Pakistan has long sought to balance its foreign policy between China and the United States through a pragmatic hedging strategy, gaining economic, military, and diplomatic benefits from both superpowers while maintaining strategic autonomy. But the relationship between Pakistan and China is not the same as the one between Pakistan and the United States. Pakistan's ties with China are strategic while those with the United States remain tactical and transactional. What has changed recently is that Pakistan is no longer waging war to help the United States as it did during the "Cold War" and the "War on Terror". Instead, Pakistan has emerged as a peacemaker between the US and Iran.
 |
| Both China and US Are Courting Pakistan |
In a piece titled "Pakistan's Great Game", French political scientist Christophe Jaffrelot has explained what he sees as Pakistan's "tactics and strategy" in dealing with the two superpowers. Here's a quote from Jaffrelot's recent article on the subject:
"While Pakistan’s relationship with China is rooted in strategic logic, its relationship with the United States is more tactical in nature-and has been since the 1950s, when General Ayub Khan boasted of his ability to play "one lion against another" (referring to the United States and the USSR at the start of the Cold War). In its dealings with the United States, Pakistan has played the role of intermediary, or even "client," within a typical clientelist framework: in exchange for the services Islamabad provided to Washington, the United States provided Pakistan with substantial aid and agreed to sell it sophisticated weapons, and even to train its officers-a privilege greatly appreciated..... The first major service rendered by the Pakistanis to the Americans was none other than the intermediary role played by General Yahya Khan vis-à-vis Chairman Mao in the early 1970s, which led to the United States’ recognition of the People’s Republic of China. Over the following decade, Pakistan served as an intermediary between Washington and the mujahideen tasked with driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan. And in the 2000s, Pakistan was tasked by Washington with hunting down al-Qaeda-with much more mixed success this time, as evidenced by the discovery of bin Laden’s hideout in Abbottabad in 2011".
 |
| Pakistan PM Sharif (L) with Chinese President Xi |
Jaffrelot goes on to say that the United States has repeatedly proved to be an unreliable partner of the South Asia nation. "Whenever the United States no longer needed Pakistan-or even felt betrayed by it-it abandoned the country or even imposed sanctions on it", he writes.
More recently, Pakistan's usefulness to the US has once again become obvious, no longer to wage war against the USSR or terrorism, but to make peace with Iran, Jaffrelot says.
"In 2026, Pakistan appears useful once again, no longer to wage war against the USSR or terrorism, but to make peace. Each time, these glorious episodes were very short-lived and came to an end due to criticism of the Pakistani regime’s authoritarianism - with the military always remaining in power, even when civilians are in the forefront; its ties to Islamists accused of terrorist activities - particularly in India; or accusations of nuclear proliferation. Will the same be true tomorrow, once the war in Iran is over and the United States no longer needs Pakistan? Everything will, of course, depend on the outcome of the conflict and the role Pakistan plays in resolving it-for it will be harder to send Islamabad back home if the world owes it something resembling peace".
 |
| Oval Office Photo: L to R: VP JD Vance, President Trump, PM Sharif, FM Munir & Sec of State Rubio |
Jaffrelot argues that "Pakistan has reached a turning point through the recognition of its military capabilities, as reflected in the mutual defense agreement it signed with Saudi Arabia...... Last June, Kaja Kallas, the EU Vice President in charge of the Union’s international relations, on the occasion of the 8th Strategic Dialogue between Pakistan and the European Union in Islamabad, thanked Pakistan-"a major regional power"-for its efforts in helping to avert an "all-out war" in the Middle East. Jaffrelot now sees Pakistan's new role as a "net security provider" in West Asia and the Middle East.
He writes: "A more significant factor entering the equation relates to regional balances of power: Pakistan will continue to serve as a "net security provider" for Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia if those countries continue to fear the rise of Israel - a potential regional hegemon - and if they doubt Washington’s intentions, or even its mere reliability. There is no doubt that Pakistan itself will do everything in its power to prevent Israel from asserting itself on the regional stage and to gain influence over Iran-which is what the Israeli-American plan for regime change in Iran might have entailed. At the very least, faced with the risk of Israeli hegemony based on force and repeated military interventions, Pakistan could emerge as the architect of a resistance front bringing together not only Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, but also Iran".
Jaffrelot expects India to continue its decade-long campaign to isolate Pakistan internationally. "India’s ability to isolate Pakistan-the strategy Narendra Modi has pursued for more than a decade-is another important variable, though its significance may be undermined by New Delhi’s drift toward authoritarianism and ethnocracy, as well as by the economic and social crisis threatening the country", according to Jaffrelot.
Related Links:
Haq's Musings
South Asia Investor Review
Pakistan Downs India's French Rafale Jets in a Major Aerial Battle
Has Modi Succeeded Diplomatically or Militarily Against Pakistan After Pahalgam?
