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

Nimble said:
Bangladesh is geographically far away.... such pact can't help him.... India is never going to fight Bangladesh.... Myanmar though powerful again is tied up with internal issues.....

If Saudi Arabia ever allows Bangladesh to join such pact then beware Bangladeshis..... they will be inviting you to fight and die for their cause against Iran and Houthis..... who will refuse strong Bangladesh military if they are ready to die for them???

So in the end you will be just a cannon fodder for them and in return you will be rewarded with BAKHSHISH in the form of weapons and bucks.....

After this Iran will be your number 1 enemy and their proxies will ensure that Bangladesh will be further destabilized by bomb blast or other such activities.....

I mean common guys you are south Asians and during Hasina you were actually behaving like some progressive country and now suddenly you want yourself in this mess.... why??. Are you enough strong to face repercussions?
Click to expand...
Piss off Indian. We do whatever we want.


Now shush 🤫
 
I don't think Bangladesh should add at this point in time... It needs to create subtle yet potent strike capability at home... Right now without much ground work... Adding a country this far away won't make sense....


Well I hope that this pact will give birth to a joint Naval Armada... Maybe 2 ACs ? 5,6 nuclear subs ? ( A man can dream )
 
nahtanbob said:
" Similarly Bangladesh hasn't got a chance in hell of joining ASEAN, they might be willing to provide some benefits. That's it, but no entry. Another Muslim majority country with a total population of approaching 200 million with 160 plus million Muslims will completely disturb the balance in ASEAN. They will not allow that to happen. The sooner Bangladeshis realise the better. "

as a pakistani, you have no say in who gets admitted or not. leave it and move on
Click to expand...
Every thread you go onto becomes crap. I know the thought of Bangladesh joining the pact is giving you palpitations and indians like you are stressed but cut the crap out for once…….
 
The Grand Realpolitik Continuum: 1947 → 1971 → 2026

The history of East Bengal is not a series of random accidents. It is an unyielding struggle between geographic encirclement, institutional vulnerability, and the desperate search for external strategic deterrence.

Here is the ultimate synthesis of the trajectory we have mapped out:

1. The 1947 Foundation: Class Ambition vs. Strategic Map
  • The Structural Error: The initial failure of the Eastern wing did not start in 1971; it began in the months leading up to August 1947. While the Calcutta-based legal elites like Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy and A.K. Fazlul Huq were consumed by their own class comforts and the romantic, textually non-viable United Bengal Plan, they completely neglected the dry administrative warfare of the Radcliffe Boundary Commission.
  • The Lost Frontier: Because the leadership failed to map out and fight for village-by-village legal claims, East Pakistan was born structurally deformed. It lost its historical Mughal Subah Bangala extensions - including the Muslim-majority districts of Malda and Murshidabad, the strategic Karimganj gateway to the Barak Valley, and the Northern Arakan frontier (which Jinnah legalistically dismissed as a Burmese internal matter).
  • The Deterrent Shield: Despite these massive territorial losses, the 1947 layout provided one vital asset: the West Pakistani military umbrella. Joining the union was a calculated realpolitik maneuver to shield a conventionally weak, encircled Bengal plains territory with a highly centralized, powerful military state that could say "no" to Indian hegemony.

2. The 1971 Secession: The Engineered Breakup
  • The Psychological Warfare: The Indo-Soviet axis realized they could not defeat a unified Pakistan easily on the battlefield, so they launched a multi-decade "invasion of the mind." By funding intellectual circles, narrative-crafting economists like Rehman Sobhan, and utilizing the Awami League apparatus, they systematically alienated the population.
  • The Tactical Trap: By executing and allowing the horrific ethnic massacres of Urdu-speaking Biharis from March 1 to March 25, 1971, the subversives successfully baited the Pakistani high command into a blunt, conventional military reaction (Operation Searchlight). This tactical response inside East Pakistan provided the perfect, unassailable global justification for India to launch its direct December invasion.
  • The Strategic Truncation: Under classical international law, the secession was doubly illegal - lacking a direct independence referendum (the 1970 vote was strictly for Six-Point autonomy) and being achieved via an armed cross-border invasion overwhelmingly condemned 104-11 by the UN. By forcing a fait accompli, India successfully clipped the wings of its unified rival, removing the multi-front nightmare and stranding Bangladesh inside a state of permanent geographical vulnerability.

