I think NATO does not have a particular role to play either in South Asia or in the Middle East. I think there's broad recognition that the solutions there need to be regional, and in the case of Iran and Israel in particular.
At the NPT review conference in 2010, there was a particular decision-taking, which grew out of a 1995 decision, on the pursuit of the Middle East as a nuclear-weapon-free zone—a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction. That's a very long-term and difficult process, but it's recognized as being central to dealing with the proliferation pressures in that region in the long term: that the easing of proliferation pressures there is dependent upon developing a different kind of security dynamic in the region as a whole.
It's the same thing with India and Pakistan. The tragedy is that India and Pakistan are in a heightened arms race at the moment. They are both producing fissile materials for weapons purposes at an accelerated rate. By the way, the supply of uranium for the civil program in India allows it to use more of its indigenous uranium for weapons purposes. There, too, there are regional elements, because the conventional imbalance between those two also is a major cause.
Also, there is the failure of the international communities to pursue negotiations on a fissile materials cut-off treaty, which has been on the agenda of the Conference on Disarmament since 1995 and generally before that. I think the failure to produce that has serious implications for South Asia, and it ought to be a priority in trying to get the Asian arms race—there's only one word for it, I think—under control.