I will never understand this. Of all the dumb shit our government has done why the hell were we funding known terrorist sympathizers to overthrow secular governments in the ME? Just think of what Egypt would be like if the military didn't step in and kick out the muslim brotherhood.
Why? 3 things at least.
Currency-
WE (the US) were/are the military arm of the private (originally mostly European owned) banking system that owns the fedres. The countries that were gaining independence and seeking to set up an independent currency were the countries on "the list" talked about in the video recently shared here. Libya was foremost and furthest along during the O admin. They had begun to terraform the desert using the underground aquifer and advanced recovery methods. They had oil, were beginning to produce food, education was free, and the citizens actually received subsidies/shares from oil production profits. Their leader was trying to establish an independent currency among African countries and show them how to become independent, too.
Drugs-
The taliban had decreased opium production to the lowest levels since before we became involved with them during the afghan war vs Russia. Wholesale prices on opioids had gone through the roof while supply dropped off a cliff. Drug running was critical to funding ops and manipulating populations and opioids were the key components. This just so happened to also be critical to drug manufacturers and the medical industry. This necessitated looping Afghanistan into the "combating terrorism" scheme. Southeast Asia was critical to the drug running or we wouldn't have had any real involvement there either.
Oil-
The entire petroleum industry has been protected for over 100yrs. They outlawed hemp to protect oil interests, as well as the timber (paper), steel, corn, and cotton industry. Hemp, as a renewable that doesn't deplete the soil, was key to a better fuel additive than corn based ethanol, and cloth as good as cotton. It proved to be a great fiber for resilient, light, and strong fiberglass panels in the 40s, threatening the steel industry's monopoly on automotive supply. Just as importantly, hemp used for paper, insulation, and laminates was much more desirable, inexpensive, and renewable, therefore a direct threat to the timber and building products industry across the nation.
Most of our involvement in the ME-Afghanistan has to do with oil. Major reserves were found in the Caspian Sea region, but getting them out of there has been a challenge. Pipelines east or west of there need the cooperation of the countries between the Caspian Sea and either the Mediterranean, Arabian Sea, or the Indian Ocean. Look at a topographical map of Asia and you'll see the routes needed and why 2 major oil conglomerates have been battling it out for over 50 years to get their preferred route cleared through organized conflict. One wanted to go west. One wanted to go southeast. Each has been battling with govts and tribes in the way of their preferred pipeline route. Turkey proved too unstable geologically to economically maintain a pipeline there, but 3/4s of the route that might go through Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran has been "cleared." The people backing O wanted this route. The people backing Bush wanted the Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan route "cleared." They've been mostly successful, but Iran is still the major obstacle for both.
A fourth thing- Shipping
An idea born in the 60s I think, but only recently becoming a real possibility is the construction of a canal through Israeli territory. The ideal path is near or through Gaza to the Jordan River as it flows from the Dead Sea southward. This would be a boon for shipping and a big money maker for Israel, pulling money from Egypt, but also making shipping easier to secure. The coup in Egypt organized by the O admin and the houthi attacks have been, imo, efforts against support for the new canal, but also to better control and disrupt the global economy through disrupting shipping. Blocking the canal may have been caused by a hack of the Evergreen ships controls by those who would profit from the deed. It seemed to necessitate the need for another route. Also, having an Israeli military presence at the Gulf of Aquaba, which the canal would almost definitely assure, would give them (necessitate) a greater security presence overall, which they desire.
The Suez Canal is problematic for a couple reasons. Egypt is generally unstable, and the use of the canal is expensive. I'd be willing to bet that the USGVt is willing to help Israel build their canal in exchange for reduced fare passage for the foreseeable future.
