TR Foreign Policy & Geopolitics

[Skyfall]

I think it makes sense if the Yanks leave Saudi. Then the Iranians have no legitimate reason to attack Saudi Arabia. But with things the way they are, and us not knowing all the information, i am more than skeptical at this point. I mean the Ukranians can’t join Nato right now because they are already in a conflict. And the Saudis we can say are still involved in a conflict.

 

[Tabmachine]

I think it makes sense if the Yanks leave Saudi. Then the Iranians have no legitimate reason to attack Saudi Arabia. But with things the way they are, and us not knowing all the information, i am more than skeptical at this point. I mean the Ukranians can’t join Nato right now because they are already in a conflict. And the Saudis we can say are still involved in a conflict.

If the agreement requires Saudi Arabia to shift its defence arrangements completely from the US to Turkiye/Pakistan, then it could make sense.

If Saudi Arabia will continue to host US troops / equipment, and allow them to operate from their soil, the agreement is strategically incoherent in objective terms.

 

[BalkanTurk90]

So the pact mean attack ın 1 atrack on 3 but İran is atracking Saudi , Does that mean we should attack İran and protecting a genocidal state of israel ? Or US bases in Saudi dont count ....!

 

[MonteCarlo]

So the pact mean attack ın 1 atrack on 3 but İran is atracking Saudi , Does that mean we should attack İran and protecting a genocidal state of israel ? Or US bases in Saudi dont count ....!

Iran already fired missiles to both Turkey itself and to Azerbaijan which Turkey has defence pact with and we didn't respond. I don't think the deal with Saudi Arabia makes any difference.

Pakistan-Saudi Arabia pact was also ongoing while Iran was pummeling Saudi Arabia and they didn't really respond either.

It is hard to say anything without knowing the details of the deal

 

[Huelague]

From now on, expect more attacks in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia supported by Iran.

Its the opposite. They want to join the alliance.

 

[TurkWolf]

Saudi Arabia is allies with Israel. Any opposition to Israel is just it saving face in front of the "Muslim world". To the US and Israel, Saudi Arabia has been a useful tool for spreading Islamism that's beneficial to western interests. You realise Central Asia is next in line right? If they can spread radical Islam there then they can stop China's rise and completely destroy Russia from its soft underbelly.

I'm not pro or anti anything, but we're very clearly helping Western interests under the guise of a so called islamic alliance.

Stop believing the lies that any of this is for combating Greece or Israel, pure nonsense. Pakistan and Türkiye are being brought into the middle eastern mess as the first line of defence against Iran, and neither are going to benefit from it.

People keep acting like Saudi Arabia is some heroic “anti‑Israel” force, but that’s just the performance they put on for the wider Muslim world. In reality, Riyadh and Tel Aviv have been coordinating quietly for years. intelligence, security, regional strategy ..and everyone in world knows it. The narrative that only the UAE is close with Israel is also misleading. Jordan signed peace decades ago, Egypt has deep security cooperation, and several other Muslim‑majority states maintain quiet ties.

So when people try to sell this Pakistan–Saudi “Islamic alliance” as something built for Muslim interests, it’s just not true. The structure of that alliance lines up perfectly with US and Israeli strategic priorities: containing Iran, stabilising supply routes, and keeping the regional balance exactly where Washington wants it.

The Muslim world is being told this is unity and strength, but the actual beneficiaries are the same powers that have shaped Middle Eastern security for decades. Pretending otherwise only hides who this alignment really serves.

And let’s be honest ...will Saudi Arabia or Pakistan lift a finger if Greek Cypriots attack Turkish Cypriots? Will they stop calling Turks “genociders” whenever it suits their political narratives? Of course not. This alliance doesn’t serve Türkiye’s interests, and it never has. These nations will forever follow the Westerners this alliance won't change that.

Türkiye’s real strategic future isn’t in Middle Eastern power games built around protecting US and Israeli priorities. Our strength comes from aligning with Turkic nations... states that actually share our history, identity, and long‑term interests. That’s where genuine partnership exists, not in alliances that only use us as a buffer for someone else’s agenda.

 

[Huelague]

The narrative that only the UAE is close with Israel is also misleading. Jordan signed peace decades ago, Egypt has deep security cooperation, and several other Muslim‑majority states maintain quiet ties.

And we have had one of the deepest.

 

[Gessler]

Iran already fired missiles to both Turkey itself and to Azerbaijan which Turkey has defence pact with and we didn't respond. I don't think the deal with Saudi Arabia makes any difference.

