COMPLICATED POKER PLAY: THE MIDDLE EAST CALCULUS By Col PK ‘Royal’ Mehrishi

Date:-04 September 2026

Introduction

The strategic chessboard of the Middle East has rarely been simple. Today, however, chess may no longer be the most appropriate metaphor. What is unfolding, increasingly resembles a complicated game of high-stakes poker multiple players, concealed intentions, temporary partnerships, calculated bluffs and the ever-present possibility that someone may catastrophically misread the table.

The recently concluded Makkah Joint Defence Agreement between Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan adds another layer to this already volatile strategic environment.Signed on 7 August 2026, the agreement provides that an armed attack against any one of the three signatories would be considered an attack against them all. On 31 August, the partners moved further towards institutionalisation by deciding to establish a permanent secretariat in Saudi Arabia. What social media has somewhat loosely begun calling an “Islamic NATO” has therefore moved beyond mere speculation into an identifiable collective - defence framework. Yet its implications require considerably more nuanced examination.

1. A Sunni Strategic Triangle:

Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan bring three very different forms of power to the arrangement.

Saudi Arabia brings enormous financial resources, energy leverage and influence within the Arab and Islamic worlds.Türkiye brings geographical reach, NATO experience, a substantial conventional military establishment and an increasingly sophisticated indigenous defence industry.Pakistan brings one particularly consequential strategic asset: nuclear weapons, besides a large standing military with decades of operational experience.

Together, they create a potentially formidable combination of money, military capability, geography and strategic deterrence.But alliances are rarely built merely upon religious fraternity. States ultimately cooperate because their interests converge.The immediate strategic background cannot therefore be ignored. Iran remains the principal Shia power in the region, while Saudi Arabia and Türkiye are Sunni-majority states with their own ambitions for regional influence. Pakistan, despite maintaining relations with Tehran, has historically been deeply embedded in Gulf security arrangements.This does not automatically make the Makkah pact an anti-Iran coalition. Indeed, Pakistan publicly describes it as defensive and not directed against any particular country. *But in strategic planning, declared intentions are only one variable*; capabilities, geography and emerging threat perceptions matter equally.

2. Pakistan Enters the Table With Its Nuclear Card:

For Islamabad, participation provides something much greater than another defence agreement.

It provides strategic relevance.Pakistan has repeatedly demonstrated an extraordinary ability to convert geography, military capability and geopolitical uncertainty into diplomatic leverage.

During the Cold War it was allied with Washington.

During the Afghan jihad it became indispensable to the United States.After 9/11 it again became a frontline partner.Simultaneously, it cultivated an increasingly deep strategic relationship with China.Now it has inserted itself into an emerging Middle Eastern security architecture.

That is remarkably skilful geopolitical survival.

But there is another side to the equation.Pakistan's nuclear capability inevitably creates perceptions fairly or otherwise that an alliance involving Islamabad possesses a potential nuclear dimension.Saudi wealth, Turkish military- industrial capability and Pakistani nuclear weapons are therefore being mentally combined by strategists even where the treaty itself contains no publicly established nuclear-sharing arrangement.

That distinction is important.A nuclear-armed ally does not automatically convert every member of an alliance into a nuclear power.

3. Pakistan's India Obsession:

Pakistan's strategic establishment has nevertheless spent an extraordinary proportion of national energy attempting to maintain military parity with a country vastly larger in population, economy, technological capacity and conventional military resources.The military confrontations of 1947–48, 1965, 1971 and Kargil in 1999, followed decades later by repeated crises arising from terrorism emanating from Pakistani territory, have produced an almost permanent adversarial relationship.

The latest major episode was *Operation Sindoor* in May 2025, launched by India following the Pahalgam terrorist attack.India stated that Operation Sindoor struck terrorist infrastructure inside Pakistan and Pakistan- occupied Jammu and Kashmir and subsequently retaliated against Pakistani military targets after Pakistani attacks.