Pakistan-Saudi Defense Pact
Pakistan's Key Role in US-Iran Ceasefire
Has Modi Succeeded Militarily or Diplomatically in Isolating Pakistan After "Operation Sindoor"?
China, Pakistan to "Further Deepen and Expand" Ties
Modi's India: A Paper Elephant?
Pahalgam Attack: Why is the Indian Media Not Asking Hard Questions?
Ukraine's Lesson For Pakistan: Never Give Up Nukes!
Pakistan Economy Nears Trillion Dollars
Pakistan's Sea-Based Second Strike Capability
Riaz Haq Youtube Channel
VPOS Youtube Channel
24 comments:
Very useful post
In our euphoria we're forgetting the oft-repeated wisdom: "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy but to be America's friend is fatal".
farrukh saleem
@SaleemFarrukh
1. Washington has rediscovered Pakistan.
2. The White House needs our diplomatic reach.
3. The Pentagon needs GHQ.
4. Centcom needs our geography.
5. Treasury is weighing a $10 billion backstop.
6. This is not aid.
7. This is a strategic reset.
8. The question: will Islamabad convert relevance into structure — or take the cash and let the moment pass, again?
My column in
@thenews
today.
https://x.com/SaleemFarrukh/status/2083778256575115499?s=20
------------------
farrukh saleem
@SaleemFarrukh
This is not Washington instead of Beijing.
The objective is productive relations with the US alongside the strategic partnership with China.
Pakistan doesn't need to choose. It needs to convert relevance into leverage — with both.
My column:
Washington’s return
Opinion
By Dr Farrukh Saleem
August 02, 2026
📷
📷
📷An airview of Pentagon. —AFP/File
Attention: Washington has rediscovered Islamabad’s strategic utility. The White House needs Pakistan’s diplomatic reach. The Pentagon sees GHQ as central to regional stability. Centcom needs Pakistan’s geography, military coordination and operational access across a volatile region. The US Department of Treasury is looking into a $10 billion Exchange Stabilisation Fund-linked facility. Members of the US Congress are arriving at GHQ. These are not isolated events.
Red alert: This is a strategic reset.
The reset is being driven by geography. Pakistan borders Iran. Pakistan sits next to Afghanistan. Pakistan is connected to China. Pakistan has access to the Arabian Sea. Pakistan has military relations across the Gulf. Pakistan can speak to Washington, Tehran, Riyadh, Ankara, Beijing and Doha.
Cold truth: There isn’t a country that occupies this diplomatic intersection.
Washington has rediscovered Pakistan’s relevance. Islamabad must now decide what to do with that relevance. For seven decades, Pakistan has repeatedly converted geopolitical importance into temporary financial relief. The pattern is clear: Military aid. Budgetary support. Coalition Support Funds. IMF influence. Debt rescheduling. Yes, the money arrived – and the moment passed. The structure remained unchanged.
For Washington, Pakistan offers three strategic assets: access, influence and regional reach. For Islamabad, Washington offers four economic advantages: capital, technology, markets and financial credibility.
For Pakistan, the next move is conversion: strategic relevance into measurable economic gains.
Pakistan should negotiate for outcomes that change the structure of the economy: preferential access for textiles, engineering goods and IT services; US equity in copper refining and downstream industries around Reko Diq; technology partnerships in AI, cloud computing and semiconductors; long-term financing for energy storage, transmission and gas exploration; and a $10 billion reserve backstop that lowers the sovereign risk premium.
Pakistan should ask Centcom for a joint US-Pakistan AI task force, embedded in an existing military relationship, focused on border security, counter-terrorism and infrastructure protection (template: Task Force Talon Synapse). Pakistan should ask Washington for four things: a joint counter-drone centre; a US-backed regional role for NLC; an Army Materiel Command-linked predictive-logistics platform; and “beta partner” access to the Pentagon’s innovation pipeline.
GHQ should also ask for a dedicated Section 333 Building Partner Capacity funding line, a seat in Centcom’s Counter-Threat Finance working group and a permanent Pakistani staff-officer billet inside Centcom headquarters at MacDill. GHQ should propose that Rawalpindi become Centcom’s South Asian centre for battlefield trauma, prosthetics, rehabilitation and disaster medicine. Pakistan should also seek advice from US asset managers to diversify Fauji Foundation and Army Welfare Trust assets into dollar-denominated investments.
Plain fact: US-Pakistan goods trade is worth less than $9 billion a year. US-
https://x.com/SaleemFarrukh/status/2083936184557089025?s=20
@ForeignAffaires
“If the United States wants to keep itself out of costly conflicts around the world, it may have no choice but to forge closer ties with the new stabilizing powers,” a category that includes countries such as Pakistan and Turkey, writes @asfandyarmir.
https://x.com/foreignaffairs/status/2084051872583680412?s=61&t=mgTxrmITUbpo9NntN5677Q
———-
Pakistan Won the War in Iran
Islamabad and the New Path to Global Power
Asfandyar Mir
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/pakistan/pakistan-won-war-iran
On April 7, as the deadline approached for U.S. President Donald Trump’s ultimatum to the Iranian government to open the Strait of Hormuz or face the destruction of “a whole civilization,” a Pakistani general placed a phone call that helped avert disaster. Field Marshal Asim Munir—the chief of Pakistan’s army, the country’s most powerful institution—pressed Trump and Iran’s surviving leadership to stop the war. Within hours, Washington and Tehran announced a cease-fire. Trump and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi publicly….
