OREIGN military intervention in the world`s trouble spots is not always a sustainable option. In the past few decades, we have seen slow-motion disasters unfold in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya thanks to military intervention planned in distant capitals.

We have seen Nato and its allies bombard countries and engineer regime change, but efforts at `nation building` have failed miserably.

Now, it seems a fresh military adventure is in the offing. Following the recent Nato summit in Wales, a new coalition has been formed to counter the self-styled Islamic State. Led by the US and containing other major Nato members and Australia, the coalition will also try and bring Saudi Arabia and the Gulf sheikhdoms on board.

There can be little argument with the premise: the Islamic State is a vicious transnational terrorist outfit that needs to be defanged for the security of the Middle East and the international community.

The problem is with the modus operandi. We must ask if a Westernled military incursion is the best solution to eliminating IS. While American jets have already bombed extremist targets in Iraq, there are several plot holes America and its allies have not plugged.

It was indeed the Iraqi government that had asked for US air strikes to target IS. But any attempt to successfully neutralise the extremist group will need the support of regional states. While Turkey is already a coalition member and the Saudis are being wooed, other regional countries are being ignored. The Americans have said Iran and Syria will have no role to play in the coalition, despite signals from Tehran and Damascus that they are willing to confront IS from a joint platform. Ignoring these two regional countries would be a definite folly. Iran, Saudi Arabia and the West all see the extremist outfit as a common enemy; why, then, isolate Tehran when it wields considerable influence in Baghdad and shares a long border with Iraq? Keeping Bashar al-Assad out of the picture also defies logic. As much as the West dislikes the Syrian strongman, it is parts of his country that IS occupies. Attacking IS in Syria while simultaneously aiding the anti-Assad opposition will only add to the anarchy that prevails in that hapless country and may actually end up helping the militant organisation. Perhaps the most effective way in which the West and its allies can counter the group is by cutting off its sources of manpower and funding.