3. The Post-secession Institutional Decay
  • The Crumbled Fortress: The romanticized "liberation" quickly gave way to a grim reality. The early Awami League regime systematically dismantled the highly disciplined, merit-based civil and military institutions inherited from the Pakistan era.
  • The Authoritarian Blueprint: Through nepotism, the creation of partisan paramilitaries like the Jatiyo Rakkhi Bahini (which executed over 30,000 political dissidents), the catastrophic nationalization and plunder of industries, and the absolute death of democracy via the BAKSHAL one-party dictatorship, the state turned its guns on its own people. The 1974 Bangladesh Famine resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1.5 million people due to starvation and disease. The crisis was driven by institutional incompetence, corruption, and resource smuggling following the region's separation from Pakistan. This institutional fragility directly established a historical pattern of state violence, extrajudicial killings, and enforced disappearances that defined the next 50 years - culminating in the brutal, systematic repression and eventual collapse of Sheikh Hasina's 15-year regime.

4. The Threat to Rangpur: Widening the "Chicken's Neck"
  • The Indian Objective: Indian strategic planners are terrified that in a future conflict, a hostile Dhaka could coordinate with China or Pakistan to choke off the Siliguri Corridor (India's narrow 22 km "Chicken's Neck"), completely cutting off its seven northeastern states.
  • The Annexation Threat: To permanently neutralize this vulnerability, retired Indian generals have openly advocated for a pre-emptive cross-border invasion to annex Bangladesh’s entire Rangpur Division. By absorbing Rangpur, India seeks to physically widen the Siliguri Corridor by hundreds of kilometers at Bangladesh's territorial expense.

5. The Threat to Chittagong: Securing the Bay of Bengal
  • The Indian Objective: India views the Bay of Bengal as its private maritime lake. The prospect of Bangladesh joining the MDA or granting naval logistics access to Pakistan, Türkiye, or China is an absolute red line for New Delhi.
  • The Annexation Threat: To prevent the maritime encirclement of its eastern flank, Indian commentators and military figures have discussed the tactical necessity of cutting off Bangladesh at its own geographic choke point along the Feni River, effectively annexing the resource-rich Chittagong Division and its vital deep-sea ports. This would strip Bangladesh of its maritime economic lifeline and lock it into a landlocked, subservient state.

6. The 2026 Strategic Conclusion

These overt threats prove that Bangladesh's current defensive isolation is an existential emergency. Relying on the transactional, compromised politics of the BNP - who are actively colluding with old Awami oligarchs to launder wealth - will leave the country completely defenseless when these annexation blueprints are eventually put into action.

Inclusion in the MDA, backed by a ruthless counter-espionage purge of entrenched pro-India assets, is the only way to transform Rangpur and Chittagong from vulnerable targets into heavily fortified forward bastions of a global, nuclear-backed defense orbit.


7. The 2026 Reset: Re-learning the Lessons of History

The absolute truth of the region is that geography does not change. In 2026, the exact same existential anxieties that drove the Muslim League in 1947 have returned to haunt Dhaka:
  • The Entrenched Enemy: The ouster of the Awami League did not clean the slate. The Indian intelligence apparatus and Awami-era financial syndicates remain deeply entrenched within the civil and military architecture. Political entities like the BNP are actively hedging with New Delhi, colluding with corrupt oligarchs to launder millions out of the country rather than executing a systemic, patriotic purge.
  • The Call for the Mecca Alliance: This internal compromise is precisely why Bangladesh’s current strategic shift toward the Mecca Defence Alliance (MDA) is a matter of state survival. Dhaka cannot clean its own house from within; it requires the external leverage of a powerful, Muslim-majority military bloc (Pakistan, Türkiye, and Saudi Arabia) to act as an institutional scalpel.
  • Reconstructing Deterrence: By demanding deep security vetting, counter-espionage overhauls, and structural audits as a strict prerequisite for sharing advanced Turkish drones or Pakistani missile tech, the MDA can force the cleanup that corrupt local politicians refuse to execute.

