This week, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia forged a defence pact that redraws the region’s security map, and it was triggered by a stunning miscalculation.
The foreign policy of any country is typically complex and often chaotic. You can develop procedures and institutions like the US, but in the end, where the rubber meets the road, a confluence of genuinely held beliefs and lobbies turns every policy decision into a tug of war. Ergo, messy and chaotic.
Two countries, however, stand out for their persistence and single-minded pursuit of their stated (and often unstated) objectives. Throughout their history, India and Israel have earned street cred for their dogged determination and application of brute force in achieving their piecemeal goals. Four reasons why: One, both countries have used historic grievances to gain moral high ground, projecting themselves as the good guys who occasionally have to get their hands dirty. Two, their immense cultural power, now supplemented by their economic or technological power, makes the task of recruiting volunteers easier. Three, despite their vociferous denials and accusations of others doing the same (a la Goebbels), they remain deeply revisionist and expansionist powers. This adds a dark determination and secrecy to their national pursuits. Four, both jumped at the chance of deploying the term terrorism as a dog whistle for Islam and Muslims around the world in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, only because their immediate challengers were Muslims. They benefited immensely from the holistic stigmatisation of around two billion Muslims around the world.
And all of this happened without the help of Netanyahu or Modi. They appear to be the karmic payback for the darkness within.
So, after razing Gaza to the ground, invading Lebanon, occupying parts of Syria and waging a war on Iran, when Israel turned to Qatar, to the untrained eye, it must have looked like a part of the new normal. Except it is not. A red line was crossed. The countries attacked so far (Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and even Iran) were easy pickings. Either they were weakened by internal strife, like Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Syria, or globally isolated, like Iran. But Netanyahu’s incremental war had reached the GCC countries. A red line had been crossed. An act of this magnitude would have been difficult to swallow even if the council members had been consulted beforehand. But there is no sign that anyone was consulted. This makes it an irrational act. On top of it, Netanyahu dragged China’s name into the mix, which makes it even more irrational. While China may be surprised by this, Western countries are aware that he periodically does it to every ally or neutral country.
Seen through Netanyahu’s calculus, all of this makes sense. Domestically, he is embattled. Since the horrid attacks of October 7, I have repeatedly pointed out that he will always prioritise an endless war over rescuing the hostages. Hostages in Hamas’ captivity keep the wound fresh, giving him more time to milk the tragedy and radicalise the youth. An endless war frees him from the constraints of the Abraham Accords, keeps the dream of Greater Israel burning bright, drawing more money and more people willing to make Israel their permanent home, and provokes Muslim youth into desperate, violent acts, reviving the spectre of terrorism and destabilising the Muslim world. It also makes it easier to conflate anti-Netanyahu, anti-far right and anti-Zionist positions with antisemitism. Even if real antisemitism rises, displaced Jewish communities have nowhere to go but Israel, where they become cannon fodder for his expansionist wars and settlements. Above all, this forever war shields him from accountability at home. Bringing up China is useful in his calculus because it gains traction in Western and Indian neoconservative circles.
But to the outside world, he is pushing the envelope beyond impossible limits. For China, it is a confirmation of the concern that India and Israel are behind the Sinophobic campaigns in the West and elsewhere. To the GCC countries, it confirms that Israel’s incremental expansionism will reach their capitals one day. Had Israel chosen the days of the Qatari embargo, the situation would have been different, theoretically. But now, when it had rejoined the fold after paying the price of isolation, an attack on it was just as unacceptable. By degrading Iran’s proxies in the region and Iran’s offensive capacities at home, Israel has already removed a crucial piece from the chessboard which served the purpose of the regional bogeyman.
For the Saudi kingdom, a strategic mutual defence agreement (SMDA) with Pakistan is a logical outcome. Despite many shocks in the past, both countries have found ways to stand together.
For Pakistan, it is a golden opportunity for a do-over. It did not understand the severity of the Arab world’s anxiety borne out of the so-called Arab Spring during the Yemen war. The question is whether it can assuage concerns among other GCC countries. The UAE, for instance, was genuinely shocked by Pakistan’s foot-dragging at the start of the conflict and has since invested heavily in diversifying its options, ranging from India to Israel. However, as long as it remains pragmatic, it cannot overlook the fact that India and Israel are now driven by twin ideologies, not cold power calculations. These twin ideologies see Muslims as permanent enemies. It will look for the signs of genuine penitence in Islamabad before making a call. Closely linked to the UAE is Bahrain, another member of the GCC. Kuwait, Qatar and Oman are likely to approach the matter pragmatically.
For its part, Pakistan should proceed very carefully. We tend to overhype an achievement to the point where it instantly becomes a target. Instead of doing that, the country needs to pursue cooperation with determination, which has been lacking in our other pursuits hitherto. India and Israel have incredible talent to divide, polarize and scandalise. It is Islamabad’s job to show that this agreement and other potential ones in the region are set in stone. It will not let internal instability or division undermine such cooperation, and it must show that it has learned from its history. While these countries have invested significant time in diversifying their options, we need to make it abundantly clear that we are their best bet.
Meanwhile, it is worth noting with great regret that the spoilers within the system continue to make their presence felt. One learns from one’s own experience. If the system does nothing regarding such spoilers, one might be compelled to think that it is the system’s wish. One hopes that the system does not want that impression to congeal into something avoidable. Not all disaffected elements are devoid of agency. Karma comes for all.