———
Yes, Pakistan played a crucial diplomatic role in halting the 2026 U.S.-Iran conflict, a dynamic analyzed by analyst Asfandyar Mir in Foreign Affairs. Pakistani Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir helped broker a temporary cease-fire in April 2026, earning public thanks from Washington and Tehran, though regional tensions remain volatile. [1, 2, 3]
The Mediation and Cease-Fire
The April Phone Call: Pakistani military leadership stepped in as a mediator just as U.S. President Donald Trump issued an extreme ultimatum regarding the Strait of Hormuz. [1]
Immediate De-escalation: Following intervention by Field Marshal Asim Munir, both Washington and Tehran agreed to a temporary halt in fighting. [1]
Public Recognition: Top U.S. and Iranian officials acknowledged Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Munir for averting a wider disaster. [1]
Ongoing Regional Instability
Fragile Peace: The initial diplomatic breakthrough has faced subsequent setbacks with renewed clashes and dissolved compliance.
Strategic Arbitrage: Observers note that Pakistan’s balancing act leverages its ties to key global and regional players to project influence and manage security. [1, 2, 3]
In the long term, I think a lot depends on the priorities of the next US administration that comes after Trump.
These are some facts to keep in mind:
- It wasn't so long ago that Pakistan wasn't exactly enjoying cosy relations with the Biden administration post-Afghan withdrawal.
- A Democratic administration (or even a more 'traditional' Republican one) would not have gone to war against Iran on Israel's behalf.
- Trump has been more busy waging trade war on its allies than strengthening alliances to handle geo-political competition with China.
Stars aligned for Pakistan under the Trump 2.0. But if the 'Iran threat' were to be largely contained by the end of Trump's term and the next US administration (Democratic or Republican) were to swing back to tackling China as its foreign policy priority, how would it view Pakistan? Will there be pressure to pick sides once again?
"How the US stabilisation fund could help Pakistan"
https://www.dawn.com/news/2019811
PAKISTAN’S request for a $10 billion Exchange Stabilisation Support Facility from the US Treasury involves one of Washington’s most powerful, but least understood financial tools.
Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb requested the facility, with a maturity period of up to five years, during a visit to Washington earlier this month.
The request comes as Pakistan continues to face external financing pressures, including the need to maintain foreign exchange reserves, meet international debt obligations and support stability in the currency market.
Unlike traditional assistance programmes from multilateral lenders, an arrangement through the US Treasury’s Exchange Stabilisation Fund (ESF) would represent a direct bilateral financial mechanism between Washington and Islamabad.
If approved, an ESF-backed facility could provide Pakistan with additional liquidity at a critical juncture.
It could also help the State Bank of Pakistan manage external payment pressures, including import financing and debt servicing, while strengthening market confidence in the country’s ability to meet international obligations.
Agha Adeel Saadat, a former International Monetary Fund (IMF) economist who now works for a US financial firm, said such a facility could provide Pakistan with “an important financial buffer” by strengthening foreign exchange reserves, enhancing investor confidence and reducing short-term external financing risks.
“At a time of heightened geopolitical uncertainty in the Middle East and continued volatility in global oil prices, Pakistan remains vulnerable because of its dependence on imported energy,” he said.
“A stronger reserve position would enable the State Bank of Pakistan to better manage exchange-rate volatility, meet external debt obligations and cushion temporary external shocks without disrupting economic activity.”
For Pakistan, which has repeatedly sought external support to manage balance-of-payments crises, an ESF facility would represent a new form of financial backing from the US.
The key question remains, whether Washington considers the request an appropriate use of the ESF, and whether both governments can agree on the structure and conditions of such assistance.
If approved, the facility would become one of the most significant recent bilateral financial arrangements between Pakistan and the United States. However, it would not by itself resolve Pakistan’s long-term economic challenges.
Mr Saadat cautioned that the proposed facility should be viewed as “a bridge to stability rather than a substitute for structural reforms”.
He said Pakistan would still need to broaden its tax base, expand exports, improve productivity and exercise greater fiscal discipline by curbing non-essential public spending, including luxury official purchases and other discretionary expenditures that strain public finances.
Dr Shahzad Latif, a Chicago-based political economist, argued that Pakistan’s long-term economic health cannot depend on periodic external assistance.
“Instead of relying on piecemeal financial support, Pakistan needs a long-term strategy centred on attracting foreign direct investment, building industrial capacity to reduce imports and expanding exports,” he said.
