I agree with you on some points and disagree on others. Yes, the glorious West has given the world Nazism, Communism and the latest movement, the non-ideological decadence, which may end up the worst disease yet.
But then, let's argue about the above quote a bit because it is an almost familiar argument. The they-hate-us-because crowd tells us they (the Islamicists) hate us because we have supported corrupt and ruthless regimes in the Middle East. This argument has been advanced time and time again since 9/11. But then, look what alternative to the Shah, to Mubarak and to the Saudi monarchy these "dissidents" have offered the people of Afghanistan. The Shah and the Saudis have been quite enlighened, compared to the system now in place in Iran which you say is liberalizing. Bringing up examples of 7000 filthy rich Saudi princes is as much a proof of anything as is bringing up the many freebies that Saudi Arabia's citizens enjoy thanks to the oil wealth.
But my main argument is with your deterministic theory which appears to state that a Middle East country must evolve through "a stage of control by Islamic fundamentalists" before, before what?, before becoming enlightened? How do you figure that? Afghanistan in the 1950s was a liberalizing, developing country. And now what?
I don't think I was saying exactly that. Or at least I didn't mean to. I don't regard these developments as inevitable at all.
When a country is ruled despotically (especially by a colonial despot), opposition forces develop ideologies to counter the ruler's power, thereby mobilizing the people against him. Nationalism, communism, and fundamentalism are are examples of the kinds of forces come to the fore. People take refuge in these emotional responses to their oppression.
When the only way to overthrow a despot is through violence, men of violence come to the fore. When the ruler is finally overthrown, it often happens that the forces unleashed go out of control. The history of nationalist struggles against imperialism and colonialism is full of examples of this. The longer and more desperately the Imperial power hangs on to power, the more violent it is likely to be.
I have this suspicion that Saudi Arabia is likely to give in to fundamentalism. The longer that it is ruled by a corrupt monarchy supported by an overseas power, the more radical the change will be when the system is finally overthrown. Constrast that with, say Jordan, where a relatively benign monarchy is gradually liberalizing.
Fundamentalism is not inevitable. But the longer and harder that we fight to avoid it, the more radical and violent it will be when it finally takes power.