Whatever one's interpretation of the tactical exchanges, the strategic message was unmistakable:

India was demonstrating that the existence of nuclear weapons would not automatically prevent calibrated conventional retaliation against terrorism.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi subsequently articulated this directly, stating that *India would not accept nuclear blackmail*.

That development should concern Pakistani strategic planners more than triumphalist rhetoric on television.

4. Playing Poker With a Weak Economic Hand:

Pakistan's fundamental problem is that geopolitically it often plays remarkably strong cards while economically holding a considerably weaker hand.

That contradiction has persisted for decades.

A state may survive strategic overextension for considerable periods, particularly when outside powers repeatedly provide financial assistance because of its geopolitical importance.But military power ultimately rests upon economic power.Armies require technology.

Technology requires industry.Industry requires investment.Investment requires stability.And stability requires governance.

No state can indefinitely substitute geopolitical manoeuvring for economic transformation.Pakistan therefore appears, metaphorically, to be *playing poker* with a modest stack of chips yet repeatedly attempting to convince the table that it *holds four aces*. Sometimes bluff works.

The danger arises when the other players call it.

5. The Internal Security Trap:

Pakistan must simultaneously confront serious security problems along several axis. Militancy associated with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan ( TTP) recurring violence in Balochistan, instability surrounding the Afghanistan frontier and the unresolved political sensitivities surrounding Pakistan- occupied Kashmir collectively consume enormous security attention.

Every battalion deployed internally is a battalion unavailable elsewhere.

Every rupee spent containing insurgency is unavailable for education, infrastructure or industrial development.Every terrorist attack further discourages investment.Pakistan therefore confronts what military strategists recognise as the danger of *strategic overstretch*. A country cannot indefinitely prepare simultaneously for confrontation with India, internal insurgencies, border instability with Afghanistan and expanded commitments in the Middle East without imposing severe stress upon its military and economic structures.

For India, however, this does not automatically translate into an opportunity but a rethink of military adventurism in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

The wiser strategic objective would be persistent political, diplomatic, economic and military preparedness & calculated escalation.

6. Washington's Complicated Hand;

The United States occupies perhaps the most fascinating seat at this poker table.Washington has historically maintained close relationships with both Pakistan and the Gulf monarchies.Türkiye remains a NATO member.Yet America's larger Indo-Pacific strategy increasingly recognises India's enormous importance in balancing the growth of Chinese power.India's geography alone makes it indispensable.Sitting astride the Indian Ocean, close to critical sea lanes connecting the Persian Gulf, Africa, Southeast Asia and the Pacific, India occupies a strategic position no external power can replicate.

China's expanding naval footprint across the Indian Ocean Region only reinforces this reality.

The United States therefore faces an intricate balancing problem:retain influence over Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye without strategically alienating India.

That is easier written into policy papers than executed in diplomacy.

7. The Nuclear Question:

This is where speculation must be separated from evidence.Pakistan possesses an established nuclearcommand-and- control structure centred upon its National Command Authority and Strategic Plans Division. Publicly available evidence does not establish that Washington physically controls Pakistan's nuclear launch codes, triggers or fissile material.

Nevertheless, every major power undoubtedly has *contingency assessments* concerning the security of nuclear weapons in politically unstable environments.The United States, China, India and indeed Pakistan itself would have profound concerns about any scenario involving: political collapse,

extremist penetration,

unauthorised nuclear use,

breakdown of command and control, or theft or diversion of nuclear material.

Pakistan's nuclear weapons therefore provide enormous deterrent power but also impose enormous responsibility.They are simultaneously Pakistan's strongest card and potentially its greatest vulnerability.

8. What If Pakistan Turns Rogue:

The more consequential question is not whether Pakistan presently intends to act irresponsibly.It is whether changing political circumstances could someday produce behaviour radically different from today's assumptions.

Strategists cannot base national security merely upon promises. Governments change. Generals change.Ideologies change.Alliances change.

Threat perceptions change.

The same Pakistan that has alternately cooperated with the United States, China, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan's competing factions and various militant organisations demonstrates precisely why international relations remain fluid.

