That explains Syria but not Libya and Egypt (Mubarak replaced by Morsi)
The common denominator is that secular arab regimes would be replaced by Islamists
“The common denominator is that secular arab regimes would be replaced by Islamists”
Islamists = Isis = AlQaeda = Wahhabi Ideology from Saudi Arabia
Who do you think will rule over the Caliphate?
It won’t be the guy with the dirty hat. It will be the Saudi king.
When America engages in incomprehensibly stupid behavior against our interests, it is invariably because our corrupt, treasonous politicians are following the orders of their globalist masters.
Then the captive media tries to feed us a s#it sandwich.
In almost every case, there are multiple forces and factors at work. In Syria, trying to figure out all the players and shifting alliances / forces is a guaranteed headache, if not insanity.
Libya, for example, was mostly about petro too, and European countries’ interference was originally pushed, behind the scenes, largely by Euro oil companies. (This was explained, in detail mostly now lost to me, by an Italian engineer of military equipment, with heavy duty military and industry connections, some years back. He foresaw almost all of it before it happened...)
Egypt was likely mostly about ideology, though.
That said, I don’t think the goal in any of these instances was the succession of radical, uncontrollable, Islamic regimes. The “goal” was a foolish notion that weak / controllable replacements could be installed. The globalists / our idiots in charge could not see the more likely result of stirring up trouble in these sorts of countries... :-(
Of course. What other goal can there be? Barak Hussein Obama Soetoro is a Mohammedan and an Islamist and in charge of the most powerful country in the world. What else can he do? We must take comfort in that he is also somewhat of a coward and certainly not “decisive.”