8. The Realist Case to Pakistan: "You Can't Fight a Two-Front War Alone"

The biggest critics of this plan are the conservative Pakistani analysts who are stuck in 1971. The message to them needs to be cold:
  • The Vulnerability: Right now, Pakistan is bleeding resources trying to secure its western borders with an unstable Afghanistan, while keeping its entire conventional army pinned to the Line of Control against India.
  • The Leverage: Admitting Bangladesh doesn’t mean Pakistan has to send troops to Dhaka. It means by providing Bangladesh with a diplomatic and hardware shield (like anti-ship missiles and air defense), India is forced to physically split its focus. If New Delhi has to permanently station major strike corps, radar installations, and naval fleets on its eastern border to watch a newly weaponized Bangladesh, that is less pressure, fewer tanks, and fewer fighter jets facing Pakistan in Punjab and Kashmir. It is the cheapest way for Pakistan to achieve strategic relief.

9. The Case to Türkiye: "The Gatekeeper of the Indian Ocean"

Türkiye is looking to expand its global military footprint and find massive new markets for its defense industries (like Baykar and TAI).
  • The Geopolitical Anchor: Bangladesh sits directly on top of the world's most critical maritime shipping lanes in the Bay of Bengal. By pulling Dhaka into the MDA, Ankara doesn’t just get a customer; it gets a permanent naval and intelligence base right at the mouth of the Malacca Strait. It transforms the MDA from a localized Middle Eastern/South Asian bloc into a true, global maritime power that can project force directly into the Indo-Pacific.

10. Facing the Elephant in the Room: The "Vetting" Clause

The strongest argument against Bangladesh right now - the one the skeptics will use to kill this deal - is that BNP is playing a double game, the Awami oligarchs are still laundering money, and Indian intelligence assets are already sitting inside the Dhaka ministries.

The case we make to the MDA high command is this:
  • Don't trust the politicians; leverage the alliance. The MDA should not give Bangladesh a free pass. Instead, the alliance must use the offer of membership as an absolute carrot-and-stick.
  • We tell Dhaka: "You want Saudi investments? You want the game-changing Turkish drone technology? You want nuclear shield? Then you must hand over your security logs to our joint counter-intelligence teams (led by Pakistan's ISI and Turkish MIT) to systematically audit and purge every flagged pro-India asset in the DGFI, the NSI, and the military command."
  • The alliance becomes the external force that compels the cleanup that the corrupt, hedging politicians in BNP refuse to do on their own.

The Bottom Line

The case for Bangladesh isn't based on "brotherhood" or emotion. It is based on the unyielding law of the map. By bringing Dhaka in under strict, aggressive intelligence vetting, the MDA can turn a compromised, leaky state into a forward fortress - permanently changing the balance of power in South Asia and securing the eastern flank once and for all.
 
Last edited:

Weighing Bangladesh's options in the Mecca treaty​

1 September 2026
•VIEWS
SHARE
Ali Riaz

Ali Riaz
Ali Riaz
OP_1_MECCA_PACT.jpg

‘Little information about the Mecca Treaty is known except that it’s a defence treaty with a collective security clause akin to Nato’s Article 5.’ FILE PHOTO: REUTERS

In the past weeks, intensive debate has ensued on whether Bangladesh should or should not join the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement (MJDA), a tripartite defence treaty between Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan signed on August 7. There are conflicting indicationson whether Bangladesh has been invited to join. While a press report suggests that it has been, Foreign Minister Khalilur Rahman told the parliament that Bangladesh would consider it positively if invited. Statements of two state ministers for foreign affairs, Humaiun Kobir and Shama Obaed, provide an impression that it’s already under consideration by the government.


