Mutual

One week on from Saudi ⁠⁠Arabia, Pakistan and Turkiye signing their ⁠joint defence agreement, the Turkish defence ministry revealed more details about the alliance on Thursday. They include plans to hold ⁠⁠joint military exercises and to deepen cooperation between their defence industries.

The bid to deepen security cooperation between three of the biggest economies among Muslim-majority countries comes amid heightened military tensions and conflicts in the Middle East.

Over the course of the US-Israeli war on Iran, Saudi Arabia has been repeatedly hit by Iran, which says it is targeting US military assets in the Gulf.

Pakistan’s ⁠⁠foreign ministry said that the agreement states ⁠⁠that an armed ⁠⁠attack on any one of the ⁠⁠three countries would be ⁠⁠regarded as an ⁠⁠attack against them all –  similar to NATO’s Article 5 collective defence clause.

At a weekly briefing in the Turkish capital Ankara on Thursday, the Turkish defence ministry said the pact’s fundamental goal was to ensure defence and military ties were put on a “more institutional and sustainable” footing.

“Under the accord, strategic political and military mechanisms plan to be established involving the defence ministers, foreign ministers, and chiefs of general ⁠⁠staff/armed forces commanders and that coordination among the three countries will ⁠⁠be conducted at the highest level,” it said.

What do we know about the Saudi Arabia, Turkiye, Pakistan pact?

It follows a visit by Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif, accompanied by army chief Asim Munir, to Saudi Arabia to perform the Umrah pilgrimage in Mecca.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also travelled to Saudi Arabia on Friday to meet Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Turkiye, which has NATO’s second-largest army, has said the pact with nuclear-armed Pakistan and major oil ‌‌exporter Saudi Arabia was open to expansion – Egypt has been touted as a potential candidate — and did not seek to replace any existing alliances.

How have similar defence pacts fared?

The mutual defence pact is similar to several others in the region and beyond, yet many have had mixed records in practice.

Such alliances have the potential to deter large-scale interstate wars against their members, analysts say. But their effectiveness drops once conflicts move into a ‘grey zone’, which can include military occupation, settlements, internal repression or proxy violence.

Experts say they often serve merely as a signal of a strengthened political alliance rather than being a true collective defence.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), 1949

NATO grew largely out of Cold War fears of aggression and expansionism by the Soviet Union.

The US, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom signed the initial treaty on April 4, 1949.

The group has expanded into a 32-member alliance, with Sweden being the most recent member two years ago.

Many argue that NATO was a factor behind the Soviet Union’s reluctance to directly attack Western European member states during the Cold War, and vice versa with the Warsaw Pact.

The US also entered multiple bilateral treaties with different countries in the 1950s and 1960s. This provided Washington with strategic reassurances to its pact partners and went some way to shape their domestic and foreign policies.

A key provision of the NATO treaty, the so-called Article 5, states that if one member of the alliance is attacked in Europe or North America, it will be considered an attack on all members. That effectively put Western Europe under the ‘nuclear umbrella’ of the US.

NATO has invoked Article 5 only once in its history, after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the US.

According to NATO, the alliance plays an important role in fighting “terrorism”.

Arab League Joint Defence and Economic Cooperation Treaty, 1950

The League of Arab States, or Arab League, was established in 1945 to promote economic, political and social cohesion among emerging Middle Eastern states Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

It came amid the formation of Israel and its threats to countries in the region.

In 1950, Arab states signed a mutual defence treaty, stating that an attack on one is an attack on all – at least on paper.

Inter‑American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, 1947

Following the Second World War and the start of the Cold War, leaders in the Americas signed this treaty in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, also known as the Rio Treaty.

Its core principle was that an attack on one member country counts as an attack on all.

This treaty was invoked during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 and the September 11 attacks in 2001.

The ANZUS Treaty, 1951

In September 1951, the US, New Zealand and Australia signed a treaty pledging to meet the common dangers in the Pacific region.

Following the September 11 attacks, ANZUS was invoked for the first time.

In 1986, the United States suspended its ANZUS security obligations to New Zealand over Wellington’s anti‑nuclear policy. This effectively froze New Zealand out of the alliance, while US–Australia cooperation continued.

US-Japan Security Treaty, 1951

The US and Japan pledged in a bilateral agreement to act and meet the common danger in case either of them faced an armed attack.

This agreement was signed in 1951 in San Francisco alongside the World War II peace treaty.

While the treaty was never invoked, about 50,000 US military personnel are stationed in Japan.

US-South Korea Mutual Defence Treaty, 1953

Following the end of the Korean War, the US and South Korea pledged to help each other from external armed attacks. This treaty came into effect in 1954.

While it was never invoked, it gave the US a legal framework to station about 28,500 troops in South Korea.

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)’s Peninsula Shield Force 1984

The GCC is a political and economic alliance of six countries in the Arabian Peninsula: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The GCC was established in Saudi Arabia in 1981, aiming to promote economic, security, cultural and social cooperation between the six member states.

In 1984, the GCC established a standing coalition land force, the Peninsula Shield Force, tasked to defend the six-member states amid the Iran-Iraq War.

It is composed of infantry, armour, artillery and combat support elements from each of the states, with 40,000 personnel.

The 2000 Joint Defence Agreement was signed to develop a joint military industry for arms manufacturing.

