Israel does not have any oil. The arabs do. So what oil argument is there for supporting Israel over the Arabs.
Israel is there, and has a population that has no allegiance to either more specific Sunni or more general Islamic community. With that, and their relationships with the above, they are stuck not being able to make friends with local islamists, and on top of that they have a non-Arab army.
This makes them a unique regional ally. Turkey was kinda similar in that regard and more, but between its own problems and also is experiencing reliability problems currently. Yet Turkey doesn't have oil either.
Iran used to be a good US ally (they didn't sell F-14's to just about anyone), but then the islamic revolution happened and things shifted 180 degrees, so there's an argument for having alternate options.
Who does have oil? Gulf States mostly. But they have the meme defining Arab armies, so in any serious fight they are more of a ball than a player.
The Islamist argument I'll give you, it makes sense to have the Muslims distracted fighting Jews instead of expanding elsewhere, but you can also make an argument that support for Israel draws Muslims to attack you even if they don't border you.
Just being infidels also draws them to attack you if they have particular opportunity, see Sweden, about as far away from Middle East and its conflicts as possible.
The other argument with Islamists is the Afghanistan style problems (international terror orgs shelter under sovereignty of an islamist friendly government so those have to be destroyed, or at least contained) and the pirate problem (land and sea, islamists allowed to operate at large scale attacking shipping and land transport infrastructure of nearby third parties, damaging oil market).
Muslims are bad neighbors just like Russians are, India can attest to that, however it's only nations like the US that has problems with Muslims that are not a local part of it's territory. Nations like Japan, or Mexico that don't have muslim populations and don't get involved in that part of the world don't really have to worry about Islamists.
No, they have USA to represent their interests there obviously.
Two "flying objects" damaged a Japanese tanker owned by Kokuka Sangyo Co in an attack on Thursday in the Gulf of Oman, but there was no damage to the cargo of methanol, the company president said on Friday.
www.reuters.com
As for the migrant argument there is no argument, how is Israel helping to keep migrants out of Europe? They haven't done anything they aren't taking any in nor are preventing them from coming. The Turks are more useful than Israel at stopping migrants.
Keeping islamist forces in Egypt and Lebanon on their toes.
Yes viable alternatives to Russia, those would be the middle east and America. Thats why wanting stable middle eastern states that sell oil to be stable and not attacked is useful.
Yup.
It's not a bullshit argument. Those countries were ALWAYS shitholes yet people only really started migrating in the 2000's.
Information age and creeping progressivism have finally reached a breaking point.
Before then, they didn't even imagine the westerners would be anywhere near naive enough to allow this kind of shit at this kind of scale, and westerners themselves may have been to sane too let local leftist activists push through their super wide interpretation of refugee conventions.
But then it slowly crept up, and then, with proliferation of internet and mobile phones reaching third world, the most interested people also knew, and that's what made the dam break.
Also third world itself got rich enough to even afford such travels. Even at the height of migrant crisis the going rate per migrant for the whole trip was few thousands USD, and currently it goes into high 4/low 5 digits.
Why did we not face this problem in the 90's 80's or 70's or even earlier?
This is a distinctly post cold war "end of history" problem. Back then security was taken seriously in the west, even if only because of the overarching narrative of conflict with the Soviet Union. And not just in the physical sense, but also in the sense of security services not allowing the left to run completely crazy in political/media sphere.
It's because when America was stomping around in the middle east it gave those economic migrants the cover they need to slip in. Of course this is also Europe's fault for not just having soldiers shoot anyone who tries to cross the border illegally. But the globalists would just use the U.S. to sanction any nation that did that.
Libya, Suez Crisis, Lebanon, of course America was involved then.
Yes I don't think most politicians buy into the Evangelical bull crap they are too smart. But many American conservatives are those idiot evangelicals and they spread that idea on and vote for it to become policy.
Also yes Iran making a Persian Empire can be a very dangerous thing. While the middle east being stable under competent leadership can be a boon so that oil trade can be stable, it will also give them a lot of leverage to cut off all the supply.
Obviously it would be years before it would become stable again, if ever.
The transitionary period would do plenty enough damage to most of western economies.
Here is the thing no one in Europe is supporting Iran taking all the middle east, at most they won't care if they gobble up Iraq.
Doesn't matter if they support it by word, what are they going to do to stop it and with what.
But the rest of the middle east would be supported because the choice isn't between smart Persians, and dumb Arabs. There are other Muslims that can be supported like Kurds, or god help us the Turks.
Kurds are more of a meme than a serious player in the region, and Turks got pushed into islamist direction too much for anyone's comfort (thanks EU).
Neither of those people are incompetent and if Iran really needed to be checked they could be used to do it.
Not to mention that if you want to support either, you get yourself into conflict with the other naturally.
Owning property is not a puppet. They aren't taking territory, or imposing their laws, or even putting their soldiers in Europe. At that point we may as well say that Europe is America's puppet.
Controlling enough strategic infrastructure means that if push comes to shove, they practically can control your large scale trade.