Do ironclad defensive alliances serve as a deterrent to the escalation of conflicts? Or do they set up a domino effect that can plunge all allies into the middle of an all-out war? This question is being raised as the war in Ukraine continues to rage and possible scenarios are suggested in which it might expand to other countries. With Sweden officially joining NATO this month, the discussions refer mainly to Article 5 of the alliance’s treaty. This states that if one NATO ally is the victim of an armed attack, it will be considered an attack against all members and they will take whatever actions are necessary to assist the ally under assault. The reality is that the true deterrent here is, as it has been many other times throughout history, the overwhelming superiority of a military force, in this case that of the US, that lends substance to proposition of a defensive alliance. If we turn to the history books and look at the First World War, for example, we can see that when one side perceives its enemies to be of matching or weaker power, defense alliances can indeed be the domino that, once toppled, plunges an entire region, or the world, into war. In 1914, the primary alliances in place were the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance. The Triple Entente comprised France, Russia and the UK. It was formed to counterbalance the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, the aim of which was to provide mutual defense and cooperation. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary on June 28, 1914, by a young Serbian nationalist in the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo, was the trigger for the start of the First World War but the dominoes required for the escalation of the conflict had already been set in place by these alliances, with geopolitical differences and the effects of domestic issues in various nations pushing them toward a confrontation. Consistent and true engagement by the US with its partners will provide support through deterrence and help keep regional bad actors under control Khaled Abou Zahr Within a year a regional conflict had escalated into the First World War as a result of these defense pacts and alliances. Austria-Hungary, backed by Germany, presented Serbia with an ultimatum after the assassination of the archduke. When the response fell short of what was desired, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on July 28, 1914. Russia, bound by its alliance with Serbia, began mobilizing its forces, prompting Germany to declare war on Russia on Aug. 1. The conflict widened when Germany also declared war on Russia’s ally, France, on Aug. 3. This was accompanied by the invasion of Belgium, which pulled the UK, which was obligated by the treaty to protect Belgian neutrality, into the conflict on Aug. 4. Italy, which was initially aligned with the Triple Alliance, opted to remain neutral at the outset of the war. However, it joined the Triple Entente in 1915, enticed by territorial promises. The Ottoman Empire entered the war in October 1914 on the side of the Central Powers, following Germany’s lead. Bulgaria followed suit in 1915. As we know, it was the entry of the US into the war in 1917 that eventually brought it to an end. In the aftermath of the war, most countries rejected defense alliances because they considered them the catalyst that had forced so many nations to enter the conflict instead of mitigating the risks. This is partly true, yet the Second World War broke out just two decades later despite this. As we all know, the horrors and the violent expansionist policy of the Nazi regime pushed the world into war and, once again, it was to a great extent the US entry into the war that eventually ended it, along with the Soviet Union squeezing Germany on the Eastern Front. And so, Europe to this day is still under the protection of the US. It remains dependent on Washington for its defense, and it is this American backing and support for NATO that has ensured the alliance serves as a true deterrent. This superior level of power, along with the sacrifices made by the American military for the sake of European stability, has undoubtedly put the US in a position where it believes unilateral decision-making has become the easiest way to go. Risks of greater conflicts are increasing around the globe but we notice, strangely, that once again, as in previous global conflicts, the epicenter is Europe rather than any other regions that are considered much more unstable and violent. This places an additional burden on the US and its military forces. In short, we are at risk of seeing the stability the world has known since the end of the Second World War come to an end. As the debates in the US continue about the country’s role in a changing world, we need to acknowledge that this role of protector has encouraged unilateral decision-making in Washington when it comes to strategic geopolitical issues. This is why it is important for the US to develop better regional partnerships in Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Asia with what analysts like to describe as “middle powers.” I prefer the term “supra-regional powers.” This transition will not be an easy one because of the differences between the US and its allies in terms of sheer military power. But the right degree of balance between the US and its partners is required to help find solutions that can avoid conflicts and war. Moreover, there is a need for more stable and consistent US interactions that strike a balance between the extremes of unilateral, over-muscular decision-making, and yielding to regional bullies, which encourages their bad behavior. Consistent and true engagement by the US with its partners will provide support through deterrence and help keep regional bad actors under control. This in turn will require regional powers to make a strong commitment to shouldering more of the burden of their own security and defense. This is the only true deterrent. Khaled Abou Zahr is the founder of SpaceQuest Ventures, a space-focused investment platform. He is the chief executive of EurabiaMedia and editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi.