Jai Siya Ram

What was proposed

At a Doha summit convened after the Israeli strike in Qatar, Pakistan urged creation of an Arab-Islamic “task force” / NATO-style body for collective defence and to deter “expansionist” actions. This proposal was raised publicly by Pakistan’s leaders and echoed by other states at the meeting.

Who said it — key Pakistani statements

Pakistan’s prime minister and senior ministers publicly called for stronger collective action by Muslim countries; Pakistan’s Defence Minister was reported urging a NATO-style Muslim military alliance after the Doha strike.

The calls came amid sharp regional alarm after the Israeli strike in Doha and growing Gulf-Pakistan security ties — including a high-profile Saudi-Pakistan mutual-defence pact announced around the same time, which deepens bilateral military cooperation between Islamabad and Riyadh.

To function like NATO it would require:

Formal treaty with collective-defence clause (whoever is attacked — all respond) and legal commitments.
Standing command structure, interoperable forces, joint exercises and intelligence sharing.
Funding, basing/access agreements, and a political decision-making mechanism for use of force.
Clear membership rules (who qualifies as “Islamic” or “Arab-Islamic”), and mechanisms to manage disputes between members.
These are non-trivial and take years to build; existing precedents (NATO, GCC defence mechanisms) show how complex this is in practice.

Divergent strategic priorities. Arab states, Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia and others have very different security priorities, threat perceptions, and ties to external powers (U.S., Russia, China). That makes single political will hard to sustain.
Membership politics. Who joins? Some major Muslim-majority countries (e.g., Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia) have competing ties and rivalries that would complicate a unified bloc.
External reactions. The U.S., NATO and regional actors (Israel, India) would closely watch any formal military bloc — they may offer tacit support for counter-terrorism cooperation but oppose any bloc framed explicitly against a state (e.g., Israel).
Operational limits. Creating a NATO-style integrated command and force is expensive and slow; many member states lack the logistics/interoperability to act as a single force quickly.

Gulf states (Saudi, UAE, others): More interest in enhanced defence cooperation with Muslim partners — Saudi-Pakistan pact underlines expanding bilateral security ties, but Gulf states also balance relations with the U.S. and Israel.
Turkey: Likely sympathetic to an expanded Muslim security forum — Turkey has previously supported deeper military cooperation among Muslim states, but it also pursues independent regional influence.
Egypt/Iraq/other Arab states: Some voices (Egypt, Iraq) have publicly supported stronger Arab/Islamic coordination; their participation would be important but not guaranteed.
India & others: India will view any Pakistan-centred military bloc warily and will track alignments closely; other non-Muslim neighbours and Western powers will watch with concern.

Short term: Expect diplomatic initiatives — joint communiqués, proposals for an “Arab-Islamic task force” or counter-terrorism cooperation, and bilateral defence deals (similar to Saudi-Pakistan). These are political signals and deterrence postures rather than an immediate NATO-style force.
Medium term (months–2 years): Possible creation of a standing coordination cell, joint exercises, sharing of intelligence, and limited rapid-reaction units under national command. Full integration (common command, legal collective-defence treaty) is unlikely in this window.
Long term: Only if major powers (Gulf states + Turkey + Pakistan + Egypt/other major militaries) agree and fund it could a formal alliance with stronger military instruments emerge — but that faces big political hurdles and would reshape regional alignments.

Escalation risk: If a bloc is framed as explicitly confronting Israel, it could increase regional tensions and risk miscalculation in crises.
Proxy dynamics: Rival states may expand their own alignments (e.g., deeper India-US cooperation, Iranian calculations), increasing polarization.
Nuclear dimension: Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state; any formal military pact involving Pakistan raises sensitive questions about deterrence and escalation control for non-nuclear partners.

Formal statements or draft treaty language committing member states to “collective defence.”
High-level visits & bilateral defence pacts (e.g., Saudi-Pakistan style deals expanding).
Joint military exercises under a new banner (Arab/Islamic task force) and creation of a permanent joint command or operations cell.
External responses from the U.S., NATO, Israel, India — public statements or military posture changes.