“That would reduce pressure on foreign exchange reserves, strengthen the rupee and broaden the country’s tax base, helping address Pakistan’s balance-of-payments challenges over the long haul.”
Dr Latif added that bilateral financial arrangements can also have geopolitical implications.
“Countries receiving such assistance should remain mindful that strategic or diplomatic expectations may accompany major bilateral financial facilities,” he said. “In my view, Washington could seek broader regional policy concessions, including encouraging Pakistan to move toward the Abraham Accords, although no such condition has been announced in this case.”
For now, Pakistan’s request remains a proposal rather than an approved US financial commitment.
(contd..)
What is the ESF?
https://www.dawn.com/news/2019811
The proposed facility would rely on the US Treasury’s ESF, a mechanism created to respond to international monetary crises and provide emergency financial support to foreign governments.
According to the US Congressional Research Service, the ESF has “broad authority to conduct foreign exchange operations, extend short-term credit and enter into currency swap arrangements with foreign governments and central banks”.
Unlike regular government programmes funded through annual congressional appropriations, the ESF operates through its own resources, including earnings from investments, interest income and US holdings of International Monetary Fund Special Drawing Rights (SDRs).
Established in 1934, the ESF was designed to allow the executive branch to respond quickly to international financial disruptions.
Under 31 U.S.C. Section 5302, the Treasury Secretary has broad authority over the fund. While the President must provide Congress with a written report and justification when certain ESF loans extend beyond six months, lawmakers do not have statutory authority to block deployment of the funds.
This structure gives the Treasury flexibility to act rapidly during financial emergencies.
The ESF has been used several times to support foreign governments facing financial crises.
According to CRS, the US Treasury has carried out 126 credit operations involving foreign governments, including short-term loans and currency swap arrangements.
One of the most prominent examples was the 1995 Mexican peso crisis. After Congress rejected a proposed rescue package, the Clinton administration used the ESF to help assemble approximately $20 billion in currency swaps, loans and guarantees to support Mexico’s financial stability.
The ESF has also supported arrears-clearance operations. In 2008, it helped Liberia clear overdue obligations to international financial institutions, while a similar mechanism was used in 2021 to assist Sudan in clearing arrears to the IMF and World Bank.
The US Treasury also established a $2.5 billion currency swap arrangement with Argentina in 2025 to provide emergency liquidity.
@riaz & @vineeth
Obviously Modi was caught off guard with Pehelgam and events followed by that. Just like Trump miscalculated Iran, Modi and his Bhakths miscalculated both Operation Sindoor and also Trump himself. HN base of Modi considered "Trumpji" a friend. The rest is history.
But what could be the move or event that could change the game? India pivoting to China? Another administration in US? Or India hoping and managing to revive economic partnership with Europe and Middle east?
@Zen,
No doubt Modi was caught off-guard by Trump 2.0. But to be fair, he wasn't the only one. When was the last time we saw a US administration openly insulting Western allies, threatening to take over their territories and engaging in tariff wars with them? Even Bush administration's slight of "Old Europe" for their hesitance to join him and Tony Blair in the Iraq invasion was far milder in comparison. Trump-era has been unusual in many ways. But the question is whether this is merely a temporary abberation or indicates a permanent shift in US politics and how it conducts its foreign policies.
Would the next administration (even a Republican one) continue Trump's disruptive style, or would they return to more traditional ways? If the next US administration were to prioritize halting the tariff wars, repairing relations with traditional US allies and a return to "contain China" (not sure if that is even possible at this stage) as its foreign policy priority, Modi can heave a sigh of relief.
The difference is that Europe had no choice as Europe is a junior partner in the relation, regardless of how it is viewed in Berlin and London. India under Modi's leadership showed very naive and amateur foreign policy instincts like calling foreign leaders "friends", in order to appease an even naiver domestic fanbase.
A democratic admin. in Washington could try to balance and improve relation with N. Delhi, but even then I think China and Russia got some very useful 4 years during which Indo-US relationship was set back by perhaps 10-15 years.
Joint Article by Ambassador Albert P. Khorev and Chinese Ambassador Jiang Zaidong on the 25th Anniversary of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Treaty between Russia and China
https://pakistan.mid.ru/en/news/joint_article_by_ambassador_albert_p_khorev_and_chinese_ambassador_jiang_zaidong_on_the_25th_anniver/?TSPD_101_R0=08765fb817ab20005e9c59f48eb7fe6b599adfb20db2f06d840ddb4c3ff6090a852fb5a3bcdc781008fffdc27a1430008ef9e30e4084c2ab5a62ffb8898912774c832e6a366be5ca7a64c9bb63546e4422c7b4ae8445c7c6d221fbab73463cd0
Russia and China consistently advocate for a harmonious process of shaping an equal and orderly multipolar world and international relations of a new type, including a more just and rational system of global governance. It is heartening to note that Pakistan ascribes to a similar view. At the UN, Russia, China and Pakistan can often be seen jointly upholding the principles of international law, fairness and sovereign equality of states. As members of the United Nations Security Council, our three countries share principled approaches to the most pressing issues on its agenda.
