The strategic value of deepening NATO-MENA ties
Recent developments in Syria and the ongoing war in Gaza serve as regular reminders of the importance of the Middle East to Western policymakers.
At a time when many in the West, particularly in the US, would prefer to reduce their engagement in the region and focus more on areas such as the Indo-Pacific, the geopolitical realities on the ground continue to prevent this shift from becoming a reality.
This is especially true for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which has understandably prioritized the territorial defense of Europe in the face of external aggression in recent years. Yet NATO has also maintained engagement with the Middle East.
It is clear why the organization cannot afford to ignore the region. Geography alone makes this impossible but the Middle East and Europe also share a host of security interests and overlapping challenges. These include terrorism, the humanitarian effects of mass migration, and concerns over nuclear proliferation. For these reasons, it makes strategic sense for NATO and countries in the Middle East to enhance their cooperation.
In 2004, NATO established the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, which has served as the alliance's primary platform for engagement with the Arab world. Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait currently participate in the initiative, which formalizes regional cooperation between NATO and Gulf Cooperation Council countries, and has fostered high-level visits, joint training exercises and military education exchanges. NATO's on-the-ground presence in the region is anchored by the ICI-NATO regional center in Kuwait.
In recent years, there has been an increase in senior-level engagement between NATO and Gulf states. Last month, for instance, the chairperson of the NATO Military Committee, Adm. Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, visited Kuwait for high-level discussions on NATO-Gulf cooperation.
In February, recently appointed NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte visited Baghdad, his first visit to the region since taking office in October last year. During this trip, he reviewed NATO's role in regional security through the work of the NATO Mission in Iraq. Established in October 2018 at the request of the Iraqi government, this mission consists of several hundred NATO troops who train Iraqi security forces to prevent the reemergence of Daesh. The mission represents the alliance's most significant overseas operation today.
Despite this level of engagement, NATO has yet to fully grasp the strategic value of a wider deepening of relations with Gulf states, or the broader importance of the Middle East to European security. For example, in NATO's 2022 Strategic Concept, a guiding document for the alliance, the Middle East was mentioned only in passing. The Istanbul Cooperation Initiative was not referenced at all. Even though 2024 marked the 20th anniversary of the initiative, NATO held no major events to commemorate this milestone. It again was barely mentioned in the final communique of NATO's Washington summit last year.
A recent NATO-commissioned report on the expansion of engagement with the Global South offered little in terms of meaningful analysis.
Luke Coffey
Furthermore, a recent NATO-commissioned report on the expansion of engagement with the Global South offered little in terms of meaningful analysis or actionable recommendations for improving relations with the Middle East.
Fortunately, opportunities for expanded cooperation do still exist. NATO's summit in the Netherlands next month presents an ideal occasion on which to bring the Middle East back into focus. With recent escalations in Syria and Gaza, the state of Middle East security serves as a reminder of the region's importance to the transatlantic community.
One concrete step would be to convene a meeting of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative during next month's summit, preferably at the heads-of-state or government level, or at a minimum at the level of foreign ministers. Since the inception of the initiative, there has never been a senior-level meeting in parallel with a NATO summit. As the Middle East undergoes another round of geopolitical shifts, now is the time to correct that oversight.
NATO should also explore ways to assist any new, internationally recognized government in Syria with security sector reforms. In coordination with regional states, particularly those who participate in the initiative, NATO should consider whether a training mission akin to the one in Iraq could be established in Syria. In parallel, the alliance should also explore the possibility of engaging Syria through either the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative or NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue, the latter of which is its main platform for engagement with countries in North Africa and the Levant.
Building on the momentum of US President Donald Trump's recent visit to Saudi Arabia, NATO should explore the potential for deepening its relationship with Riyadh. The foundation for this already exists; Rutte's predecessor as NATO chief, Jens Stoltenberg, made a historic first visit to Saudi Arabia in 2023. Since then, discussions have taken place about the formalization of ties between the alliance and the Kingdom.
