While the United States administration has been successful in establishing a multinational coalition to fight the Islamic State (IS) it to date has yet to devise a clever strategy for doing so. Using its cutting edge technology to deliver the fight to an irregular Islamist group through bombing runs and cruise missile attacks clearly is no way to defeat IS. And the administration admits as much. The brunt of the fighting on the ground against IS is still being endured by the Kurds. And not just the Kurds of Northern Iraq, but the Kurds of Syria also.

The United States has expanded its operations against the Islamic State forces operating from northeastern Syria. They are leading a multinational coalition which is using air power to target installations of importance to that group. From the get go the Obama administration has been clear that these operations are not coordinated with the Assad regime in Damascus and has reiterated its adamance that they will never co-ordinate or cooperate with Mr. Assad given his crimes against the Syrian people.

The United States recently signed a $11 billion arms deal with the tiny Persian Gulf sheikdom, and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member, Qatar. The deal included twenty-five AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, Patriot air defence missile batteries and portable Javelin anti-tank missiles. It constitutes the biggest arms deal the United States has undertaken this year and comes after four-years of selling those GCC states billions and billions of dollars worth of arms and military technology.

Civilian and military actors have operated together in hostile environments for many years, delivering crucial work to save the lives of those caught in crises. Historically, militaries, NGOs and political actors have most frequently worked closely together in the field of humanitarian crises, with activities usually coordinated to deliver aid and assistance by over-arching national or international organisations taking the lead in planning.

Devotees of more realpolitik oriented foreign policy persuasions claim they aren't under any illusions about the brutality of the regime of Syria's Bashar al-Assad. Nevertheless in their worldview limited cooperation with him against a threat like Islamic State (IS) is necessitated by the dire and unsavoury circumstances which exist today in Syria. And since neither the United States nor the United Kingdom are likely to insert ground forces to combat IS forces in Syria a temporary alliance or coordination of operations with Damascus solely in order to fight IS is the best option to feasibly confront this threat.

On August 8, 1998, Taliban forces, with the help of Pakistani and Arab fighters, captured the city of Mazar-i Sharif in northern Afghanistan. What happened next was described by Human Rights Watch as a “killing frenzy”. Their main target was ...

The fear of ‘appearing sectarian’ or ‘showing favouritism’ is the poorest, the weakest and the most appalling excuse for not speaking up for a persecuted group in a distant land that happen to share your beliefs.

Guest contributor: Paul Iddon 13th August 2014 UNESCO presently lists 779 cultural heritage sites in this world of ours. Out of these it deems 27 to be in danger. Unsurprisingly most of these heritage sites are located in the Middle East. Many ...

If recent events in Ukraine were not disturbing enough for those who might occasionally worry about the future for their children and grandchildren, one need only now look towards the Middle East, and a little further.

Whether it is through well-intentioned, idealistic, though incompetent bumbling, or otherwise a calculated and strategically orchestrated effort, Barack Obama’s foreign policy has brought the Western world to the brink of decline and irrelevance. Whatever grand statements he gave at his West Point speech, they do not reflect the realities on the ground of his policies.