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

After the Cold War, NATO sought to revise its security identity through humanitarian operations aimed at preventing humanitarian catastrophes in various countries. But in fact, NATO has sought 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 have adopted a different security strategy 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 question of the paper 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? The paper hypothesized that the differences in the approach of major rival NATO powers, the role of emerging regional actors, and the different domestic capabilities of the target countries, have been the most important factors that have produced contradiction in NATO security strategies for coping with regional crises.