Although Saudi authorities have so far opted not to join the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, the time might be ripe to revisit the issue and find mutually beneficial ways to enhance collaboration.
In terms of tangible policy outcomes, two areas stand out for potentially closer NATO-Gulf cooperation: missile defense and maritime security. While NATO has no formal maritime security mandate in the Gulf, many of its member states participate in regional maritime task forces alongside Gulf states.
Regarding missile defense, the war in Ukraine and the widespread use of ballistic missiles and drones across the Middle East underscore the growing importance and complexity of integrated air and missile defense. Because missile defense is inherently non-aggressive, it should be a politically viable area for cooperation. And given that the threats posed by missiles and drones are unlikely to diminish, deeper collaboration in this area makes sense.
Next month's summit offers a timely chance for NATO to revitalize the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative and strengthen its strategic ties with Gulf partners. Doing so would contribute meaningfully to the stability and security of both regions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
Hamas says no special food privileges for Gaza hostages
GAZA CITY: The Palestinian militant group Hamas said Sunday that Israeli hostages would not receive any 'special privileges' in the food they are given compared to the rest of the Gazan population. '(Hamas) does not intentionally starve the captives, but they eat the same food our fighters and the general public eat. They will not receive any special privileges amid the crime of starvation and siege,' Hamas's military wing, the Al-Qassam Brigades, wrote in a statement. The group added that it would only allow the International Committee of the Red Cross to provide aid to Israeli hostages on the condition that humanitarian corridors are opened to Gaza. '(We) are ready to respond positively (to) any request by the Red Cross to deliver food and medicine to enemy prisoners. However, we condition our acceptance on the opening of humanitarian corridors... for the passage of food and medicine... across all areas of the Gaza Strip,' Hamas's military wing wrote in a separate statement. The response came after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu requested that the ICRC help provide food to the hostages held in Gaza, and after the agency issued a 'call to be granted access to the hostages' in a statement posted on X.
Leaders
2 hours ago
- Leaders
When Will Arabs Form Deterrent Force to Protect Themselves?
By: Dr. Atef Al-Shabrawy International Expert in Development and Social Economy In 1966, the classic theorist Thomas Schelling introduced a novel concept at the time: 'deterrence.' After World War II, military strategy shifted away from what was known as 'military victory' and began to rely on the art of coercion, intimidation, and deterrence. Schelling argued that the ability to inflict harm on another state is a threatening factor that influences the behavior of that state, compelling it to refrain from aggressive actions. In response to a question from French television in 1974 about whether Iran planned to acquire nuclear weapons, the Shah of Iran cleverly replied, 'My country has signed a non-proliferation treaty. If we trust the major nuclear powers because they are responsible, we wonder: what would happen if there were a 'frivolous' state in the region seeking to acquire such weapons, and who would it attack?' The Concept of Deterrence This approach was echoed by France in the same year when it announced its possession of what President de Gaulle termed 'nuclear deterrence.' This weapon was developed independently by France to avoid reliance on the United States, allowing it to leave NATO. De Gaulle himself, using similar justifications, provided Israel with nuclear weapons under the pretext of protecting it from the Arab threat. In a jab at President Nasser for supporting the Algerian revolution, French diplomat Stéphane Hessel wrote in his memoirs in 2011: 'Helping Israel acquire nuclear weapons is a mandatory task; we created Israel, and we must protect it from a dangerous Arab world that opposes it.' Nuclear Experiments Researcher Dominique Schnapper noted in her 2021 book 'De Gaulle in the Eyes of the Jews' that between 1960 and 1966, France conducted dozens of nuclear tests, some of which were attended by Israeli experts. Consequently, Israel did not need to conduct its own nuclear tests, as France shared the results of its experiments, effectively granting Israel entry into the nuclear club. Mordechai Vanunu Exposes Israel Despite this, Israel continued to deny possessing nuclear weapons until its project engineer, Mordechai Vanunu, leaked classified information and photographs from the Dimona reactor to the British press in 1986, revealing the 'Israeli nuclear ambiguity' that had persisted for decades. Israeli-Iranian Bombardment