguity” to “formalized alignment.” While the pact ostensibly secures Pakistan’s economic and military interests within the Gulf, it simultaneously exposes Islamabad to the volatility of a post-unipolar Middle East.

Pakistan now stands at a crossroads: it must honor its newfound alliance commitments to Riyadh without triggering a catastrophic rupture with Tehran. The “balancing act” that characterized 20th-century Pakistani diplomacy is no longer a luxury but a survival imperative. As regional polarization intensifies, the very treaty designed to provide a security umbrella could, if mismanaged, become a lightning rod for domestic sectarian strife and external kinetic entanglement. Ultimately, Pakistan’s success will be measured not by its ability to choose a side, but by its capacity to prevent the choice from ever becoming necessary.

Naila Altaf Kayani is a PhD researcher at National University of Modern Languages (NUML) and a writer focusing on women’s resistance, human rights, and Kashmir advocacy.

She can be reached on Twitter at @NylaKayani, via email at nyla.kayani@gmail.com 

Note: The views or analysis expressed by the writer do not necessarily reflect those of the organization.