[3pt14159]

I think you need to read more of the leaked cables and dig deeper into foreign policy journals.

The US policy in the middle east is one of destabilization. ISIS is not a threat to American interests, it's a tool created by America to keep the region destabilized. Once energy is either no longer the limit to economic growth, or no longer economically efficient from oil, then the Americans / NATO and the Chinese can allow a more stable middle east. But the threat of foreign control over a very important and wildly swinging energy input, as well as a strategic launching point to many threats, leads to US / NATO foreign policy in the region that leans towards destabilization and fracturing interests in the region.

[ysilver]

>> and dig deeper into foreign policy journals

What journals do you read? I find it hard to believe you are reading mainstream foreign policy journals. Is there an issue of Foreign Affairs that supports your take?

To support your argument I think you'd best be served by referring to history books, not foreign policy journals. I think your argument generally fits with a dated foreign policy regime where weaker nations were seen along lines of resource extraction (see colonialism all the way to the first Gulf War) and ideological domination (see '53 Iran coup, Bay of Pigs attempted coup, VOA).

Fast-forward a few decades and energy security for NATO states has become quite strong primarily due to fracking. Key threats consist primarily in non-state actors radicalizing people abroad and anarchic environments abroad enabling the export of terrorism. Key opportunities consist in stable energy prices and opening new markets for goods/services. It's a lot easier to square the recent Iran deal with that world view.

[thwest]

Greenspan's autobiography goes over this. US DoS/DoD define Middle East "stability" as the stability of the energy markets, not the stability of Middle Eastern national polities.

Foreign Affairs treats this as an implicit assumption. FA wouldn't tarnish their place in the NATO clerk vetting process by making a claim like this explicit. Their profit model depends on it.

In case you missed it, OPEC dumped on the market months ago and US shale production well counts have plummeted.

[selimthegrim]

Er, can you substantiate this? Wouldn't they prefer pocket puppet dictators? It seems keeping the region off balance is a cold comfort.

[colordrops]

Saudi is the puppet dictator that funnels support to the Sunni militants (ISIS). Iran supports the Shia. Pretty simple dichotomy.

[selimthegrim]

Saudi is throwing returning ISIS volunteers in jail and people like al-Maqdisi and al-Odeh have heaped criticism upon ISIS for being an illegitimate caliphate and violating the obligation to obey 'ulu al 'amr

[marcosdumay]

Read the cables.

The US does prefer puppet dictators. But most dictators do not stay puppet-like without a reason.

[selimthegrim]

I've read plenty of cables. I remember them bitching about Syria and listening to Saudi but I can't recall besides maybe giving some sort of ambitious April Glaspie type green light to Saudi Arabia (to support ISIS) anything like what the poster above is saying about ISIS.

[thwest]

The US very publicly supported the FSA, and while under the advisement and training of the CIA, the FSA fizzled out and most anti-Assad fighters left and joined Daesh or al Nusra.

[fapjacks]

This is the most correct interpretation. Keeping the region unstable is a matter of policy for the US government, for various reasons. Instability brings certain circumstances which benefit the US greatly at this time.