As Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) heads for Washington on a high-profile visit, reports indicate that Saudi Arabia may seek a formal mutual defence pact reminiscent of NATO collective security arrangements. For this purpose, The National, Reuters and Yahoo Finance all report such initiatives are under discussion between MBS and US officials.
What’s on the Table
According to multiple reports, Saudi Arabia wants Washington to agree on a binding accord where any attack against its territory or critical infrastructure would trigger an American response — similar to NATO’s Article 5 guarantee. Reuters provides +1 information.
As Yahoo Finance reports, administration officials indicate talks for an agreement are in progress ahead of Crown Prince Albert II’s visit.
Saudis have sought assurances of U.S. protection in recent months following episodes in which Gulf states felt Washington failed to respond appropriately, such as Abqaiq oil-facility attack or Israeli strikes on Gulf territory. Analysts interpret Riyadh’s push as signalling distrust of existing U.S. security umbrella and desire to formalize guarantees. Responsible Statecraft
Why the Urgency?
Saudi Arabia sees several advantages to signing this pact:
An alliance-like structure would also support its transformation from being a security consumer into being a formal partner and boost deterrence against regional adversaries (especially Iran and its proxies).
Riyadh could use this move to strengthen its efforts at normalizing relations with Israel and winning U.S. backing for large-scale defence acquisitions (including advanced fighter jets ).
Washington must understand that Saudi Arabia requires more from Washington than just arms sales: it wants guarantees commensurate with the largesse of deals it is signing (including multibillion-dollar packages of U.S. equipment).
Reuters U.S. Perspective and Challenges.
From Washington’s perspective, the proposed pact presents both opportunities and risks. On one hand, formalizing defence commitment could strengthen U.S.-Saudi ties, ensure Saudi alignment in the Middle East, and help stabilize an energy and security-critical region like Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, analysts warn that such an agreement might come at a price: it might commit the U.S. to intervene militarily during regional crises, complicate relations with Israel, or spark internal debate about treaty obligations – potentially.
Responsibility Statecraft
Additionally, the legal form of any proposed pact matters: A Senate-ratified treaty would place significant constitutional and political strains on both countries; in contrast to this approach is executive arrangements which offer guarantees without full legislative backing – according to reports, Saudis may accept an executive agreement as an intermediate option as part of any compromise deal with Washington. National Defense Center
Regional and Strategic Implications
If the U.S. agrees to provide Saudi Arabia with a NATO-style defence guarantee, the regional security landscape could dramatically shift.
Saudi Arabia would increase its deterrence posture through formal means, which might deter adversaries but increase their incentive to act covertly or via proxy.
Relations between Israel and Washington could deteriorate quickly if Washington is seen to provide Riyadh with weapons or guarantees that alter the regional balance of power, which has long been an area of concern among Israeli policymakers.
Gulf states may demand similar guarantees from the U.S., which could dilute U.S. leverage by forcing it to negotiate bilateral security pacts rather than maintaining a uniform regional security umbrella.
As Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman visits Washington, Saudi Arabia is pushing hard for a NATO-style mutual defence pact between themselves and the U.S. That push represents their desire for deeper strategic guarantees than simply arms deals; whether Washington accepts and on what terms is an important test of their commitment to Middle Eastern defence architecture and Riyadh’s place within it; its outcome could reshape alliances, recalibrate deterrence dynamics, and pose new questions regarding how it should be managed going forward.