During the 12 days of mutual Israeli-Iranian bombardment, it became evident that the struggle for control over the Middle East and its resources involves preventing certain countries from acquiring any deterrent capabilities, monitoring and stifling their attempts, and even destroying them. Iraq was destroyed under the pretext of possessing fictitious weapons of mass destruction, and similar arguments were used against Iran, as if nuclear weapons were the exclusive domain of major powers and their allies. In May 1998, India announced that it had become a nuclear power following secret tests that went undetected by American satellites. Shortly thereafter, its historical rival, Pakistan, declared its entry into the nuclear club, becoming the only Muslim nation to achieve this feat while the major powers were distracted. Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of the Pakistani bomb, conducted tests in the Baluchistan mountains before being arrested for allegedly assisting Iran, Libya, and North Korea in developing nuclear technology. He was forced to make a televised apology but remained under house arrest until his death in 2021. Ballistic Missiles The intense Iranian bombardment of Israel highlighted the fact that nuclear technology is not the only deterrent weapon; ballistic and hypersonic missiles can also serve as strategic deterrents. The world witnessed their use in Iranian attacks on Israeli cities, which caused global panic and compelled major powers to intervene. These missiles effectively deterred and broke the aggressor, and the brief conflict, which aimed to divert attention from the ethnic cleansing in Gaza, appeared to be a test of weapons and technologies in preparation for a larger battle whose participants we do not yet know, but we do know its location. Extreme Democracy With the cessation of bombardment, a new dimension of nuclear and strategic deterrence emerged, particularly for Arab nations in the region. The alarming increase in economic exchanges and investments between regional countries and the West seems to have provided us with no negotiating advantage or satisfaction regarding our positions and orientations. It has not erased the cultural and ideological divisions among us, nor the greed for our resources. There is now a tangible threat from the 'Western democracy' that once brought forth Hitler as a symbol of the extremism produced by the ballot box. Recently, 'democratic' extremist leaders have emerged in the United States, Israel, and most European countries, with increasing possibilities of future leadership that may be even more extreme and violent, potentially unleashing bloodier wars. NATO has decided to raise member contributions to military spending from 2% to 5% of GDP by 2035. Enormous Military Budgets It is worth imagining that the 32 NATO countries do not spend more on defense than they do on healthcare or education. Nevertheless, adopting a 5% contribution means these countries will allocate more to their militaries than to education. These enormous budgets could become a more aggressive and extreme force, potentially turning against any friendly nations. The Future of Arabs The future of Arabs is now at the mercy of existential threats that require us all to form an independent intellectual, scientific, and material force, seeking a 'entity' that achieves the strategic deterrence necessary to prevent future generations from suffering and being destroyed by a new right-wing extremist. I recall the words of Saudi writer Othman Al-Omeir: 'We are heading into the future with the people of the future.' I doubt that the 'people of the future' he referred to will take us along with them, given our weaknesses. It is perhaps better to say: 'We are heading into the future with our strength; for strength secures us a place among the people of the future.' Short link : Post Views: 3
Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
The unfinished business in the Balkans
This year marks the 30th anniversary of the Dayton Peace Agreement, which ended the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina that dominated headlines in the first half of the 1990s. Three decades later, the Balkans, located in southeastern Europe, remains the primary area of unfinished business for Euro-Atlantic integration. While some countries in the region have joined major Western institutions such as the EU and NATO, others remain outside the fold. Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo are not part of either the EU or NATO. Meanwhile, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Albania are NATO members, but are still waiting on EU membership. In recent years, little progress has been made in advancing their accession prospects. As a result, the region continues to represent a source of instability not just for Europe, but also for the broader transatlantic community. Apart from Ukraine, no other region poses a more persistent geopolitical challenge for Europe. This is not just a European problem. Following the violent wars of the 1990s that accompanied the breakup of Yugoslavia, the US played a decisive role in helping stabilize the Balkans — through peacekeeping forces, sustained diplomatic engagement, and eventually the Dayton Agreement itself. At the time, Washington recognized that instability in the Balkans could quickly spiral into broader conflict. Today, however, both the US and Europe appear unwilling — or perhaps unable — to engage seriously in the region. The lack of strategic attention has created a vacuum. This should be cause for concern. Much of Europe's instability over the past century has originated in the Balkans. The First World War began with an assassination in Sarajevo. In the early years of the Second World War, the region played a pivotal role as Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy competed for influence. And in the 1990s, ethnic and religious violence killed hundreds of thousands, many of them civilians, across Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo. Unfortunately, the challenges in the region are far from resolved. Today, Serbia arguably presents the greatest destabilizing potential in the region. Serbian leaders, especially President Aleksandar Vucic, often invoke the idea of a 'Serbian world.' This concept suggests that ethnic Serbs living outside Serbia's modern borders, such as in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Montenegro, deserve a special status or even direct protection from Belgrade. This mindset has dangerous implications for the region's fragile peace. Bosnia and Herzegovina, with its complex internal structure and the Serb-dominated entity of Republika Srpska, are particularly vulnerable. Kosovo, too, continues to face periodic flare-ups. Montenegro, though more stable, has seen political turmoil in recent years that sometimes taps into the same ethnic divisions. The 30th anniversary of the Dayton Agreement should be a moment for reflection, but also for renewed commitment. Luke Coffey Serbia's assertiveness has also opened the door to increased involvement by Russia and China. Beijing's role is largely economic, focused on infrastructure and energy. Moscow has actively exploited ethnic tensions and political divisions to distract Western policymakers and prevent further Euro-Atlantic integration. One of the reasons the Balkans remain such a challenge is the lack of credible, sustained effort by NATO and the EU to bring the remaining countries into the Euro-Atlantic community. After years — sometimes decades — of vague promises about eventual membership, public frustration is mounting. This creates fertile ground for disinformation, resentment, and foreign meddling. It is time for the West to re-engage meaningfully in the Balkans. NATO and the EU should craft clear strategies and realistic roadmaps for eventual accession tailored to each country's unique circumstances. Policymakers must restore credibility to the idea that integration is possible, not merely aspirational. And whether or not President Donald Trump likes it, the US will have a role to play — as it has since the 1990s. In fact, his first administration made modest but real progress in the region. One major accomplishment was brokering the partial normalization agreement between Serbia and Kosovo under the so-called Washington Agreement in 2020. Another significant achievement was the resolution of the long-standing name dispute between Greece and North Macedonia, paving the way for the latter's accession to NATO. This, combined with Montenegro's NATO membership in 2017, marked a major expansion of the alliance in the Western Balkans during Trump's first term — one that enhanced regional security and reduced space for Russian influence. Trump, now back in the Oval Office, has made global diplomacy a core theme of his second term. He has shown interest in brokering ceasefires and peace deals in conflicts from Southeast Asia to Central Africa. The Balkans should be on that list. There is no reason why the US, working with European allies, cannot convene a new round of high-level diplomacy aimed at resolving some of the region's most pressing disputes, especially between Serbia and Kosovo, and within Bosnia and Herzegovina. The 30th anniversary of the Dayton Agreement should be a moment for reflection, but also for renewed commitment. The success of Dayton was never supposed to be the end of the story. It was meant to be the beginning of a longer process of political normalization, economic development, and Euro-Atlantic integration. Sadly, that process has stalled. But it is not too late to finish the job. As Washington, Brussels, and London remain understandably focused on Ukraine, they must not ignore another part of Europe with a long history of instability — and vast untapped potential. A stable, secure, and integrated Balkans would strengthen the entire Euro-Atlantic community. It would also send a powerful message to adversaries that Europe is united, resilient, and committed to completing the work it began 30 years ago in Dayton.
