'The background for the Saudi-Pakistan agreement is the fact that the regional security order has collapsed due to the Israeli attack on Doha.'
'The Americans have largely abandoned their security guarantee for West Asia and the region has no choice but to look at alternatives.'
As Saudi Arabia strengthens its defence ties with Pakistan in the wake of escalating regional tensions, questions have arisen in India about the potential implications for its own strategic partnership with the kingdom.
In an interview with Syed Firdaus Ashraf/Rediff, Talmiz Ahmad, who served as India's ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE, clarifies that Riyadh's growing security engagement with Islamabad is driven by regional compulsions -- particularly the breakdown of the US-led security architecture following Israel's controversial attack on Qatar on September 9.
Ambassador Ahmad asserts that Saudi Arabia's deep and multifaceted ties with India -- spanning energy, trade, strategic dialogue, and even defence cooperation -- remains unaffected by the Pakistan agreement.
What were Saudi Arabia's compulsions in signing the strategic mutual defence agreement with Pakistan?
The background for the recent agreement is the fact that the regional security order has collapsed due to the Israeli attack on Doha.
Israel has conveyed through this attack that the entire West Asia, the entire West Asian landscape, is today a target for them.
Whether it is the royal family (of Saudi Arabia), whether it is their military facilities or any other facilities or any guests that come to visit them, they are a legitimate target.
Israel has targeted one of the GCC countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) despite the fact that they enjoy an American security umbrella.
So by this attack Israel has declared that they are not restrained by the fact that these countries are allies of the United States and the United States is their security guarantor.
Against this background, the whole security structure has collapsed. And for this reason Saudi Arabia is looking for an alternative structure for their security by turning to Pakistan.
Pakistan has been their defence partner at least for 70 years. This partnership was set up during the Cold War and was fully supported by the Americans.
Even today, as I speak to you, there are troops near the Yemen border to protect the kingdom in case there is an attack from the Houthis on Saudi Arabia.
So this is the background. They have a very substantial, long history of defence cooperation. And therefore it is not surprising that at this stage Saudi Arabia should turn to Pakistan in this regard.
But is Pakistan so powerful that it can defend Saudi Arabia against Israel?=
The agreement is basically a deterrent. Deterrent means that it is supposed to prevent such a conflict. You know, when you are insecure, you run to friends who can protect you.
It is not to encourage an attack on you. It is to ensure that an attack does not take place.
So this is the whole point of deterrence. But obviously, yes, your point is right, that over a period of time this agreement will be fleshed out.
What we are looking at is a document that has emerged only a few days ago. The whole value of such agreements is in the nature of their implementation.
What is the content of the cooperation?
What is the extent of the cooperation?
When will Pakistani troops be required or are they looking at a medium to long term relationship where they will support each other's development of military capabilities?
Will they support each other with regard to technology?
Will there be a joint production in the defence sector?
These are all issues which will take shape over a period of time. As of now, this is a very quick deterrent.
Why did America let Israel attack Qatar?
Israel has committed a very serious strategic blunder.
Israel today is a rogue State.
It has no restraint whatsoever on its capacity for violence.
It has done mass murder in Gaza and it has carried out very major military strikes on Lebanon, on Syria, on Iraq, on Yemen and even on Iran.
They have been talking about their security, but basically they have simply prolonged the conflict.
The word ceasefire and peace process are not acceptable to the Israeli leadership.
My own understating is that this could be due to domestic politics of Israel, that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is simply not prepared for a ceasefire since he is concerned about investigations relating to his personal conduct earlier and the failure to provide security to the country as exemplified by the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas.
So Netanyahu wants to keep the conflict going as long as possible.
Also, we have seen that the United States, as led by Donald Trump and represented by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has not indicated any interest whatsoever to restrain Israel and to restrain the prime minister of Israel.
In fact, I would say that they are doing the opposite.
After the attack upon Doha, many thought that Rubio, when he rushed to Jerusalem, would counsel restraint and reaffirm the security of the region.
But he has done exactly the opposite. He has given a free hand to the Israelis in terms of their continued attack.
And there is no public statement whatsoever criticising Israel's attack on Doha.
The Americans have now largely abandoned their security guarantee for the region and the region has no choice but to look at alternatives.
Why couldn't all these oil-rich nations develop their own defence systems and become strong?
All these countries emerged following the withdrawal of the colonial power from the region: Pakistan, Israel and the Gulf States.
Each and every one of those States was never intended to be a viable State and capable of looking after its own security.
Pakistan attached itself to the Western alliance and totally depended on the American umbrella and American weapons.
Exactly the same situation obtains with Israel. Israel cannot fight for a single day without the pumping in of American weapons. In the last two years, more than $30 billion of American weapons have reached Israel.
