I really disagree with this article. This is the sort of fundamentalist thinking that Americans trained themselves in during the Cold War.<p>> Behind much of the Middle East’s chaos — the wars in Syria and Yemen<p>Both of these wars are domestic in nature. In any Civil War parties naturally seek to ally themselves with outside powers. The powers then see the opportunity to win big for small(ish) cash, or at least avoid losing an ally.<p>It is true that Iran and the Saudis are fighting for supremacy, but it is not true that all the wars in the middle east are because of that.<p>Its equally wrong to force all of this into a even deeper into a pure sectarian conflict. Neither the Saudis or the Iranians are above supporting people that they ideologically disagree with it is politically useful to them, even people who would attack and kill them if they could.<p>This article tries hard and fails to make everything about Iran. Saudi Arabia going against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, clearly that is because of Iran. The Saudis have enough reason to make sure they have allies in Egypt even when Iran is not a factor. Every countries ties not to have enemies on all sides.
The invasion of Iraq, which the New York Times played a major role in, tore the ME apart.<p>Very soon we'll be blaming some other group for Libya and Syria.
The title implies the middle east was ever not torn apart. A quick glance through a history book shows it has always had more than its fair share of sectarian violence.<p>It is resource starved and a major crossroads, why should we expect anything else without major effort to fix it?
This article missed a very important point: Iran encouraged and supported the invasion of Iraq. They supplied the evidence and polticians that would topple Sadam and take over his goverment. The Iraq was a major Iranian victory.