Yet the reality of contemporary geopolitics tells a very different story. Far from moving toward military unity, the Muslim world today is fractured by ideological, sectarian, economic, and geopolitical rivalries so profound that the very notion of an \u201cIslamic NATO\u201d appears less like a strategic project and more like a recurring political slogan.<\/p>\n
The strongest evidence of this failure emerged from Saudi Arabia\u2019s ambitious attempt to create precisely such a framework. In December 2015, Riyadh announced the formation of the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC), initially comprising 34 Muslim-majority countries and later expanding beyond 40 members. Headquartered in Riyadh and eventually led by former Pakistan Army Chief-General Raheel Sharif, the coalition was marketed as a historic military partnership against terrorism.<\/p>\n
Simultaneously, Saudi Arabia hosted the massive \u201cNorth Thunder\u201d military exercises in 2016, involving around 20 countries and presented as a demonstration of collective Islamic military power. However, despite the symbolism, the coalition never evolved into a coherent military alliance and remained largely confined to conferences, statements and limited coordination mechanisms. Research and policy assessments consistently pointed to the absence of integrated command structures, shared doctrines and binding defense commitments that define genuine military alliances.<\/p>\n
![\"F-15SA](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/nato\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/720861.jpeg\"\/)
F-15SA fighter jets are seen during a graduation ceremony and air show marking the 50th anniversary of the founding of King Faisal Air College in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, January 25, 2017. (credit: REUTERS\/FAISAL AL NASSER)Rivalries within the Muslim world<\/p>\n
The principal reason for the failure of any Islamic NATO is that there is no agreement on who should lead the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia<\/a> regards itself as the natural custodian of Islamic leadership because it hosts Mecca and Medina. Iran, meanwhile, presents itself as the ideological center of resistance politics and has long challenged Saudi Arabia\u2019s claim to religious authority.<\/p>\n The Saudi-Iranian rivalry is not merely geopolitical; it is theological and civilizational. For decades, both states have competed for influence across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and the wider Islamic world. Riyadh views Iran\u2019s revolutionary ideology and Shia political networks as existential threats. Their clerics have often called the Iranian regime \u201cMajoos,\u201d referring to them as the fire-worshippers from Iran. \u00a0Iranian hardliners, on the other hand, have often portrayed the Saudi monarchy as unfit custodians of Islam\u2019s holiest sites. Under such conditions, any collective military alliance claiming to represent the entire Muslim world is structurally impossible.<\/p>\n Even among Sunni powers, rivalries are severe. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have frequently found themselves on opposite sides despite public displays of partnership. Qatar and Bahrain are in opposing camps. In Yemen, differences emerged over support for competing local factions and visions for the country\u2019s future. In Sudan\u2019s<\/a> ongoing conflict, Abu Dhabi and Riyadh have often been perceived as backing different political outcomes. These disagreements reveal that even among close Gulf partners, strategic objectives frequently diverge.<\/p>\n The contradictions of selective solidarity<\/p>\n The myth surrounding Islamic military unity becomes even harder to sustain when examining actual conflicts involving Muslim nations.<\/p>\n Afghanistan provides a striking example. Pakistan and Afghanistan have repeatedly exchanged accusations over border violence, militant sanctuaries and military operations. Cross-border strikes by the Pakistani Army have periodically resulted in Afghan civilian casualties, including women and children.<\/p>\n Yet none of the countries that routinely invoke Muslim solidarity has mobilized an \u201cIslamic NATO\u201d response to defend Afghan civilians or mediate disputes in a meaningful way. In practice therefore, shared religious identity often takes a back seat to national interests.<\/p>\n The silence becomes even more conspicuous regarding China\u2019s treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang. While governments across the Muslim world frequently issue statements on Palestine, few have shown comparable willingness to challenge Beijing.<\/p>\n Pakistan, despite presenting itself as a leading voice of the Islamic world, has consistently avoided criticism of China due to its economic dependence and defense partnership with Beijing. The same coalition that speaks of defending Muslims globally has remained largely inactive on one of the most discussed Muslim human rights issues of the 21st century.<\/p>\n Such inconsistencies expose a central truth: the foreign policies and defense partnerships of Muslim-majority states are driven primarily by national interests, economic dependencies and regime security rather than civilizational solidarity. The language of Islamic unity often functions as a domestic political instrument rather than an operational strategic doctrine.<\/p>\n The geopolitical landscape has changed dramatically since the Abraham Accords. The United Arab Emirates has emerged as one of Israel\u2019s most significant partners in the Arab world, expanding cooperation across technology, trade, intelligence, and investment. Simultaneously, India has become a critical component of emerging economic and strategic frameworks connecting the Gulf and Israel.<\/p>\n![\"Army](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/nato\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/721577.jpeg\"\/)
Army soldiers patrol a road as Pakistan prepares to host U.S. and Iran for the second round of peace talks in Islamabad, Pakistan, April 24, 2026. (credit: WASEEM KHAN\/REUTERS)Israel, India, and the emerging new alignments<\/p>\n