ISLAMABAD: The emerging defence cooperation between Pakistan Saudi Arabia and Turkey often referred to as an Islamic NATO has sparked intense speculation about its potential to compel the United States to rethink longstanding alliances in the Middle East and South Asia. With Turkey a NATO member already pursuing advanced talks to join the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement signed by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in September 2025 the bloc’s collective security clause mirroring NATO’s Article 5 raises questions on how Washington will respond to this shift especially if the group adopts stances diverging from American priorities particularly concerning China and Israel.
The foundation of this evolving alliance lies in the bilateral pact between Islamabad and Riyadh formalized during Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s visit to the kingdom where both nations agreed that any aggression against one would constitute an attack on both. This provision designed to enhance mutual deterrence amid regional instability including fallout from conflicts involving Israel has now drawn Turkey into advanced negotiations. Analysts highlight that the combination brings complementary strengths Saudi Arabia’s vast financial resources Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities ballistic missiles and manpower and Turkey’s extensive military experience coupled with its rapidly growing defence industry.
Recent developments indicate that talks among the three capitals have progressed significantly with a draft trilateral agreement under review for months. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan confirmed on January 15 2026 that discussions had occurred though no final accord has been signed emphasizing the need for broader regional trust to foster stability. This move reflects a broader trend where these nations seek diversified security options amid perceived uncertainties in US commitments under the current administration.
The United States has maintained a cautious public stance on the emerging framework with no official condemnation issued as of mid-January 2026. However defence experts suggest Washington views the pact as a hedging strategy by its traditional partners against fluctuating American policy reliability. Turkey’s dual role as a NATO ally while exploring parallel blocs complicates matters potentially straining alliance cohesion especially given Ankara’s past tensions with Washington over issues like Russian arms purchases.
A key concern for the US revolves around the bloc’s possible alignment with China given Pakistan’s deep economic integration through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and growing engagements by Saudi Arabia and Turkey with Beijing. If the alliance facilitates technology transfers or economic policies counter to US interests such as sanctions evasion it could prompt heightened scrutiny in Congress and the Pentagon. Moreover Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella extending informally to Saudi Arabia revives long-standing proliferation worries that have historically influenced American diplomacy in the region.
Israel’s position as Washington’s primary ally in the Middle East adds another layer of complexity to US calculations. The emerging bloc has been dubbed an Islamic NATO in media narratives partly due to shared concerns over Israeli military actions that have escalated regional tensions including strikes beyond Gaza. While the pact focuses on mutual defence against shared threats like Iran analysts note that any perceived anti-Israel tilt could fuel lobbying from Tel Aviv urging tougher US responses to preserve strategic balance.
In response the United States is likely to prioritize diplomatic engagement and incentives to maintain influence rather than immediate confrontation. Options include bolstering bilateral military aid to individual members such as enhanced arms sales to Saudi Arabia or expediting delayed deliveries to Turkey like F-16 upgrades. For Pakistan economic leverage through IMF support or counterterrorism assistance could serve as tools to discourage divergence from US interests.
Read Top Stories
Should the bloc solidify and adopt positions contrary to Washington particularly on China or Israel escalation remains possible through targeted measures. These could encompass selective sanctions under frameworks like CAATSA aimed at defence entities or restrictions on technology access. Military adjustments might involve reinforcing US presence in allied Gulf states or deepening partnerships with rivals like India and Greece to create counterbalancing dynamics.
The broader implications of this development signal a multipolar shift in global security where regional powers increasingly pursue autonomous arrangements. The pact’s emergence amid doubts over US reliability underscores a desire for self-reliance in deterrence and crisis response. While not inherently anti-American the alliance tests Washington’s ability to adapt to changing alliances without alienating key partners upon whom it relies for energy security counterterrorism and containing rivals.
Ultimately the US approach will likely blend quiet pressure with sustained engagement aiming to integrate or influence the bloc’s direction against common adversaries like Iran. Historical precedents suggest accommodation is feasible as seen with prior Gulf defence mechanisms. However if ties with China deepen or rhetoric against Israel intensifies Washington may face difficult choices in recalibrating its regional posture to safeguard core interests.
ogimageimage-name
