On 17 September 2025 Islamabad and Riyadh signed a “Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement” declaring that “any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both” — a bilateral pledge whose timing and implications reverberate across the Middle East and South Asia. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Pakistan+1
— محمد بن سلمان بن عبد العزيز (Informal) (@HRHMBNSALMAAN) September 17, 2025
What the pact says — in plain terms
Pakistan’s prime minister and Saudi Arabia’s crown prince signed the formal document — titled in the Pakistani joint statement as
“This agreement, which reflects the shared commitment of both nations to enhance their security and to achieving security and peace in the region and the world, aims to develop aspects of defense cooperation between the two countries and strengthen joint deterrence against any aggression,”
سعودیہ اور پاکستان۔۔
جارح کے مقابل ایک ہی صف میں۔۔
ہمیشہ اور ابد تک۔🇵🇰🇸🇦 https://t.co/3oBMFEU1G5— Khalid bin Salman خالد بن سلمان (@kbsalsaud) September 17, 2025
“ The agreement states that any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both,”.
This wording is straightforward but also consequential: the legal text converts political solidarity into a formal security commitment. In practice it creates a standing expectation that a serious external aggression against Pakistan or Saudi Arabia will elicit some form of reciprocal assistance from the other side — military, logistic, intelligence, diplomatic or a mix depending on circumstances. Reuters and other international outlets report that the pact institutionalises decades of informal security ties. Reuters+1
Why the press-release wording matters:
The phrase “shall be considered an aggression against both” is the core clause. It mirrors the language used in classic collective-defence treaties — it creates political and diplomatic obligations and a powerful deterrent signal even if the pact does not immediately establish NATO-style integrated command structures. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Pakistan
How this differs from big alliances such as NATO
At the level of principle, Pakistan–Saudi wording echoes the collective-defence idea found in NATO’s Article 5 — that an attack on one is an attack on all. NATO is a multilateral alliance with permanent command arrangements, joint force planning and decades of interoperability; it counts 32 member states and a formal Article 5 invocation mechanism. Bilateral pacts (two countries) rarely replicate those institutional layers. NATO+1
The Pakistan–Saudi agreement is therefore NATO-like in spirit (mutual protection, deterrence) but not NATO-like in structure: it is a bilateral political-military commitment that formalises existing cooperation rather than creating an integrated military bloc with standing multinational commands. International coverage has stressed this distinction while also noting the pact’s symbolic and deterrent power. Financial Times+1
So, “similar in spirit” means the security promise is mutual and reciprocal; “different in structure” means there is no publicly announced permanent joint command, no automatic mobilisation roster like NATO’s, and no multilateral decision machinery made public in the pact text. Reuters
Has Pakistan signed similar pacts before?
Yes — Pakistan has a history of formal and informal defence commitments. In the 1950s, Islamabad entered into the U.S.–Pakistan Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement (1954) and joined Cold War security pacts, such as SEATO and the Baghdad Pact (later CENTO). These arrangements tied Pakistan to Western collective-defense structures in return for military aid. Those Cold War groupings later dissolved or became obsolete, but they are important precedents for Pakistan’s use of formal security agreements. Foreign Affairs+1
Since then Pakistan has developed long-standing bilateral defence partnerships — most notably deep defence and strategic cooperation with China — but Beijing and Islamabad have not published a formal mutual-defence treaty analogous to NATO’s Article 5. Likewise, Pakistan’s security relationship with Saudi Arabia has for decades included training, arms transfers and the secondment of Pakistani officers to Saudi units; the 2025 pact represents an institutionalisation of those ties into an explicit mutual-defence guarantee. Wikipedia+1
In short, Pakistan has been party to formal collective-defence agreements in the past and maintains many defence relationships today — but the 2025 pact with Saudi Arabia is the most explicit mutual-defence guarantee between Pakistan and any Gulf state in recent memory. Reuters+1
Why the timing matters — the Doha strike and regional shockwaves
Context matters: the agreement was signed days after an unprecedented Israeli strike on Doha (9 September 2025) that targeted Hamas political leaders and sent shockwaves through the Gulf. That attack prompted immediate condemnations, raised questions about the inviolability of Gulf airspace and accelerated ally-seeking behaviour among regional states that fear cross-border strikes and a decline in confidence in traditional security guarantors. International reporting links Riyadh’s move to diversify and deepen security partnerships amid those worries. Reuters+1
Put bluntly: Riyadh and Islamabad signed the pact during a period of heightened uncertainty about regional security — a moment when Gulf capitals are weighing whether existing security umbrellas are adequate and whether new, more direct guarantees (even outside of the U.S. framework) are needed. Analysts see the pact as both deterrent signalling and practical hedging. Financial Times+1
How many states and pacts like this exist?
