Bangladesh Keen To Join Saudi-Pak-Turkey Defence Alliance, Says PM's Top Aide

[Owaiz]

This Makkah Pact reminds me of the six blind men of Indostan who went to see an elephant. Its full text is still not public, but everyone has their own definitive opinion on what its purpose is.

Turkiye thinks it will contain Greece, even though Greek Patriot batteries are currently defending Saudi Arabia against missile and drone attacks.

The regime in Pakistan thinks it will contain India, even though Saudi Arabia has friendly ties with India and their investments and trade with India are orders of magnitude higher.

Then there is the Israel bogey, even though Israel has never ever attacked any of the signatories where each of the three countries has faced attacks from Iran no earlier than at least 2024.

What is beyond dispute is that Saudi Arabia is that both Pakistan and Turkey are facing economic struggles and Saudi Arabia is struggling with ongoing security threats emanating from Iran and the American security guarantee has proved insufficient.

For all the talk about ummah chummah , each country is in it for itself. Turkiye and Pakistan don't really want to destabilise their own security situation or go to war for the Saudis, but they want Saudi funding for their defence and economy, in general. Saudi Arabia doesn't want to jeopardise its relationships with Greece and India and even a possible rapprochement with Israel sometime in the future, once Netanyahu is out of the picture, but they want to fill the gaps in their security and to force Iran and its allies to stop attacking them and their oil routes.

Now, as far as Bangladesh is concerned, they do have a history of exporting security services though the United Nations, and, Saudi Arabia has learnt from the experience with America, not to put all their eggs in one basket. So, they as the main financier should be happy to host Bangladeshi troops as much as those from Pakistan, especially since Bangladesh , being geographically distant, doesn't have the same sensitivity about getting involved in a conflict with Iran as Pakistan does.

Now, of course, there is also geopolitical signalling from signing a pact and , as long as Bangladesh is willing to face the consequences, they have as much right to export their security services as anyone else. However, they should be realistic in their assessment that this is Saudi-funded security arrangement and not expect intervention on their behalf against Myanmar or India.

 

[Aghor Warrior]

This Makkah Pact reminds me of the six blind men of Indostan who went to see an elephant. Its full text is still not public, but everyone has their own definitive opinion on what its purpose is.

Turkiye thinks it will contain Greece, even though Greek Patriot batteries are currently defending Saudi Arabia against missile and drone attacks.

The regime in Pakistan thinks it will contain India, even though Saudi Arabia has friendly ties with India and their investments and trade with India are orders of magnitude higher.

Then there is the Israel bogey, even though Israel has never ever attacked any of the signatories where each of the three countries has faced attacks from Iran no earlier than at least 2024.

What is beyond dispute is that Saudi Arabia is that both Pakistan and Turkey are facing economic struggles and Saudi Arabia is struggling with ongoing security threats emanating from Iran and the American security guarantee has proved insufficient.

For all the talk about ummah chummah , each country is in it for itself. Turkiye and Pakistan don't really want to destabilise their own security situation or go to war for the Saudis, but they want Saudi funding for their defence and economy, in general. Saudi Arabia doesn't want to jeopardise its relationships with Greece and India and even a possible rapprochement with Israel sometime in the future, once Netanyahu is out of the picture, but they want to fill the gaps in their security and to force Iran and its allies to stop attacking them and their oil routes.

Now, as far as Bangladesh is concerned, they do have a history of exporting security services though the United Nations, and, Saudi Arabia has learnt from the experience with America, not to put all their eggs in one basket. So, they as the main financier should be happy to host Bangladeshi troops as much as those from Pakistan, especially since Bangladesh , being geographically distant, doesn't have the same sensitivity about getting involved in a conflict with Iran as Pakistan does.

Now, of course, there is also geopolitical signalling from signing a pact and , as long as Bangladesh is willing to face the consequences, they have as much right to export their security services as anyone else. However, they should be realistic in their assessment that this is Saudi-funded security arrangement and not expect intervention on their behalf against Myanmar or India.

