If the United States wants a stable and unified middle east why do they
keep, admittingly, starting revolutions and overthrowing stable
governments. I just don't see how someone can say the United States
wants a stable middle east when they over throw a functioning government
and kill half a million of it's civilians. This has happened on far
more than one occasion. The funding of Iraq's invasion of Iran, choking
aid when Iraq made progress and increasing the flow when they began to
lose ground. The borders around Israel Osciliated all throughout the
50s-70s. The overthrow of Ghadaffi by extremists was done by the United
States. Countless revolutions during the arab springs were done by the
CIA. They admitted to organizing the protests. The United States support
a very weak group in Syria, a group that makes up a very small
percentage of Syria. The United States loves it when their is trouble
because everyone comes running to them. As soon as their is a sign of
stability we overthrow someone and create a power vaccuum.
Stable or not stable, it's about control. Iraq was just over pretty much nothing other than Bush trying to fill daddys shoes. Afghanistan was retaliation for 9/11, aiding Iraq against Iran is just because Shia are a minority and less profitable to exploit. It makes no sense to hold such a stance. It's just overall competition between much larger powers for influence over resources.
You have to understand that instability is not the goal. Division however is. The world chopped up the Ottoman Empire after WWI and divided it amongst foreign powers to fuel our own industrialization. We created fake lines in the sand and instilled false senses of nationalism. The goal was not instability. It was to permanently erase the Caliphate from history or future and exploit the entire region to fuel industrialization.
The Islamic State is very aware of that, which is exactly why they are doing what they are doing.
Countless revolutions during the arab springs were done by the CIA.
Citation needed.
The United States support a very weak group in Syria, a group that makes up a very small percentage of Syria.
We support the FSA solely because they are the only group who aren't necessarily Sunni extremists who want Assad removed. That being said, FSA is a garbage ally of Al Nusra with no political goals. They are simply Sunni defectors who hate Alawites.
They will give just enough for to prevent ISIS from advancing, but
nothing more. The Kurds are an ethnic group that have been around for a
long time, but were funded and organized by the Soviet's in response too
Iran aligning with the United States. This period is when they grew in
to what they are now. After Iran took their country back from the United
States, the Soviets promptly abandoned the Kurds breaking way to the
modern day conflicts between the kurds and Iran, Iraq, and Syria.
The Kurds are not even a single united faction. The US relations with the Kurds are pretty damn good in modern times. I mean, we are the ones who created the autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan. According to our own government, there is nothing to suggest they will not support an independent Kurdistan, but quite the opposite.
The modern day conflicts between the Kurds and their neighbors, specifically Iran is a conflict that predates the United States. They have been trying to get an independent Kurdistan for hundreds of years. The Soviets by no means "created" the Kurds.