There is no single global tally that counts every bilateral mutual-defence treaty, because such agreements range from multilateral alliances to two-party treaties and many are confidential in part. However, a useful way to gauge scale: multilateral alliances such as NATO (32 members) and treaty blocs during the Cold War are well documented; the United States alone is party to a network of bilateral collective-defence treaties (with Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand and several NATO members among them), listed in U.S. State Department records. Beyond those, dozens of bilateral and regional defence pacts exist worldwide in various forms. NATO+1
Deeply touched by the heart warming welcome, accorded to me by my dear brother HRH Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Crown Prince and Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia, on my official visit to Riyadh.
From the unprecedented escort provided to my aircraft by the Royal Saudi airforce jets… pic.twitter.com/RZvkOSQbF1
— Shehbaz Sharif (@CMShehbaz) September 18, 2025
Examples that illustrate variety:
- NATO (multilateral, Article 5) — highest institutionalisation and multilateral commitment. NATO
- U.S.–South Korea Mutual Defence Treaty (1953) — bilateral but long-standing, operationalised by US troop presence. U.S. Department of State
- France–Greece (2021) and other newer bilateral pacts — show that modern European states also use bilateral defence guarantees to manage regional risks. Financial Times
What this pact can (and cannot)
What it can deliver: a clear political deterrent, deeper intelligence and logistics cooperation, joint exercises, and reciprocal diplomatic support. It raises the military and political cost for any actor contemplating direct aggression against either country. For Saudi Arabia it brings an additional security partner with Pakistan’s military experience; for Pakistan it reinforces ties with a wealthy Gulf state and expands its strategic footprint.. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Pakistan+1
What is expected to develop further through cooperation: detailed operational frameworks, command structures, and military protocols. Like many new defence agreements, the 2025 pact lays out the principle of joint defence and establishes the political commitment; the finer points of implementation will evolve through follow-on military coordination and exercises. Analysts note this is common in bilateral defence treaties, where practical arrangements are gradually built up over time.. Reuters+1
The Pakistan–Saudi Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement of 17 September 2025 is a high-visibility, reciprocal security pledge that formalises decades of cooperation. It is NATO-like in principle — it promises mutual protection — but bilateral in structure. Signed in the immediate aftermath of an unprecedented strike in Doha, the pact is both a deterrent signal and a tactical pivot by Riyadh and Islamabad to deepen mutual security guarantees at a fragile moment in the region. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Pakistan+1
![For over seven decades, Gaza has remained at the heart of one of the world’s longest and most violent conflicts. The besieged enclave, home to more than two million Palestinians, has faced relentless bombardment, blockades, and fascism at the hands of an illegal state, Israel. The humanitarian toll is staggering—mass civilian casualties, destruction of infrastructure, denial of medical supplies, and an ongoing blockade that has transformed Gaza into what human rights groups have called the world’s “largest open-air prison.” According to the United Nations, Gaza’s conditions amount to a human rights catastrophe, with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch repeatedly accusing Israel of committing war crimes, genocide and enforcing an apartheid system against Palestinians. The most recent round of bombardments in 2025 left thousands dead, with children and women disproportionately among the victims. The death toll in Gaza after 2023 has almost reached 70,000. Al Jazeera reported that hospitals and UN facilities were deliberately targeted, highlighting Israel’s disregard for international law. Despite growing international outrage, Tel Aviv continues to act with impunity. In this dire context, new efforts have emerged—most notably the Trump sponsored “Gaza Peace Plan.” Gaza Peace Plan & Hamas’ Calculated Response The Gaza Peace Plan, proposed by US President Donald Trump after the United Nations 80th session, claims to offer a roadmap for stability in Gaza. Initially, it was 21-point plan later modified and outlines 20 points ranging from ceasefire agreements to reconstruction efforts, prisoner exchanges, and the formation of a neutral Palestinian committee to oversee governance. At first glance, the plan appears comprehensive, but on closer inspection, it is riddled with many inconsistencies and biases that overwhelmingly favor Israel’s interests. Central demands include the disarmament of Palestinian resistance groups, sidelining of Hamas in governance, and acceptance of Israel’s military presence—conditions that essentially strip Palestinians of sovereignty and security. Hamas, however, responded with a display of political maturity and strategic calculation. Rather than outright rejecting the plan, which would have allowed Israel and Washington to brand them as “obstructionists,” Hamas partially accepted the deal. Hamas agreed to major points such as a ceasefire, prisoner releases, and even transferring Gaza’s administration to a neutral Palestinian committee. At the same time, Hamas firmly rejected clauses demanding full disarmament and surrender of security control. As a Hamas official Osama Hamdan explained, “We are ready to announce a ceasefire tonight. Many details still need negotiation. We reject any non-Palestinian role in governing. We are ready to negotiate release of all prisoners. Some prisoner bodies are buried; others remain where Israeli forces are present. Hamas is a national liberation movement. The plan’s definition of