NATO, the powerful military alliance of 28 countries, held its summit in Wales, from September 4 to 5, 2014. The conspicuous absentee was Afghan President Hamid Karzai. His term in office expires this month and his successor has not yet been announced by the Afghan Election Commission. Afghanistan, though not a NATO member, has been a vital battleground of the alliance for the past 12 years. NATO is expected to withdraw most combat forces by the end of this year. A residual army will remain to train and guide the Afghan army that has been groomed in recent years. The issues that haunted leaders at the summit were the Russian threat to Ukraine, Islamic State (IS) brutality in Iraq and Syria and the deadly Ebola outbreak that has claimed over 1,500 lives in five West African countries. These issues have made headlines in the media in recent weeks and months but what is disconcerting is that the Israeli-Palestinian war, claiming over 2,000 lives, destroying around 10,000 homes, hospitals and schools and displacing one third of Gaza’s population, did not merit inclusion on the summit agenda nor was there any reference in the communiqué. No leader publicly even talked about it. This is a conflict that periodically brings death and destruction to the Middle East and has the potential to implode and turn into a much wider and vicious conflict. It is surprising how the leaders of the alliance pretended otherwise. Ukraine is not a member of the alliance but its likely admission and possible European Union (EU) membership dragged it into the present state of affairs. Viktor Yanukovych, the former Ukrainian president, had no illusions of joining the EU or NATO, largely because he could anticipate Russia’s adverse reaction. Ukraine’s joining the western bloc was seen by Russia as allowing an unfriendly alliance into its backyard. In order to dissuade Ukraine, Russia offered large amounts of aid to overcome an imminent financial crisis and reduced gas prices. Yanukovych was in favour of accepting Russian generosity but could not withstand the pressure of opposition members in parliament who saw more dividends in joining the EU. Russian apprehensions were not unfounded: it opposed NATO’s gradual expansion into its neighbourhood and setting up nuclear satellites in Poland and the Czech Republic. Russia considered EU overtures to Ukraine another attempt to encircle it by former enemies. Russia responded by annexing Crimea and threatened to take similar actions in the pretext of safeguarding ethnic Russians anywhere within the former Soviet Union. This was a loud message that Russia would respond militarily should any of its neighbours strive to move against Russian global interests. Now rebels in the southern and eastern regions of Ukraine are demanding independence. Analysts believe the Kremlin wants eastern Ukraine to have enough political power to be able to frustrate Kiev’s attempt to join NATO, a threat to Russian security. It is doubtful how long the peace deal will last as the rebels will make their list of demands longer until Ukraine disintegrates. Taking cognisance of the danger to Ukraine, NATO declared: “We meet now in Wales at a time when our vision of a Europe whole, free and at peace faces multiple challenges. We face serious crises that affect security and stability to NATO’s east and south. These include Russia’s illegal self declared ‘annexation’ of Crimea and Russia’s continued aggressive acts in other parts of Ukraine and the spread of violence and extremism in North Africa and the Middle East.” NATO decided to strengthen its military capabilities, reverse the trend of declining defence budgets and aim to increase spending to two percent of GDP on defence within a decade. Leaders pledged: “We will display the political will to provide required capabilities and deploy forces when they are needed.” NATO has decided to form a Rapid Action Force capable of being deployed at trouble spots at short notice. The UK has pledged 1,000 troops and other countries will pledge theirs. The US will most likely contribute. However, Ukraine can no longer depend on these actions. It risks further disintegration. The decision to earmark two percent of GDP to defence spending will exacerbate the arms race and smaller countries will also be tempted to join the fray. Defence industries will earn windfall benefits. The EU’s decision to impose another round of sanctions will provoke Russia to take unwavering positions against the US and EU on different issues. The IS threat is real and disconcerting. It is the outcome of flawed policies by the US and European countries especially those that participated in the invasion of Iraq. President Obama was right to withdraw from Iraq but should not have been ambivalent on Nuri al Maliki’s sectarian politics. Maliki alienated Sunnis, Kurds and other communities and created deep divisions in the army, bureaucracy and amongst politicians. The IS offensives offered an opportunity to those marginalised communities including Sunnis to turn against Maliki’s government. Now a large chunk of territory in Iraq and Syria has fallen under IS’ control. The IS, by its brutality, has earned the condemnation of the Muslim community. The Arab League has branded IS an enemy of Islam and has asked the Muslim community to reject the outfit. Saudi Arabia is hosting foreign minister level meetings with Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and the Gulf States this week to evolve a strategy to confront IS. France is arranging a donors meeting on September 15 in Paris to support Iraq’s emergency needs arising out of the conflict with IS. These measures are welcome signals of joint action against IS. John Kerry has announced that 40 countries have joined the coalition to fight IS. In my previous article, ‘The Israeli-Palestinian conflict’ (Daily Times, September 2, 2014), I argued that a regional coalition is a prerequisite to wining any conflict. Larger coalitions are not necessarily better but observers pointed out that NATO’s demand for higher defence spending and a broader coalition to fight terrorism does not seem to have inspired many countries. NATO’s declaration appears long on rhetoric and short on specifics. President Obama, on Wednesday, outlined the strategy to deal with IS. He declared a systematic campaign of airstrikes on IS positions in Iraq and Syria, augmented support to ground forces by deploying another 475 US troops who will not have a combat mission, training and arming selected rebel groups fighting in Syria, mobilising international support through a broad coalition and providing humanitarian assistance to the population displaced by IS. Obama announced he will preside over a UN Security Council meeting next week as part of continued efforts to build a coalition against IS. Obama’s strategy declaration immediately after the NATO summit placed the US once again in the forefront, in the fight against terrorism. Though IS has large territory in Iraq under its possession it also operates as a formidable force in Syria. Striking IS in Syria without strengthening the Assad regime will be a tall order for the US led coalition. The last military intervention in Iraq removed the Saddam regime but facilitated Iranian religious and political influence over Iraq. Now defeating IS in Iraq will allow Iran to perpetuate its influence over the region. The US and its allies have to accept the reality that Iran is a regional power. The author is a former United Nations official