The world’s nuclear chessboard just got a little more complicated. Last week, in a display of pageantry and power, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif was welcomed in Riyadh by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman with F-15 flyovers, a ceremonial red carpet, and the kind of royal honors reserved for only the closest of allies. The occasion? The signing of a new Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA)—a pact that, for the first time, binds the two nations to treat an attack on one as an attack on both.
According to The Daily Star, this move formalizes what had long been an informal partnership, one that stretches back nearly eight decades. But in a region already roiling with volatility, the timing and implications of this agreement have reverberated far beyond the Gulf and South Asia.
To understand the significance, it’s worth recalling how the nuclear age began. In 1939, Leo Szilard and Albert Einstein, fearing Nazi Germany’s scientific ambitions, wrote to President Franklin Roosevelt urging the Allies to develop an atomic bomb before Hitler could. The Nazis were ultimately defeated in May 1945, and just three months later, the atomic bomb was unleashed on Japan, ending World War Two in a display of destructive power that has haunted the world ever since. As noted by The Daily Star, the last time humanity lived in a world with zero nuclear weapons was before July 1945. Since then, the nuclear stockpile has only grown, with an estimated 12,000 to 13,000 warheads scattered across at least nine nations as of September 2025.
The new Saudi-Pakistan pact comes at a time when the rules of nuclear deterrence—and the alliances that underpin them—are being tested. The SMDA’s language is strikingly familiar to NATO’s Article 5, yet it is being deployed in a vastly different context: one where the rivalries of South Asia and the Middle East overlap, and where old certainties about security guarantees are eroding. As Pakistan’s foreign ministry put it, the agreement is a reinforcement of "peace and security," but also a commitment to deterrence—a word that, in this region, carries heavy baggage.
Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine has always been India-centric, a fact that looms large in the background of recent events. Just months before the SMDA was signed, India and Pakistan exchanged strikes on each other’s military sites in a four-day confrontation that brought the subcontinent dangerously close to war. The April attack in Pahalgam, which killed 26 civilians, was followed by intense skirmishes in May—some of the most severe since the Kargil conflict. External mediation eventually cooled tempers, but the episode underscored how quickly things can spiral out of control.
For Saudi Arabia, the pact is both a hedge and a signal. The Gulf monarchies have long depended on U.S. military protection—Washington still maintains between 40,000 and 50,000 troops across the region—but faith in that umbrella is waning. The Doha attack on September 9, 2025, when Israeli missiles struck a neighborhood sheltering Hamas ceasefire negotiators, only deepened doubts about the reliability of distant protectors. As one Gulf diplomat told The Daily Star, "If the fire comes to our doorstep, we need neighbors, not distant protectors."
It’s not the first time Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have joined forces. Since the 1960s, Pakistani officers have trained thousands of Saudi personnel, and a 1982 bilateral framework has ensured a steady presence of Pakistani military contingents on Saudi soil. Financial lifelines from Riyadh have repeatedly stabilized Pakistan’s economy, and the relationship has often transcended mere diplomacy. But the new agreement, with its explicit mutual defense clause, marks a leap into deeper waters—especially given the nuclear shadow that Pakistan casts.
Yet, the SMDA does not, at least on paper, extend a nuclear umbrella to Saudi Arabia. Past conversations—most famously cited by journalist Bob Woodward—hinted at the possibility of Riyadh "buying" deterrence from Islamabad if the need ever arose. But as Dr. Asfandyar Mir of the Stimson Center observed, the new treaty is deliberately ambiguous: "Such treaties often carry ambiguity, but ambiguity itself can be a strategic tool, signaling commitment without binding operational pledges." In other words, the door is left slightly ajar, but no one is stepping through it—at least for now.
Washington, however, is watching with unease. The Biden administration has already sanctioned Pakistani firms over missile development, openly questioning the range and intent of Pakistan’s arsenal. The concern, as political scientist Stephen Walt has argued, is that smaller allies can sometimes draw great powers into conflicts they would rather avoid. A pact that could, in theory, entangle the U.S. in the region’s many rivalries is a source of anxiety in Washington.
India, too, is keeping a wary eye on the new alignment. With relations between New Delhi and Islamabad at a low ebb, and after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s third visit to Saudi Arabia in April 2025 to strengthen energy and investment ties, the SMDA muddies the waters. India’s foreign ministry has stated it will "assess implications for national and regional stability," underscoring its concern that Riyadh is hedging its bets between two nuclear-armed rivals. The agreement could, if not managed carefully, expose Saudi Arabia to the fallout of another India-Pakistan crisis—a risk that analysts say is real, given the region’s history of rapid escalation.
For Pakistan, the pact offers more than just prestige. It helps offset economic weakness and diplomatic isolation, especially as the country faces pressure over its missile program. For Saudi Arabia, aligning with a nuclear-armed Muslim-majority state bolsters its credibility at a time when U.S. support seems less certain. But as with any alliance, there are risks: entanglement in each other’s conflicts, misperceptions about the scope of commitments, and the ever-present danger of overextension.
The agreement also risks tying Pakistan closer to Saudi Arabia’s fraught rivalry with Iran. For decades, Islamabad has tried to balance its ties with both Riyadh and Tehran, even as sectarian tensions and border incidents have strained trust. By aligning more formally with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan may find its room for maneuver shrinking—especially if regional crises escalate. Conversely, Saudi Arabia now finds itself more directly exposed to the unpredictable dynamics of South Asia’s nuclear dyad.
All of this unfolds in a world where the nuclear “game of numbers and possession” remains unresolved. At least nine countries—the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel—now possess nuclear weapons, and not all of them honor the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty. Since August 1945, thankfully, nuclear weapons have not been used in conflict. But as the number of nuclear states grows, and as alliances like the SMDA redraw old boundaries, the risk of miscalculation rises.
As history has shown, alliances can be both a shield and a trap. The Saudi-Pakistan pact is a bold bet on deterrence and solidarity in a region where neither can be taken for granted. Its true significance will only become clear in the crises yet to come—but for now, it stands as a potent reminder that in the nuclear age, every new agreement is a double-edged sword.
