The recent defence agreement between Pakistan, Türkiye and Saudi Arabia has attracted attention far beyond the countries that signed it. In Tehran, the development has been viewed with unease, with some Iranian voices warning Saudi Arabia against placing excessive reliance on Pakistan and Türkiye for its security. Such apprehensions are understandable in a region where alliances have repeatedly shifted and where military partnerships are rarely viewed in isolation. But they also risk missing a larger reality: the Middle East and its surrounding neighborhood are entering a period in which geography, diplomacy and political access may matter as much as military strength.
The emerging relationship between Pakistan, Türkiye and Saudi Arabia should therefore not be assessed simply through the traditional language of competing blocs. It is tempting to see every defence agreement as an attempt to contain another state or to interpret closer military cooperation as evidence of an impending confrontation. Yet the region’s experience over the past decades should caution against such simplistic conclusions. Military alliances may create deterrence, but they do not necessarily produce stability. Nor can sophisticated weapons systems resolve political disputes that have accumulated over generations. The message reportedly conveyed by the US army chief to President Donald Trump — that air power alone cannot secure victory over Iran or any other country — offers an important lesson.
Modern warfare has transformed the battlefield, but it has not eliminated the fundamental importance of territory, borders and political legitimacy. Aircraft and missiles can destroy military installations, infrastructure and other strategic targets. They can impose enormous economic and human costs. They cannot, by themselves, govern a country, secure its borders or persuade its population to accept an imposed political settlement. Iran presents an especially difficult strategic environment. It is a large country with considerable geographical depth, a complex political structure and a population with a strong sense of national sovereignty. Its geography has always been an important part of its defence. The difficulties faced by the United States and Israel in seeking decisive outcomes against Tehran demonstrate the limitations of relying exclusively on technological superiority.
Military power can reach deep into a country, but physical access and sustained control are altogether different propositions. The absence of a direct land route is particularly significant. Neither the United States nor Israel can simply cross a shared frontier and move large conventional forces into Iran. Countries that border Iran, however, operate within a very different strategic environment. Their geographical proximity gives them greater potential influence, but it also exposes them to greater risks. This is why neighboring states cannot afford to view regional security entirely through the prism of military deterrence. For them, diplomacy is not an optional instrument of foreign policy. It is a necessity. Pakistan occupies an unusual position in this equation. It shares a long border with Iran, maintains close strategic and economic ties with Saudi Arabia, and has developed a substantial defence relationship with Türkiye.
At the same time, Islamabad has longstanding relations with China, the United States and other major powers. Few countries are therefore better placed to understand the competing interests that shape the current regional order. That position gives Pakistan an opportunity, but it also imposes a responsibility. The country’s diplomatic value does not arise simply from its military capabilities or from its relationships with powerful states. It comes from its ability, at least potentially, to speak to actors who do not always speak to one another. An analysis by South Asian Voices argued that Pakistan had played an important role in helping reduce tensions between the United States and Iran and in creating a path towards negotiations.
Whether Islamabad can ultimately turn such engagement into a lasting diplomatic achievement remains uncertain. But the effort itself should not be underestimated. At a moment when Washington and Tehran had moved dangerously close to another confrontation, Islamabad opened channels of communication. More than 20 hours of discussions between American and Iranian representatives in Islamabad were described as the highest-level direct contact between the two countries since 1979. The significance of such an encounter lies not merely in the number of hours spent at the negotiating table. Its importance lies in the fact that the table existed at all.
Diplomacy is often judged by its immediate results, but mediation rarely works in such a straightforward manner. A mediator cannot force two adversaries to accept an agreement. Nor can it remove decades of distrust through a single meeting. Its more modest, and sometimes more valuable, function is to preserve communication when the alternatives are escalation, miscalculation and war. That distinction is particularly important in the case of Washington and Tehran. Both sides have accused the other of violating ceasefire understandings, demonstrating how fragile any diplomatic opening can be. Yet the continuation of negotiations despite such accusations is itself significant. It suggests that neither side has entirely abandoned the possibility that dialogue can serve its interests.
Pakistan should understand the limits of this role. Islamabad cannot become the guarantor of an agreement between Washington and Tehran, nor should it claim diplomatic successes that depend ultimately on decisions made in Washington and Tehran. What Pakistan can do is provide a channel through which messages can be delivered, misunderstandings can be reduced and negotiations can remain possible. This is also why the Pakistan-Türkiye-Saudi defence relationship requires careful handling. Riyadh has legitimate security concerns, just as Pakistan and Türkiye have their own strategic interests. Closer defence cooperation can strengthen deterrence and improve the ability of participating states to respond to security threats. But a defence arrangement becomes destabilizing when it is interpreted exclusively as preparation for confrontation with another country.
For Pakistan, the challenge will be to demonstrate that strategic partnerships and diplomatic independence are not mutually exclusive. Islamabad can deepen defence cooperation with Saudi Arabia and Türkiye while maintaining constructive relations with Iran. It can preserve its strategic relationship with China while engaging the United States. It can cooperate with different powers without allowing every relationship to become part of a rigid geopolitical camp. That balancing act will not be easy. Regional politics is becoming increasingly competitive, and major powers are encouraging partners to take clearer positions. Yet Pakistan’s interests do not necessarily lie in choosing one camp over another. Its geography makes it impossible to escape the consequences of developments in the Gulf, Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asia and South Asia.
Pakistan #SaudiArabia #Türkiye #GulfPolitics #MiddleEast #PakistanSaudiRelations #PakistanTurkeyRelations #Iran #RegionalSecurity #DefenceAgreement #Geopolitics #Diplomacy #ForeignPolicy #StrategicPartnership #PeaceAndSecurity #USIranRelations #PakistanDiplomacy #GulfSecurity #SouthAsia #MiddleEastPolitics #RegionalStability #InternationalRelations #StrategicBalance #MetroMorning
