Publications
Analysis Series
Analysis/0055/July/2026/London-Dialogue. 29 July 2026
The Egypt-Pakistan-Saudi-Türkiye Quadrilateral
Anatomy of an Emerging Sunni Security Architecture
In this paper, we analyse the emerging Quadrilateral emerging bloc, while answering five questions: Is this a Sunni alliance against a Shi'i bloc? Does it express a disappointment in the GCC due to its divisions and failing defence policies? Why did the majority of GCC states remain out of this new bloc? Does it have credibility, cohesion, and common purpose?
Overview and Timeline
Since March 2026, the foreign ministers of Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye have convened at least four times — Riyadh (March 19), Islamabad (late March/April), Antalya, and Cairo (June 21) — establishing what regional analysts now call a “quadrilateral” or “Middle East quartet,” with Qatar increasingly present as a fifth partner in parallel security consultations.
The catalyst was the US-Israel-Iran war that began February 28, 2026, which stripped away the assumption that American security guarantees would automatically protect Gulf states and pushed Sunni-majority regional powers toward autonomous coordination.The grouping is explicitly not a treaty-based alliance: it lacks a charter, a name, or an institutional secretariat and functions instead as an increasingly dense diplomatic-security consultation track that formalised around crisis management of the Iran war and its aftermath, the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed June 18, 2026, and now discussions on Gaza, Lebanon, Sudan, and Libya.
The only hard legal instrument underpinning the bloc is bilateral: the Pakistan-Saudi Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA), signed September 17, 2025, in Riyadh by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, which states that “any aggression against either country shall be considered aggression against both”. Reuters reporting cited in Pakistani sources suggests the pact could involve deployment of up to 80,000 Pakistani troops to help secure Saudi borders, though the full text remains unpublished. Notably, Türkiye’s reported interest in joining the SMDA in January 2026 was declined — it remains a strictly bilateral Saudi-Pakistani instrument, underscoring that the broader “quadrilateral” is a looser coordination layer sitting atop this one formal treaty.
Is This a "Sunni Alliance" Against a Shiite Bloc?
The sectarian framing is contested and requires disaggregation. Several outlets, including Israeli commentary and some regional media, do describe the grouping as a “Sunni alliance” or an “expanding Islamic NATO,” and the four core states, plus Qatar, are indeed the region’s most prominent Sunni-majority powers. However, framing the coalition purely as anti-Shia sectarian balancing misreads its actual behaviour: the quartet’s stated strategy toward post-war Iran is “maximum engagement”, not confrontation, they backed the Islamabad MoU, pushed for its implementation, and are actively negotiating Hormuz transit and reconstruction financing mechanisms that benefit Tehran. Analysts at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) and Middle East Council on Global Affairs describe the bloc’s core motivation as reactive to Israeli “aggressiveness” and American unreliability, not primarily anti-Iranian sectarian mobilisation.
Academic literature on Sunni-Shia geopolitics consistently argues that sectarian identity functions as a post-1979 political tool rather than a primordial driver of conflict, power politics and state interest, not theology, structure these alignments. Applied here: Pakistan (Sunni-majority but with a significant Shia population and historically balanced relations with Iran), Türkiye (a NATO member with its own rivalry with Israel over Syria, Gaza, and the eastern Mediterranean), Egypt (a Status Quo Arab republic wary of any bloc undermining its own centrality), and Saudi Arabia (pursuing détente, not escalation, with Tehran) have overlapping but not identical threat perceptions.
The critique assuming that sectarian framing has historically served US-Israeli interests by dividing Sunni and Shia populations against each other finds partial support in the fact that this bloc explicitly works to de-escalate with Iran and constrain Israel simultaneously, which cuts against a simple “Sunni vs. Shia proxy war” narrative. The more accurate characterisation, per the Foreign Policy analysis and IPS-Journal commentary, is a state-interest-driven “axis” reacting to the collapse of the US security umbrella and to Israeli overreach sectarian identity is a convenient descriptive shorthand, not the causal engine.
GCC Failure and the Turn Outward
There is substantial evidence supporting the thesis that Saudi Arabia is diversifying beyond the GCC specifically because the GCC’s collective defence architecture built on US patronage visibly failed during the 2026 war. The Middle East Council on Global Affairs’ postmortem is blunt: “Security Cannot Be Subcontracted: The 2026 war demonstrated that when American and Gulf interests diverged, American interests prevailed”. In late February 2026, Iran launched coordinated missile and drone strikes across the Gulf, and for the first time since 1979, all six GCC members were drawn into a single escalation cycle they did not choose yet found themselves bound to Washington’s strategy rather than protected by it. Commentary on Responsible Statecraft goes further, arguing US bases functioned as targets rather than shields, widening “the gap between the promise of protection and the reality of exposure”.