———-
Russia, China vow deeper ties with Pakistan in focus | The Express Tribune
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2618480/russia-china-vow-deeper-ties-with-pakistan-in-focus
ISLAMABAD:
Russia and China have reaffirmed their commitment to deepening strategic coordination and expanding cooperation across political, economic and regional domains, as they marked the 25th anniversary of the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation.
In a joint article, Russia's Ambassador to Pakistan Albert P Khorev and China's Ambassador Jiang Zaidong described the 2001 treaty as a "landmark document" that laid the foundation for a comprehensive strategic partnership, calling it a "vital constant" amid sweeping global changes.
The envoys said the agreement formalised longstanding ties based on equality, mutual respect and win-win cooperation, and has since evolved into a model of major-country relations in a transforming global order.
They also highlighted the significance of the 1996 Joint Declaration, which set the course for "equal and trusting partnership aimed at strategic cooperation in the 21st century," noting that both documents continue to guide bilateral ties.
According to the ambassadors, political mutual trust remains the cornerstone of Russia-China relations, supported by frequent high-level exchanges and institutional coordination. They referred to President Vladimir Putin's visit to China in May this year, during which he held talks with President Xi Jinping and oversaw the signing of around 40 agreements spanning trade, energy, transport, innovation and education.
The envoys said the two sides had agreed to further align their development goals and strengthen coordination on major global issues, particularly in the areas of international security and economic cooperation.
Highlighting their shared global outlook, the ambassadors said Russia and China advocate for a more "equal and orderly multipolar world" and a reformed system of global governance based on fairness and sovereign equality. They noted that Pakistan shares similar positions and often works alongside both countries at the United Nations.
As permanent members of the UN Security Council, Russia and China, along with Pakistan, maintain close coordination on key international issues, they added.
@Zen,
- "The difference is that Europe had no choice as Europe is a junior partner in the relation... I think China and Russia got some very useful 4 years..."
The situation of Russia is similar, if not worse. It badly miscalculated Ukrainian resistance to its "special military operation", and faced with Western economic sanctions, dwindling weapons stockpile and low troop morale it has no choice now but to stick with China as a junior partner. Its definitely not a situation that Putin wanted, but is nevertheless his own creation and he is left with no other option now.
Of course, none of this works to Modi's favour either. He badly misjudged Trump's unpredictable nature, and how the latter views international relations as short-term and transactional. He mishandled Trump's claims of engineering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan by having his FO reject them outright. Further, he would now know through experience (even if he and his 'admirers' may not acknowledge it) that smiles, bear hugs and 'personal diplomacy' may look good in photo-ops meant to flaunt in front of the domestic political base, but they are no guarantee of success in diplomatic relations.
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan to sign joint defence agreement in Saudi Arabia on Friday, sources say
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turkey-saudi-arabia-pakistan-sign-joint-defence-agreement-saudi-arabia-friday-2026-08-06/
Aug 7 (Reuters) - Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan will sign a joint defence agreement in Saudi Arabia on Friday, two regional sources with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters.
—————-
@MarioNawfal
🇹🇷🇸🇦🇵🇰 Three of the Muslim world's biggest players are quietly putting together their own bloc.
Erdogan reportedly flies into Saudi Arabia tomorrow to sit down with MBS and Pakistan's PM Sharif, who's already there on a three-day trip.
Here's why it matters. These three have spent nearly a year inching toward a joint defence pact, with Turkey trying to muscle into the mutual defence deal Saudi and Pakistan signed last September.
Everyone brings something: Saudi cash, Turkish drones and defence tech, and Pakistan's nukes, the only ones in the Muslim world.
Put it together and it starts to look like a bloc that doesn't answer to Washington or Beijing.
A quiet three-way meeting like this is exactly where that kind of thing moves forward.
Source: @burhanduran / Writer: Daniyal
https://x.com/marionawfal/status/2085468454195499380?s=61&t=mgTxrmITUbpo9NntN5677Q
Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan Sign Joint Defense Pact
The agreement treats an attack on any of the countries as an attack on all, but in a region of volatile rivalries, it was unclear what that would mean in practice.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/07/world/middleeast/saudi-turkey-pakistan-joint-defense-pact.html
Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan signed a new pact on Friday committing to collective defense against attacks on any of the three nations, Saudi Arabia said, entering an agreement that could reshape the strategic layout of the Middle East.
“The agreement is intended to strengthen collective deterrence against any act of aggression,” the Pakistani Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
The pact, it said, “stipulates that any armed attack against any one of the three states shall be regarded as an attack against them all.” Yet the text of the agreement was not immediately made public, making it unclear what the parties’ obligations are.
A Turkish official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that the agreement had been signed, adding that it pledged mutual support only for defense and was not directed against any other country.