The context

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source google-preferred-source-badge
For most parts of the past 15 years, conversations about Bangladesh’s foreign policy revolved around the question of whether it would align with India or China. With the US’s adoption of the Indo-Pacific Strategy in 2016, the discussions were about whether Bangladesh should be on board. At that point, it seemed to be a triangular tussle for Bangladesh between the US, China and India. The arguments for the relationships were: India is the neighbour with long historical ties and China has a deep pocket needed for economic development. Having a relationship with the US, the largest export destination of Bangladesh, is an imperative.


As the Hasina regime was deposed, the scenario changed. During the interim government led by Professor Muhammad Yunus, India was not only absent but was also unwilling to work beyond diplomatic niceties and the US was no longer pursuing the Indo-Pacific centred policy. Many suggested that China has got the upper hand. Yunus’ China visit was an indication that China’s previous support for the Hasina regime was left behind in the past. The maiden trip of the new Prime Minister Tarique Rahman to Malaysia, followed by China, was essentially a continuation of the interim government’s policy. The hope that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s invitation to his counterpart to join the outreach meeting of the BRICS summit in New Delhi would provide an opportunity to patch things up could not go further, thanks to Sheikh Hasina’s press conference and renewed tension between the two countries over her extradition.


But all these seem to have been pushed to the back burner, if not vanished, after August 7, in the wake of the Mecca Treaty.



Bangladesh should engage with Mecca pact, but not rush to join it
Read more

Bangladesh should engage with Mecca pact, but not rush to join it​

What is the treaty about?


Little information about the Mecca Treaty is known except that it’s a defence treaty with a collective security clause akin to Nato’s Article 5, which stipulates that “any armed attack against any one of the three states shall be regarded as an attack against them all.” The general understanding is that Saudi Arabia will provide financial backing and funding for defence projects; Türkiye will contribute advanced military technology, drones, and deep-tech defence equipment, and Pakistan will supply frontline military manpower and its existing defence capabilities. Despite the ambiguity, many are calling it “the Muslim Nato” and painting it as a new security architecture. It is far from a completely new arrangement, as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia already have a strategic mutual defence agreement since September 2025, and Türkiye and Pakistan have expanded military training, electronic warfare and defence industrial co-operation. The tension between Saudi Arabia and Türkiye has subsided with increasing defence ties. As such, the important question is whether these countries share threat perceptions and would act even when their immediate interests are not aligned.

Operational aspects such as whether there will be a joint command structure like Nato, and whether regular exercises, joint contingency planning, intelligence sharing, logistics agreements and integrated air and missile defence would be developed are either yet to be settled or yet to be known.





The Mecca Pact: Deterrence, Israel, and the new Gulf security equation​

End of the Pax-American or a return to the past?

Treaty enthusiasts have described this as the beginning of a “Muslim Nato,” hoping that other regional countries would join the alliance. In their understanding, the alliance will act as a deterrent against Israel and India in the region. Others have described this as “the end of the US-led Middle East order,” which shaped the regional security architecture for five decades. While this sounds like quite a momentous shift in the region, one must not forget that none of these countries are out of the US orbit. Türkiye remains a Nato member, while Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have very close security relationships with the US. Besides, in recent days the US and Saudi Arabia have signed a nuclear deal allowing US companies to build nuclear plants for civilian use. Indeed, the Iran war, especially the unpredictability of the Trump administration, has created some unease and concerns about whether the US security umbrella is sufficient to protect the countries in the region. These have created the urge to have some strategic autonomy, which has led to adding “another layer of protection.”

