.The US views the Countries in the West of Asia (the Middle East) from different angles.
Whoever opposes Israel is an enemy to the US, therefore that specific country will be considered as a terrorism sponsoring country, even if she is not.
There are countries which are not an enemy to Israel, but launch cooperation of whatever sort with Israel and try to deepen their relationship with Israel are allowed to propagate terrorist acts and ideology as far as London and US attacks on 7/7 and 9/11, respectively.
Those in the region who try to build their own civil society and hold elections are considered enemy to the US. The history has proved that US and UK coup d’état in Iran in 1953 toppled Iranian elected PM, Mossadeq, and replaced him with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as the king of Iran.
Another story dates back to 1980, Iran–Iraq War, in which Iraq was backed by the US and many other countries including Saudi clan, but Iran left alone whose revolution was fledgling. Soon after the war, Saddam became an enemy to the US because it attacked Kuwait and Israel.
Poor states are doomed to destruction in the Middle East. The process of destruction would be faster if that specific country is not a friend of Israel and does not tolerate its expansionism and imperialistic ideology.
Moreover, from the US and Israel’s point of view a favourable and amiable Muslim country in the Middle East is a country which is ruled by one specific unelected clan or completely devastated. In other words, when the trend of political system in the Middle East is from democracy towards dictatorship (counter its global trend), it serves best the US foreign policy in the region. It can be concluded that no election in the Middle East is acceptable, neither Syria’s nor Iran.
As for Iran, the US has been looking for regime change for over 37 years, but no mention of the next government type of Iran, maybe the US think of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s son i.e. the repetition of the history, from democracy towards dictatorship.
In Syria, even after election(2 June 2014), neither US nor Syrian opposition groups accepted the voting turnout of over 88% which appointed Bashar Assad as the President again.
In Iraq, ISIS was finally defeated by the Iraqis themselves, not American’s who had predicted uprooting ISIS will take over decades, according to Iraqi PM, Haider Al-Abadi. But, Daesh(ISIS terrorist) were defeated by Iraqi Army and Mosul will soon be freed.
Libya, once one the wealthiest country in Africa was devastated NATO. Political vacuum did not let any government (“elected on”) to rise in the country. ISIS became stronger day by day. The US favorite situation!
In the Middle East, countries are divided into 2 camps.
Those who pour money into the US military factories (Saudi Arabia and UAE, for example) and those who do not (Iran), however, the portion which is lost here is compensated by those who reach an accord over shopping billions of dollars of weapons.
The US sees the rich countries, who pay billions of dollars of cash and never try to grow in terms of civil society and democracy, as friends and allies in the region.
Election plays the role of ‘hemlock’ for dictators and their sponsors in the region. In other words, the less democracy, the more profit to the US and Israel economically and politically.
All in all, the best countries in the Middle East from the US point of view are as follows:
- Countries which are ruled by one specific family who is a friend of Israel and loyal to the US such as Saudis
- Countries which are generally considered failed states or ruled by Islamic terrorists such as Libya, because they have no threat to the US and Israel
- Rich dictator countries whose arms deal can create jobs in the US
- Terrorist sponsoring countries, such as Israel, Saudi and Qatar
The most hated countries in the region:
- Countries which hold presidential and parliamentary election
- Courtiers which do not have a friendly stance towards Israel and US dictator allies in the region.
- Countries in which a civil war has broken out and opposition can play as a US pawn in the conflict