The idea for a pact bringing together Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan evolved this year as wars and instability across the Middle East many led countries to explore new ways to enhance their security without relying on the United States and other Western powers.
Fueling this thinking were the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran; new attacks on Saudi Arabia that it has blamed on Iran’s allies in Yemen and Iraq; concerns about Israel’s expanding military actions; and doubts about the reliability of the United States as a defense guarantor for its Middle Eastern partners.
The pact, dubbed the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement, was signed on Friday in the holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan’s prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif.
While Egypt participated in early discussions about such a pact, it was not mentioned as a participant on Friday.
The Pakistani Foreign Ministry’s statement said that in addition to a commitment to mutual defense, the agreement “further provides for the enhancement of all aspects of defense cooperation among the three States.”
-----------
Çetiner Çetin
@cetiner_cetin
Translated from Turkish
Summary of the Mecca Agreement:
170 nuclear warheads 🇵🇰
G20 membership 🇸🇦🇹🇷
OPEC leadership 🇸🇦
NATO membership and one of NATO's largest armies 🇹🇷
Total economic size of 3 trillion dollars 🇵🇰🇸🇦🇹🇷
1,000 fighter jets 🇵🇰🇸🇦🇹🇷
Total 2 million personnel in the armies 🇸🇦🇹🇷🇵🇰
7,000 tanks 🇸🇦🇹🇷🇵🇰
90,000 armored vehicles 🇸🇦🇹🇷🇵🇰
34 submarines 🇹🇷🇵🇰
500 combat and naval platforms 🇸🇦🇹🇷🇵🇰
Total surface area of 4 million square kilometers 🇸🇦🇹🇷🇵🇰
Soon F-35 for Saudi Arabia and Turkey 🇸🇦🇹🇷
https://x.com/cetiner_cetin/status/2085694305830576425?s=20
"The Pakistani Foreign Ministry’s statement said that in addition to a commitment to mutual defense.."
That 'mutual defense' part sounds a bit tricky. If the Houthis or Iranians were to attack Saudi Arabia, will Turkey and Pakistan be compelled to militarily intervene if asked by Saudis? If India were to execute another cross-border attack against Pakistan in response to another terror strike in Kashmir (Modi has already done it twice, so there is no saying whether he would do it a third time), will Saudis and Turkey be compelled to join in a retaliation against India?
What Pakistan has pulled off diplomatically is extraordinary — and should be studied as a case study in international relations.
Islamabad has managed to remain deeply aligned with China, retain exceptionally close ties with Saudi Arabia and Türkiye, rebuild relevance in Washington, and at the same time keep a working relationship with Tehran.
Think about how unusual that is. These are countries whose interests frequently collide, yet Pakistan has resisted being boxed into a single geopolitical camp.
In an era defined by blocs, sanctions, rivalries and demands to choose sides, Pakistan has created strategic space for itself across nearly every major axis of power that matters to it.
That is not diplomatic balancing at the margins. It is geopolitical leverage.
@Umar Saif,
To give credit where its due, for a country that is under an IMF program and dependent on external financial support to prop up its reserves, the balancing acts and diplomatic coups Pakistan has managed in recent times is quite remarkable indeed. No doubt there are certain geopolitical factors and events that worked to Pakistan's advantage here - the second Trump presidency and Iran wars being chief among them. Nevertheless, its something for Modi and Jaishankar to learn lessons from. No doubt their long running campaign to isolate Pakistan diplomatically has effectively come to nought.
Vineeth, you are a typical Indian. Even when want to pass a compliment about Pakistan you have to mention something negative about it.
G. Ali
Indians, Pakistanis See Each Other as Top Threats and Differ on Global Order | Pew Research Center
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2026/08/13/india-and-pakistan-rivals-with-divergent-views-of-the-global-order/
What do people in India and Pakistan think about major powers?
Indians and Pakistanis generally agree on one thing: Their greatest geopolitical threat is the other. Over half of Indians (54%) name Pakistan as their country’s greatest threat, and 43% of Pakistanis name India. Around one-third of Indian Muslims (34%) name Pakistan as their top threat, compared with 57% of Hindus.
Indians also see China as a top threat (named by 21%). Pakistanis, for their part, see Israel (24%) and the U.S. (24%) as their next-greatest threats.
When asked about their most important ally, Pakistanis clearly point to China (75%) and, to a lesser degree, to Saudi Arabia (12%). About a third of Indians say Russia is their top ally (36%), while 16% name the U.S. Roughly a third of Indians did not answer the question.
Because the U.S., China and Russia play an outsized role in global affairs, the diverging views of these major powers and their leaders is noteworthy.
Indians, for example, show much more positive views of Russia (58% favorable) and President Vladimir Putin (51% confidence) than Pakistanis do (39% and 32%). In fact, Indians are among the most positive toward Russia and Putin across 37 countries surveyed this spring.