Israel is supported by American intelligence and American ground support also.
As far as the Gulf countries are concerned several of them are so small that they are not capable of looking after themselves.
Look, if you go back to history, Saudi Arabia's principal enemies were major neighbouring States like Iraq. At the beginning there was even Egypt, but then there was Iraq and there was Iran.
There is no way any of these countries would have been able to hold its own with regard to these very strong neighbours.
So they were totally supported by the Western security umbrella and that has worked for them for so long.
But now the Israelis have torn it apart and they have revealed that that is now past its use by date and you need a new arrangement in the region.
When was the last time Saudi Arabia went to war?
The Saudis have never actually fought a war in the conventional sense.
When the Egyptians attacked Yemen during the Yemeni revolution, they had supported the revolution against the imam who was the ruler of North Yemen at that time.
Saudi Arabia supported North Yemen, but its troops were not directly involved in the conflict.
Several thousand Egyptian troops were involved, but there is no indication that Saudi troops were involved.
Then the Saudis attacked Yemen again in 2016 and they had thought it would be a short and sharp conflict, but sadly it is still going on.
There is a ceasefire from 2022, but the conflictual scenario remains in place.
Saudi Arabia is not a war-like country. Saudi Arabia wants to have peace and stability. It is the global leader as far as petroleum is concerned. It is also the guardian of the holy sites and it has got tremendous influence both in the Arab world and the Islamic world.
But this effectively means, if you have to use a cliche, Saudi influence is largely through soft power.
It is not a military State in the conventional sense of the word.
Israel, on the other hand, has developed itself as a militant State or we use the term security State.
So it has pursued an alternative arrangement, but even then it is not capable of defending itself without American support.
How should Indian foreign policy adapt to the evolving Saudi-Pakistan dynamics?
See, India has no reason to be agitated about this. Many people are asking me whether this shows that Saudi Arabia has shifted away from India towards Pakistan.
There is no such zero-sum scenarios. Saudi Arabia from the very beginning has had very different relations with the two countries.
As far as India is concerned, our principal links with the kingdom are connected with energy, trade investment, joint ventures, technological development, logistical connectivity projects and the presence of our community.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, it is not involved in any of these matters.
Pakistan's principal role as far as the kingdom is concerned, is to ensure that it can be a secure State. And because of the experience of the Cold War, the two countries have worked very closely together in the security field.
They were partners, for example, in managing the global jihad in Afghanistan. Then the Pakistanis supported Saudis by actually providing troops at various times at the various borders that the Kingdom has with its neighbours.
Then from 2010 it has troops protecting the kingdom from a possible attack from Yemen. And they also worked very closely together in managing Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal and ensuring the strengthening of the Taliban.
So there is a long history of close collaboration between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia with regard to regional affairs and they have played a very important role in this regard.
So there is a very high level of mutual confidence between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as far as security is concerned.
Will Saudi Arabia get involved on Pakistan's side if India and Pakistan go to war?
No, no, no. This is complete nonsense. This is complete nonsense.
Firstly, Saudi Arabia has such low military capability. I do not envisage a single scenario in the foreseeable future where Saudi Arabia will align itself with Pakistan against India.
I am aware that there are concerns in the region. But that sentence which has been read in the document (that any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both), it is not an absolute guarantee.
I have pointed out, and I will do so again, that whenever there is a general assurance of support, but whenever a specific challenge emerges, the countries concerned consult with each other and decide what action will be taken.
Please remember that India has very substantial strategic ties with Saudi Arabia.
We are consulting with each other at the prime minister and crown prince level. Our national security advisor is in constant touch with his counterpart and has a dialogue platform.
Our external affairs minister also has a dialogue platform.
So we have numerous ministerial and other engagements with each other.
We have a substantial strategic partnership. Our armed forces have done exercises with each other, joint exercises, army, navy and air force.
We have a very high level of maritime cooperation with each other.
The only difference is India does not deploy its troops abroad and does not involve itself in foreign military disputes.
But that does not mean that we are not engaged strategically with our partners and friends in the region.
Pakistan plays a different role because of its history of Cold War partnership and then its continued support in the deployment of its armed forces. That is a very different arrangement.
We must have enough self-confidence and the influence of our diplomacy as managed by our prime minister and all the other leaders that we have very good ties with Saudi Arabia and there is no threat.
The sentence should be read in a slightly different way that the real threats in the region are not between India and Pakistan.
The principal threats are as far from the Saudi perspective, basically from, say for example, the Houthis or from Iran or from Israel.
That is where the principal concern and the background is, what we are doing in India is looking at this source in a very self-centred manner which completely ignores the objective strategic scenario in the region.
© 2025