Somebody: There clearly *was* a big picture behind the U.S. obsession with the Middle East to begin with, going back to the Carter Doctrine or
earlier to FDR breaking bread with the House of Saud. And then, there was a rationale for preventing a too-powerful Iraq, and for reinforcing Gulf dependence on the U.S., after the invasion of Kuwait.
But, I think we should consider the role of path dependence here. World War I was famously precipitated in part by battle plans and railroad timetables drawn up in advance. It could be that the U.S. military and foreign policy elite have convinced themselves of the tangible importance of political control of the Middle East and Central Asia... because that's what seemed to make sense during the Cold War and era of anti-colonial revolutions, and they haven't really adapted to the new era. Moreover, the influence of the Israel lobby is a powerful force preventing a reevaluation.
Yet, from our objective position, it does seem as if Chinese and Russian
state owned companies, as well as European multinationals, seem often as not, to end up signing the lucrative mineral contracts with the newly
established regimes. But, remember, the old European colonial powers had convinced themselves of the self-interest behind grabbing overseas territory, even if they were often of dubious value. Sometimes ruling classes can just be stubborn, pigheaded, and full of pride. And wounded pride must play a role in U.S. obsessions with former clients lost to revolution, like China from 1949 until the Nixon breakthrough, and Cuba and Iran after their revolutions. Pride can take on a material force, when it is seen as necessary to maintain in defense of national honor, and to maintain the geopolitical status quo.