When it comes to views of the U.S., Indians feel three times more favorably than Pakistanis. Indians also express more confidence in President Donald Trump.
Pakistanis have overwhelmingly positive opinions of China (90% favorable) and President Xi Jinping (83% confidence). But only around a quarter of Indians express a positive view of China or its president. Indian Muslims are more likely than Indian Hindus to have a positive view of China and confidence in Xi, but on balance, their opinions of both are negative.
Indeed, across 36 countries, the favorability gap between the U.S. and China is largest in Pakistan. India is one of the most comparatively pro-U.S. countries surveyed, and one of only six where people express more positive views of the U.S. than China.
On a variety of questions about the role the U.S. and China play in the world – like reliability as a partner, taking other countries’ interests into account, interfering in other countries’ affairs, and maintaining global peace and stability – a similar pattern holds, with Indians more positive toward the U.S. and Pakistanis far more positive toward China.
Pakistan and the new great game of Risk
Islamabad has bold ambitions to play a more proactive role in the world
by Alec Russell
https://www.ft.com/content/a9573d72-7bb2-462f-83d7-c0fe36f8c98d?syn-25a6b1a6=1
In the last few decades of the 20th century, the go-to geopolitical board game for many teenagers was Risk. The object was world domination, the secret to success simple. You take over a hinge power on the map that covers the board, try to control a continent and expand from there.
It is like playing the Great Game, as the 19th-century contest for Central Asia was known, around your kitchen table: you keep your armies hidden, and then you strike. Remarkably, the original Risk map with its 42 territories has stayed all but the same since it was launched in 1957.
It is time for an update. Why does the game not include nuclear-armed Pakistan? Its surface area on the Risk board is split between a supersized India, Afghanistan and a vast “Middle East”. Yet in the real-life game of Risk that is geopolitics in Donald Trump’s second term, Pakistan is busily projecting itself as a hinge power.
This month’s defence pact with Saudi Arabia and Turkey is just the latest power play by Islamabad. The most striking was in April when it drew on its ties with America, China and regional powers, and hosted the first direct talks between Washington and Tehran since the Islamic revolution of 1979. There was no breakthrough. Officials fret the impasse made them look silly. Qatar has now in effect assumed their mediating role.
But the signal was clear. Pakistan has tense relations with neighbouring India, Afghanistan and Iran, yet it senses an opportunity to play a more proactive role in the world. It is on paper the ultimate “à la carte” middle power, able to pick when to align with Washington and when with Beijing, and able to keep lines open to the Sunni Gulf states and Shia Iran.
Mao Keji | मुखर्जी
@kejimao
This article offers a particularly astute observation: in the past, irrespective of the state of Sino-Indian relations, many Chinese long regarded India as a peer power, embracing the “narrative of potential” and “future value,” and believing that India would eventually match China’s strength.
Today, even as bilateral ties have warmed, many Chinese have instead grown far more pragmatic in their view of India, placing faith only in “tangible power” and “present value.”
Interestingly, when many Indians detect this shift, they often perceive the Chinese as having become condescending, even overbearing.
From the Chinese perspective, however, this turn toward realism regarding India is in fact a form of assistance—for in Chinese culture, humility and self-reflection are regarded as the key preconditions for progress and self-strengthening.
More striking still is that this abrupt transformation in attitudes toward India is not confined to China; it is even more pronounced in the United States.
So far, the Trump administration cares solely about the tangible benefits India can deliver to the US—whether arms orders, energy revenues, or investment commitments—while showing no interest whatsoever in the future status and potential value that Modi seeks to sell.
https://x.com/kejimao/status/2088864534123720712?s=20
China’s view of India has changed. It’s time New Delhi recognized that shift Chinese diplomats to India are saying all the right things for Indian ears, but Beijing’s policy actions are moving in the opposite direction.
https://themorningcontext.com/chaos/chinas-view-of-india-has-changed-its-time-new-delhi-recognized-that-shift
Speaking at the World Peace Forum in early July, an annual foreign policy forum in Beijing, India’s new ambassador to China, Vikram Doraiswami, caused some buzz with his statement that “Obviously, we would like to be able to export more to China. This is nothing unreasonable about suggesting that.” He then went on to identify one such possible area where India could increase its exports to China: pharmaceuticals, where he said India has “a competitive advantage”. His rationale was simple: “we’re one of the world’s big exporters of pharmaceuticals to advanced markets. We hope Chinese partners will work with us …
Beyond geopolitical blocs: why Pakistan's strategic autonomy matters to Europe
By Seema Afzal
https://www.atalayar.com/en/articulo/politics/beyond-geopolitical-blocs-why-pakistans-strategic-autonomy-matters-to-europe/20260818154303228456.html
Pakistan is frequently asked where it stands in the intensifying competition between China and the United States; yet that may well be the wrong question
The pivotal issue is whether Islamabad can cultivate sufficient economic, technological, and diplomatic resilience to prevent any single foreign partnership from narrowing its sovereign strategic choices.