terrorism does not apply to it. Weapons were to resist occupation. If it ends and Palestinians govern themselves, there’s no need for arms. We will hand over weapons to the future Palestinian state." This calculated approach disarmed the propaganda machine. Middle East Eye reported that Hamas’ move undermined Israel’s narrative of Palestinians as “enemies of peace,” instead casting the resistance as rational actors seeking justice under impossible conditions. Al Jazeera noted, “Hamas showed a lot of positivity here by accepting the spirit of the paper and praising President Trump’s initiative. In this way, they are showing that they are ready to extend their hand.” Lessons from Islam Although all this development is seen with positive eye but the skepticism toward such peace plans is not without precedent. The nature of Zionists in the history cannot be ignored. Islam repeatedly warns about the dangers of hypocrisy, broken covenants, and dishonesty from Yahood in agreements. These lessons, while not condemning any people wholesale, highlight the conduct of Jews in history that repeatedly violated their promises. 1. Surah Al-Baqarah (2:83–86) reminds the Bani Israel of their covenant with ALLAH Almighty—worshipping HIM alone and acting justly—yet they transgressed by killing Prophets and breaking oaths. 2. Surah Al-Maidah (5:13) states: “So for their breaking of the covenant, ALLAH cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded.” ALLAH then reminded HOLY PROPHET PBUH that “And you will still observe deceit among them” 3. Surah Al-Maidah (5:41) highlights how some sought to mislead others and distort truth for political gain. 4. Surah Al-Maidah (5:64) states that Jews are enemies of Muslims till the Qayamat. “ALLAH have stirred among them hostility and hatred until the day of Judgement... And they strive to spread corruption in the land and ALLAH does not like corrupters.” These Quranic passages correspond with historical episodes during the HOLY PROPHET MUHAMMAD’S PBUH physical presence in Madina Munawwara, where certain Jewish tribes violated treaties, sparking conflict and eventual expulsion. In today’s context, these lessons resonate with Israel’s repeated violations of treaties and international agreements. They reinforce the principle that peace can only endure where justice and sincerity prevail. While keeping in view these principles alongwith Israel’s history of breaking oaths and treaties, one must remain cautious at all costs. Israel’s Record of Breaking Agreements & International Law Any honest assessment of the Gaza Peace Plan must account for Israel’s long-standing pattern of dishonoring treaties and violating international law. Here I am mentioning some of them to make the readers aware of the vulnerability regarding this peace plan. 1. Violation of UN Resolutions and Ceasefires Israel has ignored numerous UN Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 242 (calling for withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967) and Resolution 194 (affirming the Palestinian right of return). In 2025, the UN documented Israel’s attacks on UN facilities in Gaza despite ceasefire agreements, further illustrating its contempt for international mediation. 2. Illegal Settlements and Annexations As Human Rights Watch noted, settlement expansion in the West Bank flagrantly violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. The transfer of Israeli civilians into occupied land remains a cornerstone of Tel Aviv’s strategy to permanently alter demographics. 3. Human Rights Violations and War Crimes From the 2002 Jenin massacre to repeated bombardments of Gaza, Israel has engaged in practices deemed war crimes under international law. Amnesty International’s 2024 report accused Israel of apartheid, collective punishment and genocide. 4. Breach of International Humanitarian Law Practices such as administrative detention without trial, home demolitions, and the Gaza blockade are in direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The International Court of Justice ruled Israel’s separation wall illegal, yet construction continues. 5. Obstructing Accountability Israel has consistently blocked UN fact-finding missions and denied access to international investigators and news agencies, shielding itself from accountability. 6. Violation of UNCLOS Israel has violated the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) by intercepting the Global Sumud flotilla while it was 44 nautical miles off the coast of Gaza. Under UNCLOS, a state’s sovereignty extends only 12 nautical miles from its coastline, with a contiguous zone limited to 24 nautical miles. By seizing humanitarian aid ships in international waters well beyond its legal jurisdiction, Israel committed a clear breach of international maritime law. This record provides little confidence that Tel Aviv will honor any new peace framework. Positives of the Gaza Peace Plan The Gaza Peace Plan presents several provisions that, on the surface, appear constructive and are framed to appeal to the international community’s call for stability. These include promises of humanitarian aid and large-scale reconstruction to rebuild Gaza’s devastated infrastructure, as well as the exchange and release of Palestinian prisoners languishing in Israeli jails. The plan also emphasizes ceasefire commitments to halt immediate violence, alongside the establishment of a neutral Palestinian governance committee aimed at reducing factional divisions. Moreover, it promotes the involvement of regional mediators such as Egypt and Qatar, whose roles in past negotiations have been significant. As reported by Reuters, these elements are designed to present the plan as pragmatic and peace-oriented, aligning with the international community’s aspirations for calm and reconstruction in Gaza. Although it offers some positives but the question marks associated with Israel’s intentions, inconsistencies in the plan and the association of controversial figures can not be ignored at all.](https://wenewsenglish.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/gaza-peace-300x180.jpg)