Pakistan-Saudi Arabia pact was also ongoing while Iran was pummeling Saudi Arabia and they didn't really respond either.

It is hard to say anything without knowing the details of the deal

Regarding the Saudi-Pakistan 'mutual defence' agreement signed last September, the talk in some diplomatic circles here in India is that either an understanding has been reached and/or assurances have been given (probably during NSA Doval's visit to Riyadh or earlier), that the Saudis will not be getting involved in any future India-Pakistan conflagration, and that the deal is only meant for Pakistan to serve the Saudis' interests, but not vice-versa. That remains to be seen in reality. The next bout of fighting in the subcontinent may not be far off so that will be tested soon.

But like you pointed you, the reverse (Pakistan treating an attack on Saudi as an attack on itself, as per terms of the Sep 2025 agreement) has already been tested and has come up short. Iran has been consistently attacking the Saudis (not just US bases but Saudis' own oil infrastructure). In light of Iran's attacks on US-allied countries in the region following last year's Op. Midnight Hammer, followed by Israel's attack on Hamas officials in Qatar, it made some strategic sense as to why the Saudi-Pak agreement came about as a means of potentially enhancing deterrence against future attacks, actual deliverables notwithstanding.

But Iran has already called this bluff. Pakistan will not be attacking Iran on Saudi's behalf either. In fact some Gulf countries (Saudi, Kuwait, UAE, maybe Qatar) have actually carried out several discreet retaliatory air strikes on Iran over the course of this war, but Pakistan has not gotten involved in those actions.

And as of the last few weeks, even Yemen's Houthis have called that bluff by attacking Saudi infrastructure, and received no Pakistani response.

I don't yet know if the new Saudi-Pak-Turkey agreement changes anything, but what is certain now is that the Saudi-Pak agreement, which was similarly worded as this one, has been a bit of a sham. If it's purpose was deterrence, then it has failed. If it's purpose was actual deliverables, it has also failed. If that agreement was aimed at creating a NATO Article 5-like deterrence structure, it has missed that goal by a long shot.

 

[Skyfall]

Did you not think that it could be aimed at non muslim countries only, like your own.

 

[Zafer]

The alliance is defensive, does no mean to broaden conflicts by counterattacks as counterattacks serve the purposes of third parties as well.

 

[Gessler]

Did you not think that it could be aimed at non muslim countries only, like your own.

A mutual defence alliance that only comes into effect based on religion? That would be a first. Certainly quite unique. And how would it be defined? After all, India itself has the 3rd highest number of Muslims in the world after Indonesia & Pakistan. And the constitution is of a secular character, as is Turkey's. I don't think an alliance on that principle makes a lot of sense. I hope you're joking.

On a more serious note, how would getting involved in wars with countries outside their immediate region of interest supposed to help the collective security of Turkey or Saudi Arabia? For the most part, they have their hands full with adversaries in their immediate periphery. Forcing outside powers to take a more proactive interest in tipping these scales would not be wise IMO (especially for KSA). Let alone the possibility of direct conflict via missiles or other effectors.

Also, how would such an alliance manage escalation responsibility? Supposing an India-Pakistan conflict escalates into a limited (or not so limited) nuclear exchange, would Pakistan's allies also be considered as having a hand in that if they were party to the conflict, thereby have responsibility for the conflict escalating to that level? What would be the response?

This is not a well thought-out paradigm. I really doubt either Saudis or Turks will be interested in becoming an active party to a war against India (or any other out-of-area country, non-Muslim or otherwise). But as I said in my previous post, that remains to be seen.

 

[TR_123456]

A mutual defence alliance that only comes into effect based on religion? That would be a first. Certainly quite unique. And how would it be defined? After all, India itself has the 3rd highest number of Muslims in the world after Indonesia & Pakistan. And the constitution is of a secular character, as is Turkey's. I don't think an alliance on that principle makes a lot of sense. I hope you're joking.

On a more serious note, how would getting involved in wars with countries outside their immediate region of interest supposed to help the collective security of Turkey or Saudi Arabia? For the most part, they have their hands full with adversaries in their immediate periphery. Forcing outside powers to take a more proactive interest in tipping these scales would not be wise IMO (especially for KSA). Let alone the possibility of direct conflict via missiles or other effectors.

Also, how would such an alliance manage escalation responsibility? Supposing an India-Pakistan conflict escalates into a limited (or not so limited) nuclear exchange, would Pakistan's allies also be considered as having a hand in that if they were party to the conflict, thereby have responsibility for the conflict escalating to that level? What would be the response?