This reassessment predates the current bloc by years but crystallised during the war: Gulf states had underwritten enormous costs arms purchases, basing rights, and political alignment for a security guarantee that proved conditional and subordinate to US-Israeli priorities, exactly the dynamic any objective analyst could observe. Saudi Arabia’s response has been to hedge by building parallel, non-US-dependent security relationships — the Pakistan defence pact providing conventional and reputational deterrence (and, ambiguously, a possible nuclear-adjacent shadow) that Washington cannot offer, given Pakistan is not bound by NPT-style restrictions on extending assurances. The warning that the SMDA “sets a precedent for extended deterrence” by a nuclear-armed state outside the NPT captures why Riyadh sees this partnership as strategically distinct from anything the GCC or Washington could provide.
Why the Other GCC States Are Excluded
The absence of the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman is not accidental – it is a sign of a real and widening split, most visible between Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The UAE’s sudden exit from OPEC and OPEC+ in April 2026 has laid bare “deep-rooted tensions with Saudi Arabia,” pointing to years of discord over Yemen, Sudan, production quotas, and, crucially, differing stances on Israel and Iran. The UAE moved early and decisively into the Abraham Accords, deepening security and economic integration with Israel, while Saudi Arabia held back and has since positioned itself as a check on further normalisation, particularly opposing Israeli pressure on Syria and Lebanon to join similar accords. A Dayan Center analysis frames this explicitly as the UAE “going its own way,” pursuing a fundamentally different theory of regional order — deeper bilateral integration with Israel and the US — than Riyadh’s current hedge toward Ankara, Islamabad, Cairo, and Doha. The Foreign Policy assessment states this directly: the new bloc “signals realignment built on deepening mistrust between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi,” with the UAE “conspicuous by its absence”.
The two states are tied by deep trade, investment, and GCC institutional ties even as they pursue incompatible security philosophies, so the strategic divergence and rivalry do not amount to an open breach, as prediction markets tracking a formal Saudi-UAE rupture assign only about 4 per cent probability to outright severance of relations in 2026 (Polymarket). Qatar’s participation via “parallel consultations” rather than full quartet membership probably reflects its comfort straddling both camps: it maintains close ties to Türkiye and has a large US base (Al Udeid), giving it reasons to remain formally outside a bloc perceived as moving away from Washington, while still participating substantively in mediation (Doha hosted or co-hosted US-Iran talks) and joint statements.
Dimension | Core Quartet (Saudi–Türkiye–Pakistan–Egypt) | UAE and other GCC holdouts |
Israel posture | Sceptical/constraining; opposes forced normalisation on Syria/Lebanon (IPS-Journal) | Deep integration via Abraham Accords, trade ties with Israel (MEI; Reuters) |
Iran posture | “Maximum engagement,” backs Islamabad MoU implementation (IPS-Journal) | Wary but pragmatic; continues US alignment (Gulf International Forum) |
US security reliance | Actively hedging away from sole US dependence (Middle East Council; ICAN) | Still primarily reliant on US bases/guarantees (Gulf International Forum) |
Formal defence pact | SMDA (Saudi-Pakistan), 2025, treats aggression as joint | No comparable non-US mutual defence instrument |
Recent flashpoint | Joint mediation of Islamabad MoU, Cairo summit (Asharq Al-Awsat; Africanews) | UAE’s OPEC exit, oil/production rift with Riyadh (Reuters) |
Credibility, Cohesion, and Purpose
The bloc’s credibility as an actual defence mechanism is limited and uneven, even as its diplomatic utility is already proven. On the diplomatic side, the quartet demonstrably delivered: it functioned as the primary back-channel between Washington and Tehran, with Pakistan singled out for its “pivotal role” in brokering the Islamabad MoU, and Egypt, Türkiye, and Saudi Arabia reportedly relaying a Hormuz transit-fee proposal (modelled on the Suez Canal) to Washington on Iran’s behalf. This is a real diplomatic capability distinct from formal alliance machinery.
On hard defence credibility, however, the record is thinner. Despite the SMDA being reportedly “invoked” during the Iran war, Pakistan did not deploy forces or provide direct military support to Saudi Arabia during Iranian strikes, according to The Conversation’s February 2026 analysis, which notes Islamabad “has not provided support to Saudi Arabia amidst Iranian assaults… despite” the mutual defence agreement. This gap between rhetorical commitment and operational delivery is the central credibility question: the pact and the broader quartet remain, for now, more a signalling device — intended to deter unilateral Israeli or Iranian action and to pressure Washington than an operational collective-defence system comparable to NATO’s Article 5.
Do the core states agree on a common goal? Only partially. All four converge on two objectives: preventing further Israeli military overreach into Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza, and preserving the Iran de-escalation process rather than seeing renewed war destabilise trade, energy markets, and their own domestic politics. Beyond that, interests diverge. Türkiye is pursuing an autonomous power-projection role across Syria, the eastern Mediterranean, and Gaza, positioning itself as a rival centre of gravity to Israel, which is not identical to Saudi Arabia’s more risk-averse, oil-centred calculus. Egypt’s priorities centre on Gaza reconstruction, the Suez Canal’s centrality, and its own domestic legitimacy, giving it reason to favour institutionalisation (President Sisi’s Cairo summit pushed toward this) as a way to anchor Egyptian relevance, whereas historic Muslim Brotherhood-related friction between Ankara/Doha and Riyadh/Cairo has only recently thawed and could resurface. The Middle East Council analysis concludes the central open question is “how closely Saudi Arabia and Egypt will align with the other three,” suggesting cohesion is contingent on continued tangible benefits rather than settled strategic convergence.
