[Political Interest]

The US and UK are always involved in Middle Eastern politics. They maintain close alliances with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel. Recently the UK decided it is going to build a military base in the Persian Gulf thereby taking its soldiers east of Suez once more.

We know that the West want to have partners in all regions of the world who will be willing to accomodate Western interests. It seems that in the Middle East this is of even greater importance.

Some people have said that it is oil but is it more than that?

[redcarpet]

Of course it's more than that. Aden was held by the British as an essential colony base for forces and supplies on the way to British India

That's gone of course, but there are a number of strategic aims still current of various major powers in the Middle-East. One would appear to be a balance of power policy, to balance Israel, Turkey, Iran (and previously Iraq under Saddam). Another is general regional stability; back a side that will win AND fulfil regional strategic aims of your state in the ME.

[Political Interest]

That's gone of course, but there are a number of strategic aims still current of various major powers in the Middle-East. One would appear to be a balance of power policy, to balance Israel, Turkey, Iran (and previously Iraq under Saddam). Another is general regional stability; back a side that will win AND fulfil regional strategic aims of your state in the ME.

What are the West's strategic aims? Isolating Russia?

[redcarpet]

That seems to be one of the latest. Like that if Russia succeeds in defeating ISIS in Syria, Russia gets a more full-blown client state under Assad. What would the implications for that be? One would be the proposed oil/gas pipeline idea through the middle east through Syria can't happen, given Assad could switch it off at Putin's command. It'd be hard to make one with a new route that goes around Syria from Saudi Arabia and say into Lebanon, which is unstable in it's political history. And Iraq is drifting into the Iranian orbit, so it can't have a branch connecting to Iraq now. So when it comes to that idea, well it's probably not going to happen. Without which the security of the Persian Gulf deliveries of oil increases.

Another is that Yemen is stable so that Saudi Arabia's southern sphere is stable. Well, Yemen's civil war isn't ending yet. What implications would that have, if say Islamist take over it and stop the shipping towards the Nile onto the Indian Ocean? That'd be pretty serious, Yemen's a lost cause for Western interest I'd say. Even the current dictator is a fool with no real domestic support.

[Dagoth Ur]

Chaos makes extracting resources at rock bottom prices fairly easy. It is as simple as that.

[AFAIK]

Shipping is also significant with the Suez Canal offering a shortcut to Asia. You don't want a regional hegemon to develop to the point where it can block access to shipping lanes.

[redcarpet]

Shipping is also significant with the Suez Canal offering a shortcut to Asia. You don't want a regional hegemon to develop to the point where it can block access to shipping lanes.

The Suez Canal and perhaps the whole of the Nile should be brought under international control. Say a UN force, in the public interest.

And the western entrance to the Mediterranean with/without Gibraltar as well.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

The Suez Canal and perhaps the whole of the Nile should be brought under international control. Say a UN force, in the public interest.

We should also occupy the Barbary Coast in the public interest as well, so as to better fend off Moorish pirates. I have heard many strange tales and rumors of lands deep within the Dark Continent. We should take the whole of the Congo to safeguard its valuable resources, in the interest of its people of course.