In general I agree with your point about arms. However, the U.S. did support the monarchy of Iran, in part because it gave us access to its border with the USSR. Iran received (among other goodies) F-5 and F-14 fighters, and has managed to keep some flying despite 24 years of not having "manufacturer approved" spare parts available.
But I think the author's point was that, in the past, our support for regimes in the middle east was not based on the principles of democracy and freedom, but containing the USSR. Twenty years from now, will libs be playing the same obstruction game on the U.S. by saying things like, "we were the ones who armed the (Saudis Pakistanis Turks Jordainians Egyptians Germans), so we don't have the moral authority to decry their actions now"? If we blindly keep on supporting (or tolerating) these despots, the answer will be YES.
My point is that with many of these regimes we not only did not support them, we wanted them gone even at the highth of the Cold War. So to say that we supported them is a lie.
You can not ignore the fact that the USSR was arming them and supplying them with training.
The Iraqi Army for example was based on the Soviet model. (Which is why Russia is taking the defeat so personally.)
Our position on most of these countries has not changed at all.
Point.
Counterpoint, who armed the Ayatollah's who came afterwards?
And which was a better government for Iran, the monarchy or the Ayatollahs?