The stated collective purpose, as articulated in the June 21 Cairo joint statement, is threefold: consolidating the Islamabad MoU and pushing for a “permanent, verifiable resolution” with Iran within the 60-day negotiation window; coordinating on Gaza, Lebanon, Sudan, and Libya; and exploring a broader regional security conference modelled on European security frameworks intended to draft “a declaration of principles” and institutional dispute-resolution mechanisms. The IPS-Journal frames the ambition even more expansively as a potential nucleus for the four powers to become their own security guarantors, partially replacing the US role, while integrating and containing Iran rather than isolating it, and preventing both an imposed Abraham Accords-style settlement on Syria/Lebanon and Iranian regional dominance.
Trajectory: What Comes Next
The near-term trajectory is fragile and contingent on the collapsing Islamabad MoU. As of July 20, 2026, the ceasefire framework brokered partly by this quartet had already broken down: the US resumed strikes on Iran for a ninth consecutive night, Iran resumed attacks and re-closed the Strait of Hormuz, and both Washington and Tehran accused each other of violating the MoU, with President Trump declaring the truce over. This is a direct test of the bloc’s credibility — if it cannot help hold together the very agreement it helped broker, claims of being a stabilising regional security architecture will weaken considerably. Analysts quoted by Al Jazeera assess “no imminent drive” from Iran to re-sign, while noting rising economic pressure from renewed closure of Hormuz could eventually force both sides back to talks — a dynamic in which the quartet, especially Pakistan and Qatar, would likely again serve as intermediaries.
Institutionally, the June 21 Cairo meeting placed “institutionalisation of the grouping… on the agenda” for the first time, suggesting the four states are actively weighing whether to formalise consultations into a standing mechanism, though no charter or summit date has been announced. Saudi Arabia has also floated hosting a broader regional summit between Arab states and Iran, though its timing and whether the UAE would attend remain unresolved — a signal that Riyadh is simultaneously trying to keep a door open to reintegrating estranged GCC partners rather than cementing a permanent rival bloc. Meta-defense reporting from early July indicates the “axis” agenda is expanding into concrete economic-security instruments, including a proposed Hormuz transit toll mechanism modelled on the Suez Canal and a consortium led by Ankara, Cairo, and Riyadh — indicating the bloc may evolve first through economic-infrastructure leverage over Iran’s choke point rather than through formal military integration.
Three plausible trajectories emerge for the coming months.
First, continued informal deepening: more ministerial meetings, expanded functional cooperation (counterterrorism, maritime security, defence-industrial cooperation) without a formal charter, the most likely near-term path given persistent trust gaps between Ankara/Doha and Riyadh/Cairo over Muslim Brotherhood-era grievances.
Second, a snap back into GCC-centric hedging if the Iran war reignites severely enough that all Gulf states, including the UAE, feel compelled to reconsolidate collectively against a shared existential threat, given that GCC institutional and economic ties remain deep despite the Saudi-UAE rift.
Third, formal institutionalisation a declared charter, name, and possibly expanded membership — if the Islamabad MoU framework or its successor genuinely restores an Iran ceasefire and the quartet can claim durable success, reinforcing Riyadh and Ankara’s ambition to establish themselves as first-order regional security guarantors independent of Washington.
Given the volatility documented as recently as July 20, the most defensible near-term expectation is continued ad hoc, crisis-driven coordination rather than a decisive move toward either full institutionalisation or dissolution.
Dr Hichem Karoui
Related posts
The Maritime Blockade and the Strategic Calculus of the U.S., Iran, and Israel Toward a Renewed Armed Confrontation
Understanding Asim Munir’s Doctrine: Regime Security in Place of a National Goal
The Data Dilemma: Navigating the AI Systems Matrix
The Anatomy of a Shortfall: Europe’s Nine Capability Areas and the Lessons for Pakistan
From Quiet Diplomacy to Attempted Maritime Security Governance: Oman’s Role and Limits in the 2026 Strait of Hormuz Crisis
Anatomy of Asymmetry: How a Weaker State Converts Vulnerability into Leverage
Integration for Stability: The SDF’s Dissolution and Syria’s Security Order
The Western Flank Unravelled: Cross-Border Militancy, TTP Resurgence, and Afghan Taliban Governance
The Time of Guards Tank Divisions is Gone, or Maybe It is Not?
Re-pricing Israel’s Corridor: The Mecca Alliance and IMEC
The SCO at 25: From Regional Security Mechanism to Platform for a Multipolar Eurasia
Imran Khan: The Last Hope of a Nation
