Middle East and North Africa

Neither side really wants a full-scale war, but unintended escalation is very much possible.

In the end a moderate pact of Libyans — and a united and forceful international response — is needed to save the country from the ledge from which it is currently leaning. It will take time, it will cost money and it will require long term planning. But inaction now will only lead to the need for action later.

Sunni Wahhabism or Shi’ite fundamentalism paired with nuclear weapons or access to nuclear material is a nightmare scenario of the worst sort.

The U.S. has been clear that it will not coordinate its operations against IS in Syria with the Assad regime. And most proponents of various strategies to address the Syrian situation stipulate that Assad must go. He isn't after all a highly imperfect force for stability, his actions in the last three-years have proven from the start to have very destructive and destabilizing effects. His pounding to rubble of Syria's cities has caused a giant refugee crisis in the region and burdened neighbouring Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey.

On the 21st of August 2013, the biggest chemical weapon attack since the tragedy of Halabja, in 1988, occurred in Syria. The US had detailed evidence of strategic planning on behalf of the Assad forces, leading up to the attack. A report released by the White House on the 30 August 2013 stated that the Assad regime was keeping track of all those targeted in the chemical weapons attacks from the East Ghouta region of Damascus, which lead to the deaths of 1,400 people.

The commencement of air strikes against the assets of ISIS in Syria last month marked the opening of the US-led coalition’s second front against the extremist group. But behind the immediate campaign to counter the terror organisation, the question regarding what to do about the Assad regime – a government responsible for far more deaths than the toll inflicted by ISIS – looms large.

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 Somali terrorist organisation, al-Shabaab, have not been having a very good month. Firstly, they have been suffering a string of defeats in their conflict with the Somali government and African Union forces, capitulating and allowing key towns to be captured with little in the way of resistance.

On Wednesday, the US House of Representatives backed plans proposed by President Obama to curtail the threat posed by ISIS (also known as ISIL or the “Islamic State”).

The 2014 North Atlantic Treaty Organisation summit in Wales was billed as arguably the most important for the alliance following the Cold War. Against a backdrop of tension in Ukraine and unrelenting chaos in the Middle East, the stakes are both immediate and long-term.