President Obama, on September 10, 2014, outlined a strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Obama clarified that the US would not deploy ground troops and airstrikes would be carried out in close cooperation with troops on the ground, i.e. Iraqi troops and Syrian rebels. The formation of a broad coalition is the cornerstone of this strategy. As part of coalition building, Secretary of State John Kerry visited the Middle East to enlist Arab countries. Saudi Arabia has pledged funding the training of moderate Syrian rebels. Around 40 countries, including the Gulf States, have joined the coalition. France, the UK and some Arab countries have volunteered to participate in the airstrikes on ISIS positions. French President Hollande held a donors meeting on September 15 in Paris to support Iraq’s emergency needs arisen out of the conflict with ISIS. Permanent members of the UN Security Council and 25 countries from the Arab world and Gulf region attended the meeting. Some of the world’s top diplomats pledged support to Iraq in its fight against ISIS by “any means necessary, including appropriate military assistance”. John Kerry, explaining the rationale of the coalition, said, “It is not the Iraq war of 2003. We are not building a military coalition for an invasion. We are building a military coalition, together with all other pieces, for a transformation.” France and the UK have pledged military assistance to the Kurdish army as a deterrent to ISIS. The Pentagon has confirmed that, in the past one month, more than 154 airstrikes have been made on ISIS locations in Iraq. Though the Kurdish army and Iraqi troops have been able to regain a few towns, earlier fallen to ISIS, large areas still remaining under the control of ISIS suggest airstrikes have not met the desired outcome. Air strikes, to be effective, require precise information on the locations of enemy forces. Otherwise, assaults will have the risk of hitting civilians and their properties. This is the reason military analysts have suggested in favour of US ground troops. The longer the conflict lasts and the greater the civilian casualties, the host population will turn against the foreign army. Such a situation will create a favourable climate for ISIS. Sunnis have largely been alienated by the previous Iraqi government, coming under the influence of ISIS. Now a major challenge of the new Iraqi government is to win the hearts and minds of the tribes in the Sunni heartland. Tangible actions are urgently needed to heal the wounds of the Sunni community, comprising the single largest minority in Iraq. Re-induction of Sunnis in the police, army and bureaucracy has to be carefully pursued in order to reassure their share in nation building. Sunnis also deserve a rightful share in the cabinet of Prime Minister Haider al Abadi. The Kurdish community has joined the government for three months on a trial basis. Their legitimate demands need to be addressed for the sake of national integrity. The US can play a role in getting the grievances of the minorities redressed in the framework of united Iraq. Shia preponderance in democratic governance in Iraq is guaranteed by the sheer size of its community. Besides, they have the cultural and political leverage of neighbouring Iran. The inexorable march of ISIS to Iraq’s central region in June is a reminder that nothing short of inclusive government in command of the unified armed forces can protect the country from external and internal threat. In the current circumstances, Iraq cannot be secure without foreign military support. However, the protracted presence of foreign forces has the potential of turning public sentiment against them. Baghdad has the tough option of sorting out the mess and moving fast towards nation building. Parochialism was resurrected under the previous government to the point of sliding the country into civil war. The people of Iraq cannot allow the Lebanonisation of their country. The relentless efforts of John Kerry in building a grand coalition are evident by the inclusion of many Arab countries. However, rejection of Iran’s inclusion in the coalition sent a wrong signal to the international community. Iran exerts considerable influence in Iraq as well as in Syria and can play a decisive role against ISIS in both countries. It can also serve as a communication channel between the coalition and the Assad regime on evolving a diplomatic solution to the crisis. No other country in the region enjoys this leverage. Exclusion of Iran would also cast a shadow on the ongoing six-nation talks with Tehran on the nuclear issue. Iraq’s external affairs minister was criticised for not inviting Tehran to the Paris meeting. In the special session of the UN Security Council held on Friday, John Kerry made a reversal of his earlier position and said, “There is a role for nearly every country in the world in turning back the militants and debunking their ideology, including Iran.” An Iranian representative told the meeting: “ISIS is the chief among the threats that ravage Iraq and Syria and cast gloom over the Middle East’s horizons. Iran is the only country in the region that is both capable of and has shown unqualified determination to help the Iraqi government.” Defence analysts have rightly pointed out that confronting ISIS inside Syria would be harder. On Friday, ISIS marched through 60 villages in northern Syria and 70,000 Kurds fled into Turkey. Syrian Kurdish fighters, known as YPG, are looked upon by moderate rebel groups with suspicion. Overthrowing Assad is not their priority; they want to remain in control of their area and keep the intruders out. A YPG spokesman said, “We are in desperate need of US strikes. There is an international alliance under US command to fight ISIS. It is time to hit them.” What concerns many is that the Iraqi Kurds have gained autonomous regions in northern Iraq, and the UK and France have pledged military assistance to fight ISIS. The idea of pushing that border to Syria would likely exacerbate secessionist zeal amongst the 15 million Kurds in Turkey. Kurds in eastern and southern Turkey have had tumultuous relations with Ankara for several decades. The US-led coalition would not like to upset Turkey at the beginning of a fight against a common enemy. The US expanded airstrikes and bombed ISIS locations close to Baghdad last week. Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dempsey appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 16 and admitted that Iraqi troops have not recovered from recent setbacks suffered at the hands of ISIS and would take more time to be a partner in the battlefield. General Dempsey assured that, should it become necessary, he would recommend the posting of US ground troops in Iraq. The screening of moderate rebel groups in Syria for training and arming would be a tall order for the US army. Striking ISIS inside Syria without strengthening the Assad regime would be another challenge. Syria has disapproved any unilateral US action on its territory and Russia has termed such action as a violation of international law. Some degree of rapprochement with Damascus might be necessary in order to defeat, if not destroy, ISIS in the region. It is pertinent to highlight that the US and its coalition partners should not lose sight of the fact that Palestinians in the close vicinity are still waiting for justice. They have been promised a two state solution but continued expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories has bulldozed the possibility of any political deal. People in Gaza and the West Bank have been enduring occupation for decades. It should not come as a surprise if one day disillusioned Palestinians welcome ISIS militants into their backyard. The author is a former official of the UN