Here is a link to the most sensible analysis of the Middle East I've ever read.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9302

Some excerpts:

>>Strategically, the Arab-Israeli conflict has been almost irrelevant since the end of the cold war. And as for the impact of the conflict on oil prices, it was powerful in 1973 when the Saudis declared embargoes and cut production, but that was the first and last time that the "oil weapon" was wielded.>>

>>Yes, it would be nice if Israelis and Palestinians could settle their differences, but it would do little or nothing to calm the other conflicts in the middle east from Algeria to Iraq, or to stop Muslim-Hindu violence in Kashmir, Muslim-Christian violence in Indonesia and the Philippines, Muslim-Buddhist violence in Thailand, Muslim-animist violence in Sudan, Muslim-Igbo violence in Nigeria, Muslim-Muscovite violence in Chechnya, or the different varieties of inter-Muslim violence between traditionalists and Islamists, and between Sunnis and Shia,….>

>>As for the claim that the "Iranians" are united in patriotic support for the nuclear programme, no such nationality even exists. Out of Iran's population of 70m or so, 51 per cent are ethnically Persian, 24 per cent are Turks ("Azeris" is the regime's term), with other minorities comprising the remaining quarter. Many of Iran's 16-17m Turks are in revolt against Persian cultural imperialism; its 5-6m Kurds have started a serious insurgency; the Arab minority detonates bombs in Ahvaz; and Baluch tribesmen attack gendarmes and revolutionary guards. If some 40 per cent of the British population were engaged in separatist struggles of varying intensity, nobody would claim that it was firmly united around the London government.>>

Edward Luttwak concludes as follows:

>>Unless compelled by immediate danger, we should therefore focus on the old and new lands of creation in Europe and America, in India and east Asia—places where hard-working populations are looking ahead instead of dreaming of the past.End of the article>>

For audio go to:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2007/1941788.htm

i think i'll continue to pay attention to the area where the bombs are going off. since some of the major leaders of conflict are frank about intending to punish western nations for sins of the british occupation and american hegemony, and have demonstrated capacity to do so, this will be a popular feeling in every western foreign affairs ministry.

filing the middle east under "too-hard" or "trivial importance" is possible if your interest is looking for a tourist destination, but alas, it's more complicated than that.

The bombs are going off in Sudan and people are dying in their tens of thousands.

The war in Congo & Rwanda killed 4 million people. That's more than died in the Iran – Iraq war, Gulf wars 1 and 2 and the Iraqi post war aftermath combined. Nobody paid much attention.

The killing in Congo is still going on. People are even less interested than Sudan.

The Javanese are colonizing West Papua just to the North of us.

So what's so special about the Middle-East?

Due you really think the sad little country of Iran is a threat?

Do you think Iran is even going to be able to remain in one piece?

Right now – Luttwak did not cover this – the Sunni in Khuzestan is waging a secessionist war. Khuzestan happens to be where most of Iran's oil is located. Do you think that preposterous little theocracy could survive without oil revenues which accounts for two thirds of government revenue?

The story of most of the Arab Middle-East is one of stagnation. It's not just that they haven't caught up with "the West." It's that they're falling behind the nations of Asia. There are even serious doubts as to whether they can remain ahead of sub-Saharan Africa. They are by far their own worst enemies.

The Middle-East is just not worth all the attention it's getting.

The rest of the world needs to greatly accelerate effort create alternatives to Middle East oil. I am sure we can create a solar-hydrogen economy in a few years if we apply ourselves. Unfortunately this probably won’t happen until we are denied Middle East oil or the price of oil forces the use of alternatives. Apart from oil nothing emanates from the Middle East apart from an underclass with a high birth rate and a desire to force their values on the rest of us.

I must say through boredom I am sympathetic to sawing off the middle east and Iran.
Unfortunately they are intruding into the "West" via immigration and
bringing their conflicts, imagined or real with them.
It just becomes totally complicated because we will be relying at least
for the next 20 to 30 years on the area for oil.
So as much as I would be in favour of ignoring the Middle East I am afraid
that it is not a realistic proposal.
It will take us at least 20 years to get ourselves free of oil and onto
a transition fuel. One thing I can submit, it won't be Hydrogen.
Electricity is a much better energy carrier.

Just so everyone knows the leading '08 US Republicans just said they would support a nuclear strike against Iran premptively. This is in addition to the US building missile bases next to Russia.

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=144&a=2276

"Nine of ten candidates for the Republican presidential nomination explicitly or tacitly supported a US attack on Iran using nuclear weapons, in response to a question at Tuesday night’s nationally televised debate in New Hampshire.
Despite the extraordinary character of these declarations—giving support to the first use of nuclear weapons in war since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 62 years ago—there was virtually no US press coverage of these remarks and no commentary on their significance."