I'll answer your question, but first: I'll quietly note that my point about nationalist priors has been taken. 2nd: "meddle" is the wrong word. Mideast factions *invite* the US, just as less powerful factions have always invited more powerful factions to ally w/ them against 1/n

their enemies. (This has nothing to do with borders or nations, btw; history is one big example of polities or would-be polities obtaining help from bigger players regardless of their borders or nationality.) 3rd: the US has made mistakes, but the Mideast without it would be 2/n

a bloody mess. The reason Cairo, Tel Aviv, Riyadh, Baghdad, Tehran, and Ankara all prefer (or preferred at 1 point in time) a Mideast w/ the US to a Mideast w/o it is American ability to settle conflicts for good if necessary (Germany and Japan in 1945). Now, to answer your 3/n

question. I would pursue peace by noting US role in the region is actually one of peacemaker. I would juxtapose this w/ the fact that US has become more presidential domestically and therefore more imperial abroad. Mideast factions depend on American power and its finality 4/n

Imperialism has way less finality to its foreign policies than federalism. Federal republics fight to the death, and then either incorporate enemy polities or erase them. Imperial polities thrive on anarchy. The reason imperial polities grow in power is to mitigate anarchy in 5/n

other parts of the world, at the invitation of less powerful polities who want imperial help in extinguishing their enemies. Therefore 6/n