[SeaHawkFan]

All this trouble in the middle east can be blamed on Jimmy Carter abandoning the Shah of Iran in the late 1970’s. The Shah of Iran may not have been s pure as the wind-driven snow, but he was far, far better than the Ayatollah that replaced him. Assad not the greatest guy either, but his potential replacements are far worse.

I am not all that worried about Russia's influence increasing in the area because there is so much freaking oil available everywhere, the middle east is never going to be the dominate force in the petrochemical arena.

[laplata]

You are correct.

And taking out Sadam Hussein was a terrible mistake for the same reasons you state about the Shah of Iran.

[LZ_Bayonet]

" there is so much freaking oil available everywhere,"
It's about Natural Gas. Russia does not want a Saudi NG pipeline to flow through Syria, then Turkey into Europe... because Europe is currently at Russia's mercy regarding NG.

[Cronos]

Not really, that's too simplistic -- the Shah was opposed by many groups, the majority being secular. But, just like in the 1917 revolutions in Russia, the most bloodthirsty party won in the end

The trouble in the middle east stems to:

1. British support for the Wahabbi-Saudi alliance in 1917-1918
2. British and French not creating separate lands for Syrian Christians, Assyrian Christians, Kurds (including Yazidis) and Alawis, but carving up the land arbitrarily
3. the 1970s and Saudis oil wealth being used to spread Wahabbiism further
4. The 1979 overthrow of the Shah -- I don't see how the USA could have prevented this
5. The 1991 Gulf War which took out a secular dictator -- Saddam -- who was threatening the Ayatollahs and the Saudis both
6. the 2003 invasion of Iraq that didn't split the country three ways