ICGER Hosts Seminar on Saudi–Pakistan Defense Pact Dr. Youssef: A potential nucleus for a “purely Islamic NATO”
Beirut, September 19, 2025. The International Center for Geopolitical, Economic and AI Studies (ICGER) hosted a closed-door seminar on Friday as part of its bi-monthly series, focusing on the “consequences and implications of the Saudi–Pakistan strategic defense agreement.” The session, held at ICGER’s downtown Beirut headquarters, featured remarks by the center’s director, Dr. Mohammad Walid Youssef, and was moderated by Dr. Imad Ghannoum.
Starting the conversation, Ghannoum presented the pact as the result of years of economic, political, and military cooperation between Riyadh and Islamabad, and as a response to both regional security needs and rapid global changes. He emphasized that the agreement’s importance goes beyond just military matters, with potential impacts spreading across the Gulf, South and East Asia, and beyond.
During his keynote, Dr. Youssef took a look back at recent developments in Saudi–Pakistani relations. He brought up Pakistan’s 2015 decision not to join the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, an event that he said put a strain on their relationship at the time. Dr. Youssef argued that in the years that followed, Riyadh worked towards creating a formal framework that would essentially put it “under Islamabad’s nuclear protection,” ultimately leading to the current agreement.
Youssef noted that the pact’s timing caught several key players off guard, including the United States and India. He also claimed that an Israeli strike on Qatar had temporarily disrupted radar, early-warning, and air-defense systems in parts of the Gulf. Additionally, he stated that Saudi Arabia has access to five Pakistani nuclear warheads, which can be used only in the event of a severe, imminent threat to the Saudi royal family or the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. (These claims could not be independently verified.)
Looking ahead, Dr. Youssef suggested that the agreement could draw in more Muslim-majority countries and lay the groundwork for a “purely Islamic NATO,” separate from earlier U.S.- or Israel-backed ideas reportedly proposed by former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Regarding Iran, Youssef noted that Tehran would likely support the agreement in principle if it was clearly aimed at Israel rather than Iran and its allies. However, if Iran interpreted the agreement as an attempt to contain or weaken it, he expected Tehran to lean more towards India, Pakistan’s long-standing rival. In this case, he added, Israel and India would probably formalize the existing alignment between them.
Among the wider implications he highlighted: countries dealing with internal conflicts involving Muslim communities could come together to form a counter-bloc, possibly including Israel, India, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Ethiopia. He also suggested that parallel alliances might form, involving Turkey, Russia, and China.
The seminar wrapped up with a conversation about how these realignments could transform security architectures across the Middle East, as well as Central, South, and East Asia. Participants stressed the importance of monitoring how military, political, and technological connections shift over time.
