Lord Palmerston, the British foreign secretary, told the House of Commons in 1848 that Britain had no eternal allies and no perpetual enemies, and that only its interests were eternal and perpetual. The line has survived because it is as close to realpolitik as anything can be. But the interests argument is easier made than related policy framed – what makes for national “interest” is not easy to answer, more so when it keeps changing. As a result, States and strategic thinkers are poor at identifying national interests, especially during times of geopolitical shifts. So, they go by past experiences, received wisdom and past friendships, enmity and neutrality. Our reflexive scepticism towards the shifting dynamics in West Asia — from the so-called Mecca Pact to Ankara’s regional manoeuvring — indicates that certain entrenched habits are still overriding fresh strategic assessments of the region.

Consider how we view two of the three parties to the pact. Turkey has been designated as an adversary. After all, Ankara backed Pakistan throughout Operation Sindoor, and it has been vocally uncharitable about India in the past – and that is Turkey’s fault, not ours. So while our reasons to view Turkey in the “adversary’s camp” are genuine, doing so may not be in our interest.

Also Read | Mecca pact: Regional fix to hedge against a fickle US

We may have also put the other signatory to the pact, Saudi Arabia, in the enemy camp due to two reasons. Reason one is Pakistan: Riyadh’s relationship with Islamabad is old, solid and predates India’s partnerships in the region. The other reason is the........

© hindustantimes