Dr Monalisa Tase and Dr Monojit Das
The international strategic environment is increasingly being shaped by crises that cross traditional boundaries between military security, climate vulnerability, diplomacy and economic statecraft. September 2026 offered four particularly revealing developments. The emerging test of the Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan defence pact, Nepal's catastrophic Himalayan disaster, India's BRICS diplomacy and the renewed US pressure over Russian energy all point towards the same underlying reality: strategic resilience is becoming as important as strategic power.
The Mecca Pact Faces Its First Test
The Mecca Joint Defence Agreement between Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan is confronting its first serious test barely weeks after its signing. The agreement provides that an armed attack against one member will be regarded as an attack against all three. Pakistan's Defence Minister Khawaja Asif subsequently warned that continued Houthi attacks against Saudi Arabia could operationalise the Pact.
The situation became more consequential as Houthi attacks intensified. Saudi Arabia reported the interception of a Houthi drone south of Mecca, while Riyadh issued security alerts covering Makkah, Jeddah and Taif. Türkiye has now indicated that it is prepared to assist Saudi Arabia with military and technical requirements under the agreement.
Yet the distinction between political solidarity and collective military action remains important. The pact has been invoked politically, but there has been no clear evidence of a coordinated Turkish-Pakistani military intervention. Pakistan has also continued to emphasise diplomacy. The Houthis have warned outside powers against joining Saudi Arabia militarily, increasing the risks for both Pakistan and Türkiye should they become directly involved.
The significance of the pact therefore lies not simply in whether it produces troops or weapons. Its first real test concerns credibility. Can three states with different strategic interests establish a workable mechanism for consultation, intelligence sharing, air defence and military assistance without being drawn into an open-ended regional conflict?
For Saudi Arabia, the immediate concern is territorial security and the protection of critical infrastructure and holy sites. For Türkiye and Pakistan, the calculation is more complicated. Both have strategic relationships with Saudi Arabia, but neither necessarily wants a direct confrontation with the Houthis or a wider escalation involving Iran.
The Mecca agreement is therefore evolving from a diplomatic statement into an experiment in regional collective security. Its credibility will ultimately depend on whether it can provide deterrence without automatically producing escalation.
Nepal's Disaster Becomes a Strategic Warning
Nepal's catastrophic 26 August glacier and rock collapse has demonstrated that Himalayan disasters can rapidly become national-security events. An ice-rock avalanche near the China-Nepal border generated a destructive debris flow and flooding across the Bhote Koshi and adjoining river systems. Nepal's disaster authorities subsequently reported more than 1,400 deaths and thousands still missing.
The disaster has exposed vulnerabilities extending far beyond humanitarian relief. Roads, communications, hydropower facilities and border connectivity have all been affected. The consequences extend into India's security and economic environment because Nepal's river systems, energy infrastructure and transportation networks are closely connected with northern India.
The climate dimension makes the episode even more significant. A World Weather Attribution analysis found that human-caused warming increased the likelihood of the conditions that contributed to the glacier and rock collapse, while emphasising that climate change was not the sole cause. Rising temperatures, glacier retreat and thawing permafrost are increasing instability in high-altitude environments.
The strategic lesson is that climate security in South Asia cannot be separated from border security, infrastructure planning and disaster preparedness. The Himalayas are simultaneously a geographical barrier, a water source, an energy frontier and a zone of growing environmental instability.
For India and Nepal, this creates an opportunity for deeper cooperation in satellite monitoring, early-warning systems, hydrology, mountain rescue, military humanitarian assistance, infrastructure resilience and disaster medicine. The recent crisis also demonstrates the value of bilateral energy cooperation. Nepal's damaged hydropower capacity has created additional pressure on electricity supplies, while India has increased power exports to help address the shortfall.
The future of Himalayan security will therefore require a broader understanding of national resilience. Rebuilding after a disaster is necessary, but anticipating the next one will be more important.
