r getting some much needed rest and a good meal I feel that the manner in which I responded was not productive and it reads like I was talking at someone instead of to someone. I apologise for the subpar response and for the fact that I’m about to rewrite what I said in hopes of having an actual discussion instead the having this degenerate into a shouting match.

I also wish to point out that I will not be using the term “West” or “Western” since both are too ambiguous a term and instead I’ll use the term “transatlantic” to refer to the major powers that shaped the modern Middle East: Great Britain, the United States and (too some extents) France.

[…]it’s not the Western powers killing their own people.

You put forth the argument that the transatlantic powers are not the ones responsible for the murder of civilians which is true to the extant that these powers never sent their own forces to murder civilians, but these powers can, and should be, held accountable for their actions in facilitating the murder of civilians through sponsoring state-terrorism, non-state terrorism and the overthrow of foreign governments. This of course does no absolves those state and non-state actors who acted on behalf these powers from blame.

The Middle East could be a great place if the people living there (specifically the people with power) actually wanted it to be.

The issue with this line of reasoning is that it assumes that people living in the Middle East (which is also another broad and ambiguous term) do not wish to live in peace and that the people in power are independent actors who can make decision without foreign interference.

These are mistaken assumptions because the people of the region do wish to live in peace but wish to do so under representative governments that protect their interests, interests which run counter to those of the transatlantic powers. Examples include, but are not limited to, the movement for the nationalisation of raw resources in Iran and Syria or the protection of markets from foreign competition in Iran, Syria and Iraq. In all three cases the civilian population wished to see their national resources used to the benefit of the people and state instead of being sold to foreign powers and corporations.

This would require taking policies that ran counter to those espoused in the United States and Great Britain which was a dangerous thing to do during the Cold War period. In response the United States, British and French governments took measures to overthrow the governments of Syria, Iran and Iraq. The French attempts to overthrow the republican government of Syria failed, but the American attempts in the 1940’s succeeded in toppling the civilian government and installing a puppet dictatorship which fell to another coup d’état and that government fell to a popular socialist revolt. When the Americans sent a trade/diplomatic delegation to ensure American interests were kept in mind in Damascus the Syrian government refused and the Americans took excessive measure to force Syria’s hand. These measures included disrupting civilian life and the affairs of the Syrian state as well as assassinating important civilian and official figures and sponsoring terrorist within the Syrian state to destabilise it. This of course all backfired and had the opposite effect of what the Americans wanted.

In Iraq the Americans and British took similar steps and while the revolution there halted the American and British attempts, it did not stop them from assassinating important figures or sponsoring terror attacks against the Iraqi government. The case of Iran is more well known. The republican government of Iran took measures to nationalise the oil and the Americans and British succeeded in dissentingly the republic and installing a brutal dictatorship.

In all three cases we see tremendous loss of life due to the transatlantic powers interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign states and establishing puppets governments that put the interest of their masters above those of their people.

The British government took similar measurements in Bahrain and Kuwait where the population were calling for more democratic forms of government, nationalisation of the oil, and greater support for the Pan-Arab Socialist cause. The British succeeded in Bahrain in cooperation with the Bahraini rulers, but failed in their attempts in Kuwait. Both cases saw the death of innocent civilians, the destabilisation of both societies and the assassination and torture of promote political activists, socialist, and anti-imperial figures.

In all of these countries all attempts at popular revolt and the establishment or the re-establishment of democratic governments were repressed with disproportionate force with support and aid from the transatlantic powers in the hopes of stopping the spread of communism in the region and keeping the region under check to ensure easier access to raw resources.

Instead, they'd rather be warlords and dictators and enjoy all the benefits of their resources (mainly oil) while the common man suffers. And instead of looking at their leaders, they are constantly pointing at the West as their media and religious groups keep all the attention on us instead of their corrupt leaders.

Again the leaders wish to be warlords and dictators because that is their role as puppets. It’s in their job description. The transatlantic powers need these despots to do their grunt work for them so that their image isn’t tarnished. The Americans didn’t go after Saddam because he was a dictatorial, mass-murdering sicko, the Americans went after him because he was no longer a reliable puppet and has lived out his usefulness. The same with Bashar in Syria. The Americans made a big show of how Syria was a friend in the war against terror, but the second Bashar was of no further use he was dropped like a sack of wet potato. That’s the message the Americans, and British, have been sending to their little puppets in the region “Do what we ask or be annihilated”. You think someone’s going to stand up for the Al-Saudi when the Americans have no use for them? How about the ruling families of Kuwait, Bahrain or Qatar? So they do what’s expected of them and keep their head down and their citizens scared and silent while doing the grunt work.

So what’s the point of civilians rising up against their leaders or demanding change when there exists great powers willing to slaughter millions of innocent civilians using drones over nothing? What’s the point of rising up when we get gassed, beaten and thrown in jail while the world stands around and does nothing because the powers at large are fine with it? The people of Bahrain have risen up several times in the past decades, but the government never fell because it had the tacit support of both the Americans and British who were more than willing to sell a few weapons and tactics even if that meant the slaughter of civilians just to keep their interests safe.

Also the citizens of the region are within their rights to blame the transatlantic powers. The Americans have threatened Lebanon with sanctions if it dared to purchase weapons for the armed forces because that is seen as a threat to America’s interests. The Americans have interfered in the internal affairs of Kuwait several times over to the determine of the democratic movements and have attempt to co-opt several movements which all failed. The Americans and British sanctioned Iraq and Iran causing untold numbers of deaths because both countries refused to bow to outrageous demands that no self-respecting state would.

Furthermore, if the Middle Eastern states were left to their own devices you'd have the same result, the only stability being a cruel dictator holding sway versus the constant turmoil of war between the ignorant, sadistic, and greedy.

That is a blatant lie.

We’ve seen democratic civilian governments in Syria, Iran, Lebanon and we’ve seen strong civil societies in Bahrain, Kuwait, Yemen, Jordan and Iraq. All of the aforementioned states were either republican governments modelled on France’s government or constitutional monarchies modelled on that of Britain. The fact that transatlantic powers were able to overthrow, isolate, or co-opt these governments and societies does not mean that such governments would not have flourished and prospered in a world without foreign interference.

The fact of the matter is that this idea that the Middle East needs a strong firm dictatorial hand is propaganda used as justification for American and British support of dictatorships and autocratic rulers that are unpalatable to their civilians. This line of argument was also used to extend the British and French mandates in the region on the grounds that the populations weren’t civilised enough.

Iran's parliament was still as corrupt as you'd expect in the Middle East with Mosaddeq in charge. The Iranian/Islamic Revolution certainly didn't happen because the West designed it that way or forced the hand of Ruhollah Khomeini to become the Ayatollah

Whether or not Iran’s parliament was corrupt or not under Mosaddeq is irrelevant. The American Congress and British Parliament is also filled with corrupt individuals but no one’s question the democratic or republican nature of the United States or Great Britain. Iran was doing fine, and doing fine does not mean utopian dream, it means doing an adequate job which Iran wasn’t doing when it was under the American and British backed Shah of Iran. There’s a reason that the people of Iran revolted against the Shah.