'Saudis are unlikely to join a war with India': Ex-UK minister says Saudi-Pakistan-Turkey pact should worry US

Saudi Arabia is unlikely to want to be pulled into a war with India despite its new defence pact with Pakistan and Turkey, former UK minister Rory Stewart said in a podcast conversation released on Wednesday.

Speaking to British journalist and strategist Alastair Campbell, Stewart said the new alliance raises questions about how the three countries would respond to conflicts involving one of their partners.

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey signed a joint defence agreement in Mecca on August 7. The pact has a NATO-like provision under which an attack on one country will be considered an attack on all three.

Stewart said the agreement comes against a backdrop of long-standing military cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Pakistani pilots have trained in Saudi Arabia and flown Saudi aircraft, while Pakistani military missions have also operated on the ground there.

But he said the new arrangement is different because of the growing economic and military strength of Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Turkey is also a NATO member.

Must Read: 'Saudis are disappointed': Israeli expert explains why Riyadh turned to Pakistan, Turkey

WHAT HAPPENS IF INDIA AND PAKISTAN FIGHT?

The biggest question, Stewart said, is what the pact would mean in a conflict between India and Pakistan.

"Saudi's unlikely to want to be drawn into a war with India," he said.

The former secretary also questioned whether Turkey and Pakistan would be willing to protect Saudi Arabia against Iran, given their positions towards Tehran.

"Turkey and Pakistan have been much softer on Iran than Saudi," Stewart said. Pakistan has also been involved in negotiations between the US and Iran.

Campbell said Pakistan's foreign policy is heavily shaped by its relationship with India. He said Indian media were among those that described the new arrangement as an "Islamic NATO", "Muslim NATO" or "Sunni NATO".

But Pakistan may not want to be seen as a nuclear protector of Saudi Arabia or Turkey, Campbell said.

That raises practical questions about the alliance, including whether Saudi Arabia or Turkey would intervene if fighting broke out between India and Pakistan.

"If, let's say, there was another fight between India and Pakistan, are the Saudis meant to get involved? Are the Turks meant to get involved? Why are Turks and the Pakistanis not already getting involved in the flare-up that started again with the Houthis in Yemen? So, I think it's sowing a lot of doubt."

'THIS IS NOT BURDEN SHARING'

Stewart, who served in the UK government under former Prime Ministers David Cameron and Theresa May, also questioned attempts in the US to portray the pact as a form of burden sharing with Washington.

"This is not burden sharing, because what happens when you set up something like this is that you lose all the US command and control," the former secretary warned.

Previously, he said, the US military had played a major coordinating role in the region, with US Central Command working closely with regional governments and American assets deployed alongside them.

The new arrangement has "no US imprint at all", Stewart said. He argued that this should concern Washington because it means losing US command and control. "This is setting up something which has no US imprint, coordination or strategy at all. And that's something that I think should really worry Washington."

Campbell cited Saudi commentator Ali Shihabi, who is considered close to the royal court. According to Campbell, Shihabi said: "This military alliance reflects a recognition that American deterrence has been significantly weakened and that the Iranian threat will increasingly need to be managed by regional powers."

CAN THE THREE COUNTRIES ACT LIKE NATO?

Stewart said the alliance still lacks the military integration that makes NATO a powerful fighting force.

NATO has systems and headquarters designed to coordinate troops, weapons, ammunition and military priorities under a common command structure. Stewart cited the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, or SHAPE, as one example.

"So far, we're not seeing any of that really out of the Saudi, Pakistan, Turkey thing," he pointed out.

He also referred to differences among the three countries. Turkey and Pakistan have been more accommodating towards Iran than Saudi Arabia, while Riyadh would have little interest in being drawn into a conflict with India.

INDIA PLAYS DOWN THE ALLIANCE

Campbell said India's government had responded cautiously to the new pact. "The Indian government, as opposed to the Indian media, was playing it down a bit," he said.

The British strategist said the restrained response appeared aimed at signalling that New Delhi did not see the agreement as Saudi Arabia abandoning India.

"So they (Indians) didn't inflame it. They didn't, in a way, give Pakistan what they probably wanted."