The Failure of Pakistani Alliances & The Instability of the Middle East

After all the pointless flame wars on this website I wanted to tackle some less divisive topics, therefore I have decided to create a short post discussing the failure of alliance structures in the Middle East (including Pakistan going by the World Bank definition). The alliances we will actually look at being the METO/CENTO/Baghdad Pact, SEATO, and the two recent pacts between Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan with Turkey being the most recent entrant.

(P.S. XTM can you add an Active Author Category for me.)

Colonial Legacies

The borders of the Middle East have been drawn rather unnaturally like almost any decolonized part of the world. However, the region has been plagued with conflict since almost time immemorial. The reality of national border is that creating perfect borders according to the distribution of populations is a fraught task which is bound to lead to an almost unending series of wars. Therefore, regardless of colonialism the borders of a nation state will create frictions with other states and blaming Mortimer Durand, Mark Sykes, François Georges-Picot and myriad other colonial era diplomats will simply derail the discussion beyond its scope. I acknowledge their faults contributing to the unstable nature of many states in the region however do not think of them as the root cause for the instability.

Failure of CENTO/METO/Baghdad Pact

CENTO initially started in 1955 as the Baghdad Pact between Turkey and Iraq as a way of keeping the Soviet Union out of the Middle East. In time it admitted the UK which occupied several territories in the Middle East shortly after. Slowly the Alliance expanded to house Iran, and Pakistan as well.

The reason for its failure are almost multiple however the root cause seems to always end up being the infighting and instability endemic to the Middle East. The grouping became disillusioned when Pakistan tried to invoke some help during the 1965 and 1971 wars against India. Aid was provided by the organization’s members in individual capacities however it was all short of actually becoming a cobelligerent in the conflict against India. Another point of friction became the Turkish invasion of Cyprus which led to the UK withdrawing from the alliance.

The final nail in its coffin was the Iranian Revolution of 1979 which sealed its fate as in short order Iran, Pakistan, UK and Turkey all exited the alliance structure.

Military Failure of SEATO

SEATO was created for a similar objective to CENTO as anti-communist, anti-Soviet Pact headed by Western Powers to guard South East Asian colonies. However, in comparison to CENTO it involved a much larger colonial overhang. Its main members were Australia, US, UK, France, Pakistan, and Thailand. Unlike CENTO which vanished away in a blaze of glory no one single event could be identified which ended SEATO but instead a culmination of events led to its demise.

In 1971 Pakistan lost its Eastern Province which became Bangladesh. Therefore, it lost any weight it might’ve had in South East Asia making the Pact beyond its scope. It officially withdrew from the pact in 1973. Soon after which France withdrew from the Pact due to its loss in Vietnam. This led to the pact later being dissolved in 1977.

Military Failure of Saudi-Pakistan Pact (SMDA)

The Saudi-Pakistan Pact was signed on 7 September 2025. It began as a way for the two nations to come to each other’s defense using collective security. Any attack on one nation would be considered as an attack against both. The pact was initially a reaction to the Israeli bombing of Qatar which killed several Hamas leaders.

The pact was tested during the Pakistani-Afghan conflict in the same year. This conflict showed the unequal nature of this treaty where the Pakistani border hostility would be replied to by the Saudi govt with call of peace. While, any hostility against the Saudis by Iran or any of its proxies would end up requiring the deployment of Pakistani troops and equipment on Saudi soil as at least a show of force if not for actual war fighting.

The Inevitable Failure of the Mecca Defense Pact

The Saudi-Pakistan pact was recently extended into a Trilateral Pact on 7th August 2026 to include Turkey into the mix. The alliance seems to mimic the natural expansion of bilateral alliance into a multilateral alliance as seen in CENTO. However, the alliance has already been test in around 48 hours of its signing by the Houthis in Yemen who have decided to fire on Saudi infrastructure.

Although the Pact remains nominally anti-Israeli in nature, the real enemy it wishes to triangulate against is Iran. It has also been called a Sunni NATO or an Islamic NATO. Although other organizations have had similar monikers but they all have had the same failing.

The Faults in Collective Defense

To demonstrate the inherently uncertain and unreliable nature of collective defense I shall quote the Article 5 from NATO as none of the treaties signed between Saudi Arabia-Pakistan-Turkey are currently publicly available.

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Even Article 5 the gold standard for collective defense relies more upon the collective faith the nations place upon it rather than any firm guarantee that an attack on one nation shall be an attack on all. As nations are free to pursue actions they deem fit, this may include use of the armed forces however it doesn’t necessarily have to which means in a difficult situation such an alliance structure lacks the binding nature to be relied upon. Furthermore, it forces no actions of economic coercion on any of the signatories against the nations which triggers Article 5.

The death nail for any military expectations from this alliance has been that it is clearly created to counter Iran’s increasing influence on the Middle East. Although, none of the nations can even clearly state this in any of their statements. Out of the 3 signatories of the treaty only Pakistan directly borders Iran and it will take any and all actions necessary to stay out of a direct conflict with Iran. To the point where it will completely abandon its ally Saudi Arabia to act as an intermediary or mediator in the Saudi conflict against Iran. This is simply due to the strategic calculus of already being burdened by 2 hostile fronts and not being able to afford a 3rd hostile front for Pakistan.

Although the three nations may tout their varying advantages as bringing different strengths to the table the real weakness it displays is an inherent inability to operate along with each other. Turkey is a NATO member therefore has at least some degree of standardization in its equipment along with Saudi Arabia which procures most of its equipment from the US as well. However, a large portion of Pakistani equipment originates from China which is bound to not play well when forced to operate with almost entirely NATO compatible armies. Furthermore, the economic differences between the three nations will make further military integration difficult beyond some basic drone integration.

Regardless, I do not believe that Pakistan will be the reason for the failure of the Mecca Pact. Historically speaking the reasons for the destruction of such pacts is due to Revolution in a signatory, the liberation of a signatory’s territories, and inherently diverging strategic interests of all signatory nations. In a long enough timeline the strategic misalignments between Turkey and Saudi Arabia will be reason enough to tear this alliance of convenience apart.