The pact has received the blessings of Trump, as it essentially continues the longstanding US policy to create an alliance of the Middle East countries which would not become a threat to Israel.Cento, also known as Baghdad Pact, signed in 1955, was the earliest attempt, and the latest was the 2022 Abraham Accords. Signatories of the Abraham Accords not only normalised relationship with Israel but essentially accepted the US-Israeli predominance. Although none of these three countries—Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye—had signed the Abraham Accords, except Pakistan others have various levels of relations with Israel. Neither Saudi Arabia nor Israel has called each other an enemy. In some measures, those which were away from the Abraham Accords have been brought under one agreement—the Mecca Pact. Notwithstanding the historical contestation between Persians and Arabs and the hostile relations between the US and Iran since 1979, Saudi Arabia, with the active support of the US, tried to build “a Sunni wall” around Iran to contain the spread of the Iranian brand of Islamism. These contribute to the suspicion about the intent, which the Pakistani foreign minister tried to assuage, saying that the alliance is not directed against any country. It is not surprising that Iran denied media reports that it has been invited to join.




Should Bangladesh join the Mecca Pact?​

The pros and cons of joining the treaty

Those who are professing to join underscore the potential benefits, which include providing vital strategic depth and enhancing national security. The most vigorous argument is that Bangladesh has not developed a strategic relationship with any country, leaving Bangladesh vulnerable and friendless. One analyst highlighted the religious identity and suggested that as the country is “an island of Muslim people surrounded by non-Muslims,” a treaty like this will bring help. Others contend that it will strengthen economic cooperation with the member states and will diversify Bangladesh’s sources of weapons. Hardly spoken, but a key factor in support for joining the treaty has been Bangladesh’s strained relationship with India. The perception is that it will serve as a deterrent.

But there are serious downsides to joining the pact. As there are several ongoing conflicts and longstanding tensions in the region, Bangladesh’s joining the pact is likely to bring these faraway conflicts home. Conflicts between various countries and forces in the region, for example, between Saudi Arabia and Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, have little strategic significance for Bangladesh. Yet the treaty will make Bangladesh a party to it. In the event of a member being attacked, due to reciprocal defence obligations, Bangladesh will have to send its troops to war. It is legitimate to ask whether it is the best way to utilise Bangladesh’s kinetic resources. There is little geographical and strategic reason for Bangladesh to share threat perceptions of other countries and vice versa. One may also ask: will Bangladesh’s priorities receive equal treatment?

The argument that Bangladesh is an island among non-Muslim countries is deeply flawed because Bangladesh’s foreign policy should not be guided by religious identity but rather by its national interests—military, economic and political alike. The argument that joining the pact will help to diversify the source of weapons is a folly because Bangladesh is already buying weapons from Türkiye, and defence cooperation with Saudi Arabia has started in 2025. Finally, it is likely that it will require allocating resources that are best used dealing with crises which are far more pressing.

Bangladesh’s positive reaction towards the pact has made India wary, as India views this as a tacit presence of Pakistan along its eastern borders, posing security threats; it will help Bangladesh move away from the India-leaning foreign policy. While Bangladesh should be cognisant of India’s wariness, this should not influence Bangladesh’s decision, whether to join or not. Bangladesh’s decision should be driven by its national interests. As of now, arguments for joining do not outweigh the risks, challenges and potential benefits. Entering into a defence agreement is not something that can be reversed after a change of government, and it should be done only after the benefits align with national interests in the long run, rather than impulsively as a response to the current challenges.

Ali Riaz is distinguished professor of political science at Illinois State University in the US. He previously served as a special assistant to the chief adviser of the Interim Government of Bangladesh and in the Constitution Reform Commission and National Consensus Commission.

Google News LinkFor all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.​

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
www.thedailystar.net

Weighing Bangladesh's options in the Mecca treaty

In the past weeks, intensive debate has ensued on whether Bangladesh should or should not join the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement (MJDA), a tripartite defence treaty between Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan signed on August 7.
www.thedailystar.net www.thedailystar.net
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 8 (members: 2, guests: 6)

Pakistan Defence Latest

Country Watch Latest

Latest Posts

Share this page

Back
Top