Contradiction in NATO’s Security Strategies in the Middle East Comparative Analysis of Libyan and Syrian crisis

After the Cold War, NATO sought to restore its security identity in the form of humanitarian operations aimed at preventing the spread of human tragedies in various countries.But in fact, NATO has tried to extend its security influence to the peripheral regions, including the Middle East, by resorting to humanitarian operations. NATO has faced two major security crises on its southern borders, the Libyan and Syrian crises over the past few years, which has adopted different security strategies in dealing with each of these crises. The Military Intervention Strategy in Libya (2011) and the Non-Intervention Strategy in Syria not only reflect practical inconsistencies in security strategies but also reflect normative inconsistencies in NATO security approaches. The contradictions are so profound that US and French presidents have been critical of NATO, calling it an “obsolete” and “brain dead” organization. Accordingly, the main research question of the study is what are the factors that create these practical and normative contradictions of NATO, especially in relation to the regional crises, including the two major crises of Libya and Syria? It was hypothesized that the differences in the approach of major rival to NATO powers, the role of emerging regional actors, and the different internal capabilities of the target countries, have been the most important factors that have produced contradiction in NATO security strategies for coping with regional crises.