Not even China has risked imposing a two-front war on India in direct coordination with Pakistan, because while such a scenario may look strategically advantageous for China and Pakistan on paper, it raises a much bigger question: what happens if Pakistan threatens or attempts to use nuclear weapons against India?

Would India respond with nuclear weapons against Pakistan alone, or would include China as well?

The same question applies to the countries involved in a hypothetical “Muslim NATO” or the states associated with the Mecca Agreement. If Pakistan were to threaten or attempt to use nuclear weapons against India, would India respond only against Pakistan, or could the response extend to the wider coalition ?

One important point also needs to be clarified: when discussing “use of nuclear weapons,” India is not referring only to a nuclear weapon successfully detonating. The intent to use nuclear weapons, including an attempted nuclear strike regardless of whether it ultimately succeeds, is considered use of nuclear weapons

 

[Owaiz]

Not even China has risked imposing a two-front war on India in direct coordination with Pakistan, because while such a scenario may look strategically advantageous for China and Pakistan on paper, it raises a much bigger question: what happens if Pakistan threatens or attempts to use nuclear weapons against India?

Would India respond with nuclear weapons against Pakistan alone, or would include China as well?

The same question applies to the countries involved in a hypothetical “Muslim NATO” or the states associated with the Mecca Agreement. If Pakistan were to threaten or attempt to use nuclear weapons against India, would India respond only against Pakistan, or could the response extend to the wider coalition ?

One important point also needs to be clarified: when discussing “use of nuclear weapons,” India is not referring only to a nuclear weapon successfully detonating. The intent to use nuclear weapons, including an attempted nuclear strike regardless of whether it ultimately succeeds, is considered use of nuclear weapons

This is not some Muslim NATO, more like an al Saud protection force. As for mutual defence clauses, even SEATO and CENTO had them, but they turned out to be paper tigers.

In a hypotherical conflict with Pakistan, would India go and attack Saudi Arabia solely because it is a member of this pact ? If not, why should it threaten Bangladesh and open another front unless Bangladesh were actually going to intervene in the war in Pakistan's favour?

 

[peagle]

Truth is ridiculous. Only falsehood seem acceptable in the thread.

I totally agree, Pakistanis have a sad habit of twisting truths into bare bone ridiculous statements. Once you play with truths, it becomes a lie.
Anything else, no matter how reasonable becomes a falsehood.

The fact that the most dominant expression, feeling or understanding with regards to the 1971 civil war is sorrow. To pretend otherwise is truthfully speaking just ridiculous.

 

[Aghor Warrior]

This is not some Muslim NATO, more like an al Saud protection force. As for mutual defence clauses, even SEATO and CENTO had them, but they turned out to be paper tigers.

In a hypotherical conflict with Pakistan, would India go and attack Saudi Arabia solely because it is a member of this pact ? If not, why should it threaten Bangladesh and open another front unless Bangladesh were actually going to intervene in the war in Pakistan's favour?

I personally think this so-called “Muslim NATO” is primarily posturing against Iran, rather than a serious collective-security arrangement directed at India. Both Turkey and Saudi Arabia have also conveyed to India secretly that it is not intended to be an anti-India alliance.

A genuine Muslim NATO involving Pakistan is difficult to make credible because of the unique nature of the India–Pakistan conflict: both countries are nuclear-armed, and India possesses surface to surface missile systems capable of reaching targets 5000km away. That makes any mutual-defence commitment involving Pakistan far more complicated than a conventional alliance.

NATO was originally built around the Soviet threat, and although the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO continued to exist. But even NATO's collective-defence framework has never meant automatic military intervention in every dispute involving a member. For example, India’s annexation of Goa did not trigger NATO collective defence.

So the real question is: what could a “Muslim NATO” realistically do against India that Pakistan could not already do through its own military? If its members are unwilling to risk direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed India, then a mutual-defence clause would have very limited practical value.