A state aspiring to become the principal military guardian of the Islamic world may gain prestige.

But prestige can also *breed overconfidence*.And overconfidence among nuclear-armed states is dangerous.

9. Türkiye and Saudi Arabia Have Their Own Games:

Pakistan should equally remember that Riyadh and Ankara are not entering this arrangement simply to fulfil Islamabad's ambitions. Türkiye aspires to regional strategic autonomy and influence extending across the Mediterranean, Middle East, Caucasus, Central Asia and parts of Africa. Saudi Arabia seeks to protect the Kingdom, secure energy infrastructure, diversify defence relationships and consolidate its leadership role within the Arab and Islamic world.

Neither is likely to willingly inherit Pakistan's confrontation with India.

Their relations with New Delhi are economically too important.India represents a gigantic market, a technological partner, an energy customer and an increasingly important geopolitical actor.The alliance therefore cannot automatically be interpreted as an anti-India military bloc.This distinction is vital.

10. India Should Avoid Strategic Nervousness:

India should consequently view the development with attention, not alarm.India possesses:

.nuclear deterrence of its own,

.substantial conventional military power,

.an increasingly sophisticated missile programme,

.growing maritime capability,

.a large and expanding economy,

.strategic relationships across the Gulf,

.partnerships with the United States, France, Israel, Japan and others, and independent diplomatic relationships with Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

More importantly, India retains strategic autonomy.

That allows New Delhi to cooperate simultaneously with competing centres of power without becoming permanently trapped inside somebody else's alliance structure.In a world of fluid coalitions, this flexibility may prove more valuable than rigid military blocs.

11. Beware Nuclear Theatre

Occasional Pakistani political rhetoric concerning miniature nuclear weapons should also be treated with analytical sobriety rather than panic.Nuclear weapons are not firecrackers whose significance can be measured merely by their physical weight.

Even Tactical Nuclear Weapons ( TNW) carry enormous military, political, humanitarian and escalation consequences.Any nuclear employment against India however supposedly “small” would cross the *most dangerous threshold in warfare*.The response dynamics thereafter could become uncontrollable.

This is precisely why nuclear rhetoric should never become political theatre.Deterrence works best when capabilities are credible and rhetoric restrained.

12. The Real Poker Table:

The emerging Middle Eastern security architecture therefore contains several games being played simultaneously:

. Saudi Arabia seeks security and leadership.

. Türkiye seeks strategic autonomy and regional influence.

. Pakistan seeks relevance, economic support and geopolitical leverage.

. Iran seeks survival and strategic depth.

. China seeks energy security, markets and access across Eurasia and the Indian Ocean.

. The United States seeks to retain regional influence while preventing Chinese strategic dominance.

. And India seeks stability, energy security, maritime access, strategic autonomy and freedom from cross-border terrorism.

Each player is watching every other player's cards.

Nobody is revealing the entire hand.That is precisely what makes the situation dangerous.

Conclusion:Don't Confuse Bluff With Power*. Pakistan has historically possessed a remarkable ability to remain geopolitically relevant despite serious structural weaknesses.It should be given credit for that diplomatic agility.But strategic manoeuvring has limits.Nuclear weapons cannot substitute for economic development.

Military alliances cannot substitute for political stability.Religious solidarity cannot permanently override national interests.

And geopolitical bluff cannot indefinitely disguise structural weakness.

The emerging Saudi–Türkiye–Pakistan arrangement is therefore important and deserves careful Indian attention.

But India need neither panic nor overreact.The wiser course is to observe carefully, strengthen deterrence, deepen relationships throughout the Middle East, dominate our maritime approaches, accelerate economic power and retain strategic freedom of action. In poker, the strongest player is not necessarily the one who makes the most noise.

It is the player who knows his cards, understands the table, reads the other players and *waits patiently* for the correct moment to play the winning hand.India should continue doing precisely that.

---

NOTE - The views in the article are the author's personal views based on his study / research / experience.The maps and photographs are for symbolic representation only.