As is normally the case at this time of year the season of peace and goodwill has been marred by wars and the rumours of wars. In Iraq the northern town of Ramadi, an Islamic State (IS) stronghold, was liberated at the end of December by Iraqi forces backed by US air power. At the same time on the other side of the world Nigerian government forces successfully repelled an attack by Boko Haram insurgents near the north-eastern town Maiduguri the capital of Borno state and a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism. Elsewhere a Taliban suicide bomber riding a motor bicycle attacked a government office in the Pakistani town of Mardan north of Peshawar killing himself and 26 bystanders.

Three different incidents in three different parts of the world but there is an obvious connection in that they all involved Islamic extremism and they give a grim warning of what lies ahead in the coming year. It became painfully obvious in 2015 that the main threat to international security was posed by the Islamic State and its many adherents who fight under a variety of banners owing allegiance to the Taliban or al-Qaeda. Collectively they maintain their menace not by employing conventional means but by using the indirect approach of terrorist or insurgency warfare which is devilishly difficult to counter. They are also united by their dislike of other religions and their distaste for the western way of life

That means that the world can expect more of the same kind of thing. It is not being alarmist but simply realistic to point out that there is a strong probability that the Islamic State will attempt to repeat an attack of the kind which a small number of fighters and suicide bombers mounted on Paris last November. For the leaders of the IS caliphate it makes perfect sense to reprise the formula as all that is required is a small number of committed terrorists equipped with weapons such as Kalashnikov assault rifles, grenades and bomb vests. All those ingredients are easy to use, cheap to acquire and simple to transport across borders. It is anyone’s guess where the next target will be but Europe (less so the US) contains sufficient open and liberal-minded cities with large populations. None are easily defended yet all are open to attack. Perhaps this tactical conundrum should be considered by those politicians who support the renewal of the British Trident nuclear weapons system which is due to be decided during the course of the year at a cost of anything between £17.5 billion (the government figure) or £100 billion (the CND figure). Astonishingly this represents one-third of all funds available for defence procurement in this country, a staggering sum.

But whatever decision is taken at Westminster about Trident the war against the terrorist threat will go on. Because western governments cannot allow themselves to be deterred by the threat of a reprisal terrorist attack – to do so would be an abnegation of responsibility – the struggle with the Islamic State will continue and the intensity of the fighting will grow. The Iraqi success at Ramadi showed that the Islamic State fighters are not invincible and can be defeated in a well-planned and boldly executed ground attack backed by air power. It was important on another level too. Ramadi is a Sunni stronghold and was generally responsive to IS aims and philosophy and its continuing allegiance was an affront to the administration led by prime minister Haider al-Abadi who made sure that he was present for the raising of the Iraqi flag at the end of December.

From a military point of view the Iraqi victory also shows that the war against Islamic State will only be won by the use of ground forces. That much had already been demonstrated by the Kurdish Peshmerga soldiers in northern Iraq but 14 years of campaigning against the Taliban in Afghanistan has dissuaded the west from involving itself in such desperate ventures. However, because nothing is ever easy in the Middle East any change in the military situation will have to be balanced by the need to placate local rivalries and religious differences. The Kurds are unlikely to agree to any road map towards peace unless their own rights are respected and their own efforts in the field are rewarded. For the past four years they have been in the vanguard in the battle against the Islamic State and are unlikely to smile on any outcome unless they achieve their own ambition of having a Kurdish state recognised or at the very least an autonomous homeland area with its own borders.

Also to be considered is the anomalous position of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. Russia is unlikely to renege on its support for his government or to remove its sizeable naval and air forces from Syrian territory but that continuing presence puts it in a possible confrontation with the US which not only would prefer to have Assad removed but wants to distance itself from any hint that it is supporting the Shia faction in the region. Now in his last year at the White House President Barack Obama already has trouble in selling his policy of rapprochement with Shia Iran and will be keen to avoid upsetting Sunni Saudi Arabia, a long-standing US ally which is still involved in a proxy conflict in Yemen, another war zone for the coming year. In theory a ceasefire has been agreed in Yemen to prevent further fighting between the Iranian-backed Houthis and a coalition led by Saudi Arabia but that was threatened last weekend by the firing of a Scud ballistic missile against a military target near the Saudi city of Najran.