 

[peagle]

An utterly ridiculous statement.

@El Sidd
I would like to apologise for my tone, it was harsher then it needed to be.

I stand by the sentiment and the content, but i realise my tone was inappropriate considering we've had decent interactions, hence the apology.

 

[r3alist]

What is beyond dispute is that Saudi Arabia is that both Pakistan and Turkey are facing economic struggles and Saudi Arabia is struggling with ongoing security threats emanating from Iran and the American security guarantee has proved insufficient.

Saudi is not that rich, no one thinks they are money printing, imaginary hope cope


Reality is Pakistan somehow always finds money for its military for 50 years, the Saudis are not so ineffective as people say, the Turks are not dependent on Pakistan in any way decisively.

They have different comparative advantages to differentiate levels


What's your point

For all the talk about ummah chummah , each country is in it for itself

Yet look at where we are.

Iran endorse this too.

 

[r3alist]

As previously stated, this is just BD tactic to extract a better deal from India, simple pressure tactic

I don't see it, India has nothing to offer.


This deal implies Pakistani presence implies china military hardware.

It has no real resistance globally and we are in the world of middle power alignment absent USA global policing

It is seemingly important Bangladesh is not left out, from Bangladeshi perspective

India offers nothing to balance

 

[r3alist]

personally think this so-called “Muslim NATO” is primarily posturing against Iran

Iran endorses, there has been a literal war, a literal stress scenario where neither Pakistan or Saudi felt the need to attack Iran.




Pakistan Iran ties are at a real high, apparently they need a treaty against each other?

this so-called

So called by who? Who actually said NATO?

 

[r3alist]

You’re right and I agree with you. But that’s exactly the issue — what’s the point of this pact if it isn’t basically about protecting Saudi Arabia from Iran or Israel? Türkiye and Pakistan can handle their own regional threats without anyone’s help. We’ve already proven that.

So when you look at it realistically, this pact mostly benefits the Saudis. They get political cover, military reassurance, and a sense of “collective defence” they never had before. Meanwhile, Türkiye and Pakistan don’t actually gain anything strategic. We don’t need a treaty to defend ourselves, and we don’t need a treaty to help each other either — history already showed that.

There has been mad levels of internalizing external skeptics.


The comparative advantages are not absolute, they really are not because Saudi Arabia do have a significant army but constrain themselves political and strategic reasons.



Pakistan is not so financially strapped when it comes to military matters.

If you had examined the state of NATO from day one it would look like a mess, who offered what?


Right now this is serving strategic compulsions abd a recognition that middle power alignment is necessary.


If you imagine that turkey had real problems with Greece and that you have let's say eight countries in this, do you not think that those countries at minimum would have to indirectly support Turkey in some way, as well as ensure they offer Greece no room to harm turkey, what about the diplomatic support and shaping global opinions? Yes Turkey can stand alone and it does not really need external help, but now they will at absolute minimum carry with it more indirect and back channel assistance

In theory you reduce the strategic possibilities of everyone's adversaries


Everyone's.

I would say that this is how middle power alignment works, no one power has projection like USA, but they have some limited influence and when you add it up....


People will have to reduce expectations on having a massive overarching command structure and interoperability because of the reason I just said, you have no USA type power.

 

[GoatsMilk]

Last time Donald Trump was in Office he bragged about crashing the Turkish Lira causing hyperinflation so can expect that as one of the things in their playbook again

yeah exactly. The world is still very much unipolar when it comes to the economic and political damage the USA can cause to her enemies. Chinese, Russian and whoever else cannot act as an alternative to hedge against this. If the USA comes after you economically and politically they can isolate nearly all nations on earth.

These are the things Turkiye has to take into account when dealing with Isreal. The Isrealis since they are in essence a "crusader state" sustained and maintained by the USA has no fear of such repercussions. The moment Turkiye strikes the jews, is the very same moment this economic and political damage will instantaneous be applied to Turkiye.

This is why the size of the alliance becomes important. If the alliance were 20 nations, the americans trying to destroy one economically and politically becomes very very difficult, since the other 19 could potentially act as a counter weight. The americans would have to calculate if trying to destroy one nation economically is worth the resistance of the other 19. Then in a way the cost ends up outweighing the benefit.

Personally i believe this is the primary reason why Turkiye is pushing for this alliance to grow in the background, its real way to counter the political and economic power of the zionist/anglo-american axis.

 

[GoatsMilk]

If you imagine that turkey had real problems with Greece and that you have let's say eight countries in this, do you not think that those countries at minimum would have to indirectly support Turkey in some way, as well as ensure they offer Greece no room to harm turkey, what about the diplomatic support and shaping global opinions? Yes Turkey can stand alone and it does not really need external help, but now they will at absolute minimum carry with it more indirect and back channel assistance

In theory you reduce the strategic possibilities of everyone's adversaries

The Greeks in the EU have applied the weight of being in that bloc against Turkiye, despite being the aggressors. Just look at Cyprus as a prime example. The greeks invaded that island, attempted the illegal annexation of that island and the attempted extermination of Turkish Cypriots Muslims. Today the Greeks are constantly rewarded, the Turkish Cypriots are internationally isolated. Power wise, Greece is nothing compared to Turkiye, but the weight of EU gives her outsized influence in the region.

So when the greeks talk, they talk with the EU weight behind them. When Turkiye talks she talks alone.

It would be nice to know that one day when Turkiye talks, she has the weight of another 20 nations behind her. I honestly feel this is the primary reason why Turkiye wants this alliance to not only succeed but to grow. The military support is great, but military wise Turkiye is going to be doing just fine, its diplomatic and political weight she needs which can only be obtained with size.

This is why i also believe when the time is right Turkiye will pull Libya, Syria and Azerbaijan into the alliance. Most likely Somalia too. Turkiye in the long run will also aim to influence the Turkic states into it. Its basically collective power.

 

[GoatsMilk]

You couldn't be more wrong in your assessment. If you approach this alliance with a simple binary mindset, then your going to come to silly conclusions.

 

[Nimble]

India will never allow Bangladesh to join such military pact.... main threat is from Turkiye who may station it's advanced NATO standard military in Bangladesh and it may be an entry point to USA as well in Bangladesh.... NATO presence on our Eastern flank is very dangerous.... they will keep us under pressure from east and also they will be able to spy on our strategic assets like our ballistic missile tests that happen in orissa and also they will keep an eye on our nuclear submarines.....

No hell no.... we won't approve any such pact for Bangladesh or else....

 

[GoatsMilk]

Every nation within this alliance or thinking about joining this alliance has his own reasons and his own interests.

The Turkish interests are many.

1: Access, Turkiye irrespective of this alliance has been moving her army into many nations. The more Turkiye expands her army outwards, the safer Turkiye becomes and the more influence she can push externally. This influence creates economic and political benefits. If nations are pulled into this alliance it becomes much easier for the Turkish military to potentially find a position within that geography.

2: Business: Lets use Saudi as an example, Saudi has plenty of capital and Turkiye has plenty she could sell especially in the military field. Nations in this alliance will become easier to market too.

3: Diplomatic and Political Clout. I've already explained this one. Could in the long run actually be the most important reason. Its another reason for the creation of the Turkic Council.

4: Defence: In the long run, it could actually turn into a serious military alliance.

Now i could give more reasons. Nothing needs to work 100%, but even if Turkiye were able to get just 10% of what she thinks out the alliance, then that is 10% she wouldn't have gotten had she not had the alliance.

Each nation will have a duty to work for it, the more they work for the alliances success the more they will get out of it. Not every nation will contribute to it equally some will do more then others, this is natural. You see this within NATO where the USA does the most since they get the most out of the alliance.