The resurgence of great power competition is transforming the very nature of national power. While conventional military capability remains indispensable, international influence increasingly hinges on technological capabilities, finance, energy resources, supply chains, market access, and critical infrastructure.
Washington can restrict access to frontier technologies, Beijing leverages industrial capacity and global infrastructure connectivity, while the European Union exercises formidable regulatory and market power. Meanwhile, the Gulf States are translating sovereign capital, energy assets, and investments in emerging technologies into enduring global leverage.
Military, economic, and technological capabilities are increasingly mutually reinforcing. International sanctions, export controls, financial curbs, foreign investment screening, and supply chain security policies have become front-line instruments of modern statecraft.
Sanctions regimes implemented against Russia since 2022 and US export controls on advanced semiconductor technologies demonstrate how economic and technological interdependence can be weaponised as strategic leverage.
For Pakistan, the strategic takeaway is unambiguous: safeguarding its diplomatic freedom of manoeuvre depends not only on balancing major power relations, but crucially on building domestic resilience against external shocks.
Economic resilience as strategic power
Economic stability overseen by the Ministry of Finance of Pakistan can no longer be viewed strictly as a developmental concern. It directly dictates the country's foreign policy options.
External financing requirements before institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), heavy reliance on imported energy, concentrated export baskets, and exposure to global commodity price shocks constrain economic flexibility. In a world where finance, trade, and technology serve as instruments of geopolitical pressure, economic resilience is an essential component of national security.
Boosting export competitiveness, enhancing industrial productivity, diversifying the energy mix, and attracting sustainable investment will enhance Islamabad's capacity to absorb external volatility while preserving political agency. This does not diminish military readiness: credible defence capabilities remain essential, yet they are far more sustainable when underpinned by a productive economy, reliable energy supplies, and robust institutions.
National defence and economic resilience therefore operate as complementary pillars of Pakistan's strategic autonomy.
Why this matters for European policy
Pakistan's pursuit of strategic flexibility is directly relevant to Germany and the European Union.
European policymakers increasingly emphasise de-risking and resilience to address critical vulnerabilities in energy supplies, essential technologies, and supply chains. While Pakistan navigates these dynamics from a different socioeconomic standpoint, the structural dilemma is identical: how to benefit from global interdependence without allowing concentrated dependencies to restrict sovereign policy choices.
This is where Islamabad's priorities and Europe's strategic debate intersect.
Translating geography into economic value
Diversification requires translating geographical positioning into substantive economic capacity through the Government of Pakistan and the private sector.
Beyond geopolitical blocs: why Pakistan's strategic autonomy matters to Europe
By Seema Afzal
https://www.atalayar.com/en/articulo/politics/beyond-geopolitical-blocs-why-pakistans-strategic-autonomy-matters-to-europe/20260818154303228456.html
Translating geography into economic value
Diversification requires translating geographical positioning into substantive economic capacity through the Government of Pakistan and the private sector.
Located at the crossroads of South Asia, China, Central Asia, and the Middle East, Pakistan holds immense transit and trade connectivity potential. However, geography generates geopolitical influence only when it creates tangible economic value.
CPEC and infrastructure initiatives must aim beyond functioning solely as transit corridors. Seaports, motorways, and rail networks generate peak value when integrated with specialised industrial zones, logistics hubs, modern energy grids, and export-oriented manufacturing.
Deeper integration into regional supply chains will stimulate foreign direct investment and domestic employment. For European industry, a productive, well-connected Pakistan offers a reliable gateway to surrounding regional markets, converting physical connectivity into diversified economic options.
Strategic autonomy begins at home
Pakistan's trajectory offers a fundamental lesson for middle powers: strategic autonomy cannot be attained merely by refusing to pick sides between rival geopolitical blocs; it must be anchored in domestic productive and institutional capacity.
Contemporary power operates across financial systems, supply chains, energy networks, and digital infrastructure. States vulnerable to severe disruption across these domains face narrowed foreign policy horizons. Islamabad therefore requires diversified international partnerships grounded in domestic economic resilience.
This is where Pakistan's strategic approach and Europe's debate on strategic autonomy converge: both confront the shared challenge of leveraging globalisation while avoiding asymmetrical, concentrated dependencies.
Europe should embrace this strategic synergy. Supporting the diversification of global partners does not undermine European interests; it strengthens a balanced, rules-based international network.
In an emerging multipolar environment, strategic influence will belong to nations that combine domestic resilience with diversified foreign relations to safeguard sovereign decision-making. For Pakistan, this defines strategic autonomy; for Europe, fostering such resilience is a pragmatic investment in global stability.
Saima Afzal is a researcher specialising in South Asian security, counter-terrorism, and broader geopolitical dynamics across the Middle East, Afghanistan, and the Indo-Pacific. She is currently a researcher at Justus Liebig University Giessen(Germany).
Post a Comment