A new axis in Muslim world security?

By Shabana Ayaz

A quiet but potentially consequential shift is underway in the security politics of the Muslim world. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye are edging toward a structured trilateral defense arrangement that, if concluded, would mark one of the most serious attempts in decades to translate shared strategic concerns into an institutional military framework.

International media reports and official comments from all three capitals suggest that what began as bilateral cooperation between Islamabad and Riyadh is now being reimagined as a broader security mechanism with Ankara’s participation. Bloomberg reported earlier this month that Türkiye is in advanced discussions to join a defense framework first agreed by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in September 2025. Days later, Pakistan’s Defence Production Minister, Raza Hayat Harraj, told Reuters that a complete draft agreement among the three states has been finalized and is undergoing political and legal review.

No signing date has been announced, and officials have been careful to temper expectations. Yet the convergence of reporting and on-the-record statements suggests that this is more than diplomatic trial ballooning. It reflects a deeper reassessment underway in several Muslim-majority states about how, and with whom, they guarantee their security in a changing global order.

Ankara’s cautious confirmation of talks is revealing. Türkiye’s foreign minister, Hakan Fidan, acknowledged negotiations while stressing that no agreement has yet been signed. The phrasing fits a broader Turkish pattern of strategic signaling: advancing new partnerships without openly declaring a break from existing ones. Türkiye remains NATO’s second-largest military power, but its leadership has grown increasingly vocal about what it sees as Western inconsistency on issues ranging from Palestine and Gaza to arms embargoes affecting Turkish defense projects.

For Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, diversifying security relationships is not a sudden pivot but a long-term project. The proposed trilateral framework fits Ankara’s effort to reduce overreliance on Western-led structures while retaining room for maneuver within them. In that sense, the talks are as much about strategic autonomy as they are about collective defense.

Media outlets suggest that the draft agreement contains a clause broadly comparable to NATO’s Article 5, under which an attack on one member would be treated as an attack on all.

The political logic, however, is different. This framework would operate outside Western command chains and decision-making centers, shaped instead by the priorities and threat perceptions of its members. Its timing matters. Questions about NATO’s cohesion, fueled by political polarization in the United States and European debates over strategic autonomy, have encouraged middle powers to explore alternative models of cooperation.

The choice of partners is not accidental. Each of the three prospective members brings a distinct but complementary strength. Pakistan contributes strategic deterrence and operational experience. As the only nuclear-armed Muslim country, Pakistan has long balanced conventional and strategic capabilities while developing expertise in counterterrorism, missile technology, and hybrid warfare.

Türkiye offers something equally important: a mature and increasingly independent defense-industrial base. Its success in producing drones, armored vehicles, and next-generation aircraft has not only transformed its own military posture but made it a major exporter of military technology. This industrial capacity reduces vulnerability to external pressure and gives any collective framework practical substance.

Saudi Arabia, for its part, adds financial depth and geopolitical reach. Riyadh’s ability to fund long-term defense initiatives and sustain procurement programs lends durability to cooperation that might otherwise remain symbolic. Combined, these assets create a partnership that is militarily credible and politically consequential.

Diplomatic conversations as reported in the media increasingly reference the possibility of future involvement by Egypt, Indonesia, Qatar, or Algeria. Egypt’s large standing army and control of the Suez Canal would extend the bloc’s influence across North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean. Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation and a G20 member, would add demographic and Southeast Asian weight. Qatar’s role would likely be financial and diplomatic, while Algeria’s strong military tradition and non-aligned posture could help balance internal dynamics.

Even without formal expansion, the mere prospect of coordination among these states is being closely watched. Israeli analysts have expressed concern that a framework combining Türkiye’s assertive stance on Palestine, Pakistan’s nuclear capability, and Saudi Arabia’s resources could alter long-term regional calculations, particularly if Egypt were to align with it. In India, commentary has focused on how deeper military coordination between Islamabad and Ankara, backed by Saudi funding, might strengthen Pakistan’s defense posture and complicate New Delhi’s strategic planning.

Iran’s reaction appears more cautious than confrontational. Some Tehran-based analysts see the initiative as potentially constraining Iranian influence in the Gulf and wider Middle East, prompting calls to deepen ties with Russia and China. Others argue that a defensive-oriented bloc could, paradoxically, contribute to stability by discouraging unilateral moves and creating new channels for coordination.

Skepticism, however, is warranted. The Muslim world has seen many grand security initiatives falter under the weight of internal rivalries, divergent threat perceptions, and external pressure. Translating political intent into joint command structures, shared intelligence, and coordinated operations is difficult even among long-standing allies. The success of this framework will depend on whether it moves beyond declaratory language to practical cooperation.

Still, the moment feels different. The alignment of military capability, industrial strength, and financial resources gives this initiative a pragmatic foundation that earlier efforts lacked. More broadly, it reflects a global trend in which middle powers, uncertain about traditional alliances, are experimenting with flexible, interest-based coalitions.

For Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye, the proposed pact is less about challenging the existing order than about hedging against its uncertainties. Whether it becomes a defining feature of regional security or a cautious first step toward greater autonomy will become clear in the months ahead. Either way, it signals that the strategic conversation in the Muslim world is entering a new, more self-confident phase.

*Shabana Ayaz is a Pakistani journalist, currently based in Ankara, Türkiye.