Chan Akya presents an interesting argument — even if no one in Washington would be so bold as to articulate such thoughts.
Most of the hijackers on September 11, 2001, were of Saudi origin and despite nominally falling under the leadership of Osama bin Laden it stands to reason that they were mainly disenchanted due to the stifling anti-democracy of Saudi Arabia and the inherent hypocrisy of Wahhabism in a country that spent most of its time kowtowing to the Americans.
Fearing the tactical nightmare of dealing with hundreds if not thousands of these disaffected youth, America and Europe chose to make the strategic blunder of supporting the crumbling monarchies as long as they attacked their own youth. This was a stupid bargain, to put it mildly.
A sustainable situation would be to engender wider regime change in the Middle East by booting out the creaking and corrupt monarchies, to be replaced progressively with Islamic leaders capable of taking a development-oriented approach to their countries. To ensure this new generation of Middle East leaders do not get overly tempted by the possibilities of attacking America or Israel, it would be necessary to have a “natural” check in the region – namely Iran.
Not sure that Iran would be a natural block, but considering all the foot dragging Israel has done, it probably would perhaps do some good, especially if the U.S.A. steps back & takes a neutral stance. I know, wishful thinking, but face reality, I don’t think the U.S. can maintain the status quo that is demanded by the middle east conflict. The bigger question mark I believe, is which one will use the “Bomb” first? There needs to be a shift in thinking concerning the U.S./Israeli, maybe this would push it along. One thing seems to be sure, time is running out on obtaining a peaceful settlement. Also, with Israel rattling the sword towards Syria, Lebanon, will they in desperation go on a bombing spree, there by poisoning the middle east? This is real food for thought!