Present events in the Middle East portray a rather tragic picture and there does not appear to be any sign of a hopeful situation at the moment. Attempts to contain Islamic State (IS) have proved futile; in fact IS has adopted the means and mobility to evade detection by the intelligence apparatus many a time. Events such as destruction of the Russian passenger aircraft over Sinai, the suicide strikes in Beirut and Paris, and, more recently, against security personnel in Tunis, in rapid succession, illustrate the rapid acquisition of infrastructure. The military options exercised so far have resulted in many a counter offensive by IS and with the passage of time such strikes get more deadly. The recent attacks in Paris, taking the lives of 134 people show the reach of IS and its capacity to attack. Each passing day, governments around the globe show their resolve in degrading IS yet it continues to grow and inflict damage. The major powers seem to be clueless about limited strategic options. IS assumed its present shape in Iraq in 2012. The government of ex-prime minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki, ignored IS armed militants in Fallujah protesting against the government’s policies throughout 2012, which later took the shape of armed resistance against the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government was weak by way of corruption and poor governance. Under these circumstances IS gained strength, established itself and managed to make Fallujah in Iraq its headquarters. It was neither challenged nor hindered by the weakened Iraqi state. Corruption in governments gives rise to extremist organisations and that is what happened in Iraq. The US’ (and UK’s) occupation of Iraq in 2003, which ousted Saddam Hussein, pushed the already delicate sectarian balance of the Middle East into an irreversible tailspin. Due to corruption and political instability in Iraq the world woke up in the June 2014 to an IS that had seized large territories in Iraq and major cities like Mosul, Arbil and Tikrit, and later Ramadi. The new Iraqi army in the post Saddam era, raised and equipped by the US after 2003 at a cost of $ 35 billion to the US government, just vanished before a militia of some 2,000 IS fighters. These facts of governance do not absolve IS of its actions. It is these circumstances created by governments that were responsible for the rise of IS. Aerial bombings as the main component of the strategy by the US-led 60-nation coalition since September 2014 to contain the insurgency has been called ‘smoke and mirrors’, a public relations exercise. The US air force’s bombing of Afghanistan in 2001 never helped contain the insurgencies; in return it caused large damage to innocent, unsuspecting populations. France has committed its nuclear powered aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean as a manifestation of President Hollande’s “merciless response” to the Paris bombings. The situation is far more complicated to be easily resolved by single isolated measures carried out by countries individually. A realistic assessment of the role of Middle Eastern countries in the fight against IS was given by US Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter recently. He criticised the Gulf countries for their eagerness to “build show-horse air forces”, and commended Iran for being “in the game, on the ground”. The initiative for countering IS with force on the ground in Iraq and Syria is logically with the Middle Eastern countries themselves. The countries in the Middle East have not committed their ground forces in either Iraq or Syria; probably they do not want to get involved in a war. As a substitute the Middle Eastern countries have started relying upon proxies, with recruitment from as far as Colombia. These proxies are basically aimed at removing President Bashar al-Assad. These proxies cannot match the infrastructure of IS. The Kurds in Iraq and Syria, who are a reliable and credible fighting force, are not trusted by Turkey and Saudi Arabia. They have been able to defend themselves against IS and have been able to retake the towns of Kobani and Sinjar with the help of the US air force, intelligence and US military trainers. Iranian militias in Iraq have been a contributory factor in Kurd advances in Iraq. With all this mistrust and diplomatic deadlock, IS gains from these differences. There is also the issue of priorities with the major powers in the Middle East. The insurgency in Yemen occupies more importance with Saudi Arabia than Iraq or Syria. The situation in Iraq and Syria is far more serious and existential in nature than that in Yemen. The insurgency in Yemen is a political situation and Houthi rebels have shown a willingness to negotiate. It is IS that should occupy centre stage in the Middle East. The issue of containing IS is becoming more complicated. IS now gradually is assuming global proportions. The powers in the Middle East must realise that they have to put up a forceful resistance to contain IS. Time is of the essence; with low oil prices and large budgetary deficits countries are likely to face a challenging economic situation. Unemployment among the youth of the Middle East is running high. The ensuing discontent is being exploited by IS. Nigeria is one country that has taken up the fight against militancy by first cleaning its government of corruption. This approach will certainly bring big success elsewhere. A myriad of militant organisations is entrenched in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, coastal regions of Libya, Mali and Sudan. Such a spread of militant organisations will require broad based strategy utilising the Arab national armies and their air forces. The present manner of containing the militants has not produced many conclusive victories and they continue to overawe many a state in the Middle East for whom they pose a huge existential and immediate threat. The militant organisations are well entrenched and require tackling both militarily and on issues of governance. To defeat militancy in the Middle East and North Africa would require deploying efficiently disciplined national armies but will also require good, honest purposeful governance and equal economic growth opportunity for the population. These are the basic requirements and many more steps in governance will be required. At the moment, this does not appear to be happening. There does not appear to be very much time and the consequences of delaying can be rather difficult to accept for the Middle Eastern countries. The writer is a former member of the police service of Pakistan. He can be reached at humayunshafi@gmail.com