While we were distracted by other September headlines, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan quietly signed a mutual defense pact last month. Sounds serious, until you remember…. they don't share a border; they don't share enemies and couldn't realistically come to one another's aid without a very long layover in Dubai.
But, if you stop thinking in terms of geography and start thinking in terms of psychology, the pact becomes less ridiculous and more important as a signal.
So, what's this all about?
As the United States retreats from its role as global security guarantor, wealthy, but militarily limited states like Saudi Arabia are scrambling for alternatives, however, implausible. With this pact, the Saudis seem to be implying that if push comes to shove, Pakistan might nuke someone on their behalf.
Keep in mind: implausible is not the same as impossible. Cross cutting guarantees aren't new. Just ask the tangled alliances that turned World War I from a local squabble into global carnage.
And don't think it can't happen again. After all, history doesn't just repeat, it has a nasty habit of rhyming. And in this case, the rhyme scheme includes nukes, which makes this pact very much worth watching.
So, … Why Pakistan, you ask?
Basically, Riyadh has kept Pakistan close with cheap oil and debt relief for decades. Essentially keeping a line of credit open in case it ever needs nuclear "insurance."
Now, lets be clear here. The idea that Pakistan would actually fight, let alone launch nukes for Riyadh, or, that this pact lets Saudi Arabia to order nukes off the shelve, is almost beside the point. What matters is that everyone else now has to pause and wonder, "But what if?" And in world politics, the shadow of that question can be more powerful than the answer.
In other words, this pact may be less about practical defense and more about creating the impression of a nuclear safety net-- that the button is, if not in Riyadh's pocket, at least within arm's reach. Call it deterrence by ambiguity. Either way, and again, nukes are involved, and that's not something to shrug off.
Conversely, strategically speaking, nukes are only good as the credibility behind them. If yours are someone else's, what you've got isn't security - it's cosplay deterrence with a built in chance of catastrophic disappointment. Just saying.
So, the take aways are this:
- The Bedouin story didn't end with camels and tents; their legacy and traditions still shape Gulf politics, military recruitment, and the very idea of Arab legitimacy. And if you've been paying attention to world politics since 1945, you'll know it's been quietly shaping the game the whole time.
- Sometimes the shadow of a promise can be more powerful than the promise itself. In short, ambiguity sells safety better than capability.
- The world's a noisy place--certainly worth noticing, and even more worth understanding. After all, and not unlike your Benefit Funds, more could be at stake than you realize. So perhaps it's time to give both topics a bit more attention than the bare minimum they've received so far. (And yes, I knew you were waiting for me to tie this back to benefits--did you really think I wouldn't?)
In conclusion, Saudi Arabia seems to be keeping the nuclear option on speed dial. Let's hope nobody ever answers.