We only want to secure our interests.
Well, at least our alliance has three members. That should make decision-making easier.
You enter an alliance and acting in accordance with the alliance objectives becomes your interest. Your direct interest is fulfilled when other members do their part and help build up your strength, like paying the bill to making weapons or deploying their strong weapons in your defense.
www.brookings.edu
People forget that being isolated is exactly what forced us to become strong in the first place. When you don’t have anyone to rely on, you’re pushed to innovate, build your own industry, and stand on your own feet. That’s how Türkiye ended up with a defence sector that actually works. Compare that to the Saudis ...they spent decades assuming the US would always protect them, and now they’re scrambling to form alliances with their own “regional rivals” because that dependency collapsed.
There is S-400 in India also, so you mean eachtime F-35s/F-22s arrived to India always with the luneberg lenses.I've read about this back when it first appeared in media, but as far as I can gather, all the reports are just regurgitating from a single unnamed source based in Pakistan. There's been no evidence of aircraft/missile deployment. Aircraft are easy enough to spot with satellite imagery of airfields, but there's been some embargoes on imagery of US-allied airfields so there's scope for ambiguity. But a Chinese HQ-9 system going online in an airspace where the US had F-35s/F-22s (maybe even B-2s) flying around without luneberg lenses? I don't see how CENTCOM would've been okay with that.
Smallish ADS like Pantsir/FK-2000 with short-range radars are one thing (easy to map & avoid), but systems like HQ-9 or S-400 with theatre-level radar surveillance (hundreds of kms) create huge OPSEC problems. I'm not sure if that part is believable.
A hypothetical Turkish deployment of aircraft/missiles to KSA would integrate much more smoothly with the US defence networks already sitting there.
As of Pakistani troop deployment, that is certainly possible and likely to have been done. But the thing is, Pakistan has been deploying troops (around ~15,000 or more) to KSA since at least the 1970s. Troop levels have routinely surged during times of war/crises (like the earlier Gulf Wars) and subside afterwards (see link below). So linking troop deployment to the Sep 2025 agreement would be a mischaracterization.
The signal and substance of the new Saudi-Pakistan defense pact | Brookings
Countries across the region may rightly view the Saudi-Pakistan defense pact as a hedge against over-dependence on great powers, and may well seek to do the same.
Not to mention, invoking a mutual defence agreement after a ceasefire had already been reached doesn't really make much sense...unless of course, Pakistan had made it clear to KSA beforehand that they will not be getting involved in active hostilities with Iran. So the ceasefire period was the only time it could be invoked.
If I was Saudi, I wouldn't invoke anything publicly until & unless I've privately received assurances as to what the response is going to be. Otherwise I'd risk looking like a fool (and making the other party look untrustworthy/unreliable). I wouldn't want that.
I agree infantry has been deployed at various times during the last 50 years or so.I've read about this back when it first appeared in media, but as far as I can gather, all the reports are just regurgitating from a single unnamed source based in Pakistan. There's been no evidence of aircraft/missile deployment. Aircraft are easy enough to spot with satellite imagery of airfields, but there's been some embargoes on imagery of US-allied airfields so there's scope for ambiguity. But a Chinese HQ-9 system going online in an airspace where the US had F-35s/F-22s (maybe even B-2s) flying around without luneberg lenses? I don't see how CENTCOM would've been okay with that.
Smallish ADS like Pantsir/FK-2000 with short-range radars are one thing (easy to map & avoid), but systems like HQ-9 or S-400 with theatre-level radar surveillance (hundreds of kms) create huge OPSEC problems. I'm not sure if that part is believable.
A hypothetical Turkish deployment of aircraft/missiles to KSA would integrate much more smoothly with the US defence networks already sitting there.
As of Pakistani troop deployment, that is certainly possible and likely to have been done. But the thing is, Pakistan has been deploying troops (around ~15,000 or more) to KSA since at least the 1970s. Troop levels have routinely surged during times of war/crises (like the earlier Gulf Wars) and subside afterwards (see link below). So linking troop deployment to the Sep 2025 agreement would be a mischaracterization.
The signal and substance of the new Saudi-Pakistan defense pact | Brookings
Countries across the region may rightly view the Saudi-Pakistan defense pact as a hedge against over-dependence on great powers, and may well seek to do the same.
Not to mention, invoking a mutual defence agreement after a ceasefire had already been reached doesn't really make much sense...unless of course, Pakistan had made it clear to KSA beforehand that they will not be getting involved in active hostilities with Iran. So the ceasefire period was the only time it could be invoked.
If I was Saudi, I wouldn't invoke anything publicly until & unless I've privately received assurances as to what the response is going to be. Otherwise I'd risk looking like a fool (and making the other party look untrustworthy/unreliable). I wouldn't want that.
Hesham Alghannam, a Saudi security analyst and researcher, agreed that neither country was likely to engage offensively in the short term, but drew a distinction between what the agreement “can deliver now versus what it aspires to become.”
I've read about this back when it first appeared in media, but as far as I can gather, all the reports are just regurgitating from a single unnamed source based in Pakistan. There's been no evidence of aircraft/missile deployment. Aircraft are easy enough to spot with satellite imagery of airfields, but there's been some embargoes on imagery of US-allied airfields so there's scope for ambiguity. But a Chinese HQ-9 system going online in an airspace where the US had F-35s/F-22s (maybe even B-2s) flying around without luneberg lenses? I don't see how CENTCOM would've been okay with that.
Smallish ADS like Pantsir/FK-2000 with short-range radars are one thing (easy to map & avoid), but systems like HQ-9 or S-400 with theatre-level radar surveillance (hundreds of kms) create huge OPSEC problems. I'm not sure if that part is believable.
A hypothetical Turkish deployment of aircraft/missiles to KSA would integrate much more smoothly with the US defence networks already sitting there.
As of Pakistani troop deployment, that is certainly possible and likely to have been done. But the thing is, Pakistan has been deploying troops (around ~15,000 or more) to KSA since at least the 1970s. Troop levels have routinely surged during times of war/crises (like the earlier Gulf Wars) and subside afterwards (see link below). So linking troop deployment to the Sep 2025 agreement would be a mischaracterization.
The signal and substance of the new Saudi-Pakistan defense pact | Brookings
Countries across the region may rightly view the Saudi-Pakistan defense pact as a hedge against over-dependence on great powers, and may well seek to do the same.
Not to mention, invoking a mutual defence agreement after a ceasefire had already been reached doesn't really make much sense...unless of course, Pakistan had made it clear to KSA beforehand that they will not be getting involved in active hostilities with Iran. So the ceasefire period was the only time it could be invoked.
If I was Saudi, I wouldn't invoke anything publicly until & unless I've privately received assurances as to what the response is going to be. Otherwise I'd risk looking like a fool (and making the other party look untrustworthy/unreliable). I wouldn't want that.
It means they want our weapon systems produced in SA with all the blueprints.
You can never know in both countries.