Matters in the Middle East geopolitical region and elsewhere may become a little clearer in July when Nato heads of state meet for their next summit in Warsaw. Three main items will be on the agenda: a decision on what is the alliance’s main policy objective, Russia or the Middle East, discussion on the correct level of equipment and funding for the challenges of 21st century warfare and the need for European countries to take a greater share of the defence burden. Ahead, too, lies the need to deal with Ukraine’s application to join the alliance. If successful the move would further anger Russia’s leader President Vladimir Putin who has already been upset by Nato’s steady enlargement eastwards towards his country’s own border. Everything in Putin’s tactics points to a continuation of the interference in the affairs of Ukraine which has produced the current instability. Just as importantly from the Russian leader’s point of view he has used the past year to quash the threat of US supplying arms to the Ukrainians and that subject could also re-emerge on Nato’s agenda. Unfortunately the summit will probably be overshadowed by the fact that two of Nato’s leading members, the US and the UK, will be distracted by their own domestic politics – the former by the forthcoming presidential election in November and the latter by the referendum over membership of the EU which could be held at some point during this year.

All the while the war against the Islamic State will have been continuing apace and not just on the ground in Iraq and Syria but also in the skies above them. Although air power cannot win wars by itself it is a useful adjunct and precision bombing has its part to play in modern conflict. The US ended 2015 by announcing that air strikes had killed ten leading IS figures including Abdul Qader Hakim who was responsible for operations and may have planned the attacks in Paris. He was killed during a raid on Mosul last Boxing Day and a US military spokesperson said that “more of the same” would follow in the year ahead, using both missile-equipped drones – increasingly the weapons of choice for western commanders - and fixed wing strike aircraft. The use of air strikes is also a vindication of Obama’s thinking as he has predicated his Middle East strategy on only using air power in the war against IS and that will remain the Pentagon’s hallmark for the remaining year of his presidency.

Certainly none of the candidates for the White House have any stomach for even mentioning the possibility of putting US troops on the ground in the Middle East. Only the Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton wants to up the ante against the Islamic State but only by extending the no-fly zone into Syria, something which Obama has long resisted. If she does lead the Democrat challenge for the White House her Republican rivals will have to come clean on their own thinking as this election is already being touted as the “national security election”. It should be an interesting outcome when the result is announced after voting has taken place on November 8. Who knows? The US could wake up to find itself with its first female president in Hillary Clinton. If so America could join Taiwan if that country takes the same route in its own presidential election which are due to take place in a fortnight’s time. As things stand the Democratic Progressive candidate Tsai Ing-wen is the clear favourite and looks set to improve her runner-up position in the last election four years ago. In her role as the new leader of the Republic of China (as Taiwan is officially known) she will probably receive a patronising reception from her larger Chinese neighbour who will no doubt give her the customary warning slap on the wrists.

It will be fascinating to see how that relationship develops in 2016 - the Year of the Monkey in the Chinese zodiac. China spent much of last year flexing its muscles in the South China Sea where it has significant territorial claims concerning the Spratly and Paracel islands and the surrounding seas, and there is nothing to suggest that the coming year will be any different. Beijing has invested heavily in its naval forces and the expenditure plus the construction of artificial islands from the surrounding reefs and shoals points to a continuation of that expansion in the area. The matter is currently under arbitration by the UN but whatever decision is reached under international maritime law China is unlikely to climb down if ordered to do so. While there is little chance of aggravation breaking into outright war, tensions will remain high in the South China Sea and skirmishing will continue amongst those countries most deeply involved in the dispute, namely Brunei, the Philippines, Malaysia, China and Taiwan. If, as expected, Tsai Ing-wen is elected president of Taiwan, she can expect a difficult first year in office. For her and for many others across the globe it promises to be another stormy year.