The execution of Shi’ite cleric Nimr al-Nimr and 46 convicted al-Qaeda members by the Saudis triggered a still-unfolding crisis between the Kingdom and Iran. Protesters in Tehran set fire to the Saudi embassy, and the Iranian government threatened that the Saudis will face “divine” revenge.
I reread this article to make sure; yep, not one word about how this execution ultimately benefits Saudi Arabian military allies in the MENA. Who benefits from another proxy war in this " burnt over " area of the world? Who opposed most vehemently the latest deal ending the isolation with Iran, besides the Saudis/GCC, of course? Which country sticks out, like a sore thumb, but who Mr. Van Buren fails to even mention at all, regarding the "realpolitik " of a true diplomatic solution in Syria, et al. And, no, I'm not talking about Turkey. Though, Erdogan certainly is living up to his country's name, of late. More parlour intrigue about a place most Americans want very little to do with.
"naively bumbling into Iraq in 2003"
Don't talk crap, Mr van Buren. It was about as naive as the European powers bumbling into Africa in the 19th Century. It was a deliberate attempt to gain control of Iraqi oil.
Still unreported is the information gleaned from Hilary Clinton Emails when she was Secretary of State. The MsM ignores it entirely.
In the attack on Libya in those "