In September 2025, when Israel attacked Hamas leaders in Qatar, the GCC pledged to “activate a joint defence mechanism”.

Treaty on European Union (TEU), 2009

The modern EU was officially formed in 1993 in the Netherlands with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty.

In 2009, the Treaty on European Union (TEU) created the mutual defence obligation which was signed into EU law.

Under Article 42(7) of the TEU, if one EU member is the victim of “armed aggression”, others have an obligation to aid and assist by all the means in their power.

France has invoked this clause only once, in 2015, following the Paris attacks that killed 130 people. Other EU members provided bilateral military support — including deployments to French‑led operations abroad — so that France could redeploy troops to strengthen security at home.

Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), 2002

The CSTO is a Russia-led military alliance that includes some former Soviet republics.

Established in 2002, its members comprise Russia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Belarus.

Article 4 of the CSTO states that aggression against one is considered aggression against all, with an obligation to provide necessary aid, including military.

The CSTO has deployed troops once, in 2022 in Kazakhstan upon the request of Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev to help manage demonstrations caused by rising fuel prices.

As renewed fighting between the U.S. and Iran has entered a seventh day with no signs of letting up, the Pentagon appears to be sending more forces to the region. The move comes as the conflict took a sharp turn overnight, with both sides carrying through on threats to hit infrastructure targets. That marks a major change from the previous tit-for-tat barrages as the two sides continue to struggle for control over the Strait of Hormuz.

“The Trump administration notified Israel it is sending dozens more refueling planes to the country ahead of a potential expansion of military operations against Iran,” Axios reported, citing three U.S. and Israeli officials.

“Israeli officials say the U.S. wants to send several dozen more refueling planes in the coming days, bringing the number of planes to the same level it had at the beginning of the war,” Axios added. “Israeli officials say the U.S. military prefers operating the refueling planes from Ben Gurion Airport, because other air bases in the region are more exposed to Iranian attacks and less safe for U.S. planes. At the moment, the Iranians are still deterred from launching attacks on Israel, because it will likely trigger a massive retaliation.”

This move comes after Israel placed a limit of 20 on the number of tankers at Ben Gurion Airport due to the impact all those jets were having on passenger air service operations. There are currently about 30 KC-46 Pegasus and KC-135 Stratotanker aerial refueling jets at the airport. There had been about 75 refuelers and cargo planes there during the height of Operation Epic Fury.

It remains unclear how that issue will be resolved, however, boosting the number of tankers in Israel will certainly give the U.S. greater flexibility in being able to refuel aircraft attacking and surveilling Iran. As we noted yesterday, there was a concern that moving aircraft around to other bases farther away could cause sortie rates and durations for receiver aircraft missions to suffer in a sudden crisis.

In addition, more combat jets appear to be headed back to the Middle East. According to online open-source flight trackers, at least 12 F-16 Fighting Falcons are heading to Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan from Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany. Whether this is a plus-up or a routine rotation is unclear, but either way it shows that the U.S. is continuing to add assets to the region.

Meanwhile, as we have noted in earlier reporting, the U.S. has already returned F-22 Raptors that were flying out of Ovda Air Base in Israel back to the United States. Other aircraft, such as A-10s and F-15Es, have also returned home from or have been replaced in the CENTCOM region. So clearly there is a lot of shifting of aviation assets taking place even amid current operations.

Friday afternoon, CENTCOM announced a new wave of strikes on Iran.

“CENTCOM launched a round of strikes against Iran at 3 p.m. ET today for the seventh consecutive night,” the command stated on X. “The strikes are designed to continue degrading Iranian military capabilities at the Commander in Chief’s direction.”

Last night, American forces struck several bridges and energy plants in the southern part of the country, according to Iranian media. In retaliation, Iran hit several targets across the region, including what Kuwait says is a desalination plant, another step up the escalation ladder. In this arid part of the world, countries rely heavily on desalination plants to provide potable water.

Officials in Hormozgan province, where Bandar Abbas is the capital, say six bridges were hit in the latest attacks, along key transport routes linking the city with surrounding towns, Al Jazeera reported. Bandar Abbas, which has a key naval base on the Strait of Hormuz and is frequently targeted, was also reportedly struck again.

The attacks appear to be isolating Bandar Abbas and other parts of the south along the Strait, which has been a key flash-point. Iran claims control of the strategic chokepoint while the U.S. says it remains under international auspices.

Former CENTCOM commander Joseph Votel told us that while it “may be possible” that the U.S. is preparing for a ground invasion of southern Iran, “I don’t really think that is what this is about. I think our kinetic targeting is principally focused on elimination of IRGC capacity to influence the Strait of Hormuz or attack our partners in the region.”

Friday morning, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) declined to comment on the claims that it struck bridges, referring us to its X post from the previous night.

“U.S. forces, including fighter jets, aerial drones, and warships, launched precision munitions that hit dozens of Iranian military targets such as coastal surveillance and air defense sites, military logistics infrastructure, and maritime capabilities,” the command wrote. “This was the sixth consecutive night of U.S. strikes against Iran. At the Commander in Chief’s direction, CENTCOM is further degrading Iranian military capabilities and holding Iran accountable for recent attacks on commercial shipping.”

Several videos emerged on social media showing the destroyed and damaged bridges.