BRICS and India's Diplomatic Space
The 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi on 12 and 13 September offered India an opportunity to demonstrate that its diplomacy can operate across competing geopolitical camps. The expanded grouping adopted the New Delhi Declaration by consensus and reaffirmed cooperation across political, economic, financial, technological and developmental areas. The declaration took a firm position against unilateral tariffs.
The summit's significance lies partly in its diversity. BRICS now brings together countries with substantially different political systems, strategic priorities and relationships with the United States and Europe. China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, the UAE, Egypt, Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa and Ethiopia do not share a single geopolitical outlook. Iran and UAE are particularly significant in this regard, as their inclusion introduces competing regional interests, dispute and geo political alignments into the fold.
India's achievement was therefore less about creating uniformity than about managing difference. The New Delhi Declaration emphasised reform of global governance and greater representation for developing countries. Prime Minister Narendra Modi argued that the Global South should move from being a rule-taker to a rule-shaper.
This is particularly relevant to India's conception of strategic autonomy. New Delhi does not need BRICS to become an anti-Western bloc for the grouping to be useful. Its value can instead lie in creating additional diplomatic and economic space for countries seeking greater influence in international institutions.
The summit also demonstrated the expanding practical agenda of BRICS. Its discussions now extend beyond traditional economic cooperation into technology, sustainability, shipping, energy, financial arrangements and multilateral reform. The New Delhi Declaration itself called for stronger institutional development and recognised the importance of partner countries.
India's challenge now is converting diplomatic convening power into sustained institutional outcomes. The credibility of BRICS will depend increasingly on whether its declarations produce practical cooperation rather than simply articulate dissatisfaction with existing institutions.
Washington's New Pressure Point
The signing of the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 adds a new dimension to India-U.S. relations. President Donald Trump signed the law on September 18, giving the administration authority to impose duties of up to 100 percent on goods from countries that meet specified criteria related to purchases of Russian crude oil or natural gas. The law does not automatically impose a 100 percent tariff on India, but gives Washington additional economic leverage over countries continuing to buy Russian energy.
For India, the question is particularly sensitive because Russian crude has become an important element of its energy strategy. Any major disruption could affect refinery economics, import costs and domestic fuel security. At the same time, India's relationship with the United States has expanded substantially across defence, technology, investment and the Indo-Pacific.
The situation therefore places energy security directly alongside strategic diplomacy. India has consistently sought freedom of action in its relations with Russia while deepening cooperation with Washington. The new US framework tests the limits of that balancing strategy.
The broader lesson is that economic instruments are becoming increasingly embedded in geopolitical competition. Tariffs, sanctions, energy access, technology restrictions and supply chains are no longer separate policy areas. They form part of a larger contest over strategic dependence.
A More Complicated Strategic Environment
The four developments of September reveal a world in which strategic choices are becoming more interconnected.
The Mecca pact demonstrates the difficulty of transforming security commitments into credible collective defence. Nepal's disaster shows how climate and geography can generate security consequences across borders. BRICS demonstrates India's effort to expand diplomatic space without reducing its relationships to bloc politics. The US sanctions framework illustrates how energy dependence can become a source of geopolitical leverage.
For India, the common requirement is resilience.
Resilience means maintaining diversified energy supplies, strengthening domestic defence capabilities, investing in disaster preparedness, building reliable regional partnerships and retaining diplomatic flexibility. It also means recognising that strategic autonomy does not mean strategic isolation.
The emerging international environment will reward countries capable of maintaining several relationships simultaneously while protecting their core interests. India's ability to do so will depend not only on military power or economic size, but also on the resilience of its institutions, infrastructure, diplomacy and neighbourhood partnerships.
September has therefore offered a clear warning. Strategic competition is no longer confined to conventional battlefields. It is unfolding through defence agreements, mountain ecosystems, multilateral institutions, energy markets and economic legislation.
The states best prepared for this environment will be those capable of absorbing pressure without surrendering strategic choice.
Dr. Monalisa Tase, Assistant Professor, Political Science, Nagaland University
Dr. Monojit Das, Independent Geopolitical Analyst
