On September 30, 2025, Pakistan found itself at the center of a high-stakes regional debate as details of a new defense pact with Saudi Arabia emerged, promising both sweeping security commitments and the possibility of economic windfalls. But as the headlines tout this agreement as a potential game changer, experts and analysts urge a closer look at the risks and realities behind the hype.
The agreement, which has yet to be fully disclosed, reportedly contains a clause stating that an act of war against one party would be considered an act of war against both. According to Dawn, this mutual defense pledge is seen as a significant step, especially for risk-averse Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom, unsettled by perceived US inaction after the Israeli attack on Qatar and persistent Houthi missile threats, is seeking stronger guarantees for its security. Yet, with limited military firepower of its own, Saudi Arabia may rely on Pakistan to provide the muscle—funding Islamabad to bolster not only Saudi defenses but also its own.
This raises a host of questions for both countries. Will Pakistan be expected to deploy short- and long-term air and land forces to the Gulf? If so, what would that mean for its ability to defend itself on other fronts, particularly against India, its long-standing rival? As Dawn points out, any forces sent to protect Saudi Arabia would need to be replaced at home, and the scale of commitment would have to match the formidable might of Pakistan’s adversaries.
India’s current defense budget stands at about $75 billion, with hard reserves of $700 billion—figures that dwarf Saudi Arabia’s $70 billion defense budget and $450 billion in reserves. If Saudi aid allows Pakistan to ramp up its own military capacity, India may well respond in kind, sparking an arms race that could strain both economies. The calculus is further complicated by the fact that Israel, with US backing and advanced technology (including nuclear capabilities), remains the region’s most formidable military power. The pact’s ability to deter Israel is questionable, especially since the US is unlikely to defend Saudi Arabia against Israeli actions.
There’s also the risk that by aligning itself more closely with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan could draw the ire of Israel and its allies, potentially inviting covert operations or indirect tensions with Washington. “Pacts among states with different foes can turn a partner’s foes against one,” Dawn cautions, noting the possibility of increased cooperation among the adversaries of both countries—potentially to Pakistan’s detriment.
Speculation is already swirling about the pact expanding to include the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. While such a move could create a broader security umbrella, it would also raise the stakes—especially if Israel were to attack Qatar again, as some fear. The idea of a “Muslim NATO” has been floated, but as Dawn observes, the analogy is a poor fit: NATO unites 32 wealthy, geographically proximate states against a common foe, while the Muslim world is fragmented, impoverished, and beset by local rivalries. “Only a big force can defend them all. But who will lend it troops, key arms and money?” the article asks, highlighting the logistical and political hurdles.
Beyond the military dimension, the pact carries significant economic and political risks for Pakistan. The country’s leaders have long relied on “geostrategic rents”—payments or aid in exchange for strategic cooperation—to shore up their own positions, often at the expense of necessary reforms. There’s concern that the promise of Saudi funds could stall economic restructuring, leaving Pakistan as dependent and vulnerable as ever. “Shrinking rents were forcing reforms but given this new option they may well stall them again,” Dawn warns.
Recent analysis from SpecialEurasia underscores Pakistan’s precarious economic position. With a population of over 240 million and a strategic location linking South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East, Pakistan has undeniable regional clout. Its nuclear arsenal and large military provide deterrence, but persistent fiscal fragility, political instability, and repeated balance-of-payments crises have undermined growth. The country’s economy is heavily dependent on external funding, particularly from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and faces daunting structural challenges: a narrow tax base, ballooning public debt, and overreliance on low-value textile exports.
Security risks further compound these vulnerabilities. The resurgence of militant groups such as the Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in border regions and ongoing unrest in Balochistan demand costly counter-insurgency operations and discourage foreign investment. Meanwhile, climate disasters—most notably floods—have repeatedly devastated infrastructure and strained government resources.
Yet, there are glimmers of opportunity. Chinese investment through the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) offers the chance to modernize infrastructure and boost trade, while the country’s burgeoning digital sector and youthful population could drive future growth. Expanding regional trade ties and diversifying economic partnerships may also reduce dependence on a handful of financial backers. Still, as SpecialEurasia notes, these opportunities hinge on strong governance and the successful implementation of reforms—no small feat given the current political climate.
The defense pact’s potential to exacerbate Pakistan’s internal challenges is a source of concern for many. Critics argue that greater reliance on military alliances could increase autocracy, diminish civilian oversight, and further entrench the security state. Alarmingly, there has been little public or parliamentary debate about the agreement, with media coverage largely echoing official enthusiasm while glossing over the risks. “We are still paying dearly for past such secret deals struck by set-ups with low legitimacy,” Dawn remarks, urging more transparency and public discussion.
For ordinary Pakistanis, the stakes are high. The economy is fragile, the security environment volatile, and the prospect of taking on new risks to protect far wealthier Middle Eastern states is far from reassuring. The fear is that both partners could be drawn into an “endless ego-led arms race” that diverts resources from critical domestic needs, ultimately leaving both less secure.
Analysts recommend close monitoring of key indicators: the timeliness and scope of IMF disbursements, levels of foreign exchange reserves, the frequency and severity of militant attacks, and the fiscal impact of climate-related disasters. These metrics, they argue, will provide early warning of emerging crises and help policymakers adjust course as needed.
In the end, the Saudi-Pakistan defense pact may offer a tantalizing vision of enhanced security and prosperity, but its success will depend on careful negotiation, robust public debate, and a clear-eyed assessment of the risks. Without meaningful reforms and consensus, the agreement could end up deepening Pakistan’s vulnerabilities rather than alleviating them.