This is not a well thought-out paradigm. I really doubt either Saudis or Turks will be interested in becoming an active party to a war against India (or any other out-of-area country, non-Muslim or otherwise). But as I said in my previous post, that remains to be seen.

I believe he meant Israel.

 

[Fatman17]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2085702087992856891

 

[Afif]

Regarding the Saudi-Pakistan 'mutual defence' agreement signed last September, the talk in some diplomatic circles here in India is that either an understanding has been reached and/or assurances have been given (probably during NSA Doval's visit to Riyadh or earlier), that the Saudis will not be getting involved in any future India-Pakistan conflagration, and that the deal is only meant for Pakistan to serve the Saudis' interests, but not vice-versa. That remains to be seen in reality. The next bout of fighting in the subcontinent may not be far off so that will be tested soon.

But like you pointed you, the reverse (Pakistan treating an attack on Saudi as an attack on itself, as per terms of the Sep 2025 agreement) has already been tested and has come up short. Iran has been consistently attacking the Saudis (not just US bases but Saudis' own oil infrastructure). In light of Iran's attacks on US-allied countries in the region following last year's Op. Midnight Hammer, followed by Israel's attack on Hamas officials in Qatar, it made some strategic sense as to why the Saudi-Pak agreement came about as a means of potentially enhancing deterrence against future attacks, actual deliverables notwithstanding.

But Iran has already called this bluff. Pakistan will not be attacking Iran on Saudi's behalf either. In fact some Gulf countries (Saudi, Kuwait, UAE, maybe Qatar) have actually carried out several discreet retaliatory air strikes on Iran over the course of this war, but Pakistan has not gotten involved in those actions.

And as of the last few weeks, even Yemen's Houthis have called that bluff by attacking Saudi infrastructure, and received no Pakistani response.

I don't yet know if the new Saudi-Pak-Turkey agreement changes anything, but what is certain now is that the Saudi-Pak agreement, which was similarly worded as this one, has been a bit of a sham. If it's purpose was deterrence, then it has failed. If it's purpose was actual deliverables, it has also failed. If that agreement was aimed at creating a NATO Article 5-like deterrence structure, it has missed that goal by a long shot.

I think it requires the attacked country to invoke the clause first to be aided. Which Saudi didn't do so far afaik.

 

[TheInsider]

I don't know how Turkiye, Pak and SA will work jointly on Kaan. There is nothing to develop anymore other than the engine, and the engine has already completed the PDR phase and the CDR phase has started. Saudis might get a local assembly if they order a huge amount. Pakistan won't get block 10 or 20 because of F110 engine(I'm %100 sure the US won't give an export license) and earliest date for the national engine is by the end of 2032-Q1 2033. I guess Pakistan can send its own national weapons for integration to block 30 after 2030

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2085702087992856891

 

[Fatman17]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2085996034061459744

 

[Ripley]

Because of a technical problem on my side, I can’t post as much as I like recently but all I wanna say is Saudi Arabia never seeks alliances. it simply buys protection even maybe more than other GCC countries. So, no matter what it says on any paper signed, just be cautious when defining it as an alliance.

 

[Bogeyman]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2086140563854660045

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2086142960375119928

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2086146676155175161

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2086149953835905033

Turkey dealt a blow to Israel's "Abraham Accords" plan.

 

[Barry]

Pakistan i understand, nuclear tech, there's some cooperation regarding training/production etc going on, plus a friendly nation.

Saudi though? Produces nothing but oil, sex offenders and traitors to the ummah, spreads the disease of wahabism/salafism across the globe, helping drag Islam into the mud globally, can't protect itself against Iran because it's dependent on its white masters for arms/defence and got slapped around by some spicy Houthi lads for the last 11 years in a war they themselves started.

When they swallow a load more Iranian ballistics are we going to die for them because they're functionally useless at warfare and defence? WHAT A DEAL

 

[Zafer]

Türkiye and Pakistan have excess defence capability that they can sell to Arabia. Arabia has excess buying power that they can use to buy defence capabilities from whoever but they are fed up with fraudster and incapable vendors.

Global firepower ratings, less is more, it shows capability shortcoming, 0 (zero) is optimal

US​	0.0741
China​	0.0919
Türkiye​	0.1975 more like 0.17 today
Pakistan​	0.2626
Saudi Arabia​	0.4473
TR+SA+PK​	0.1000 my estimate, 90% self reliant, 382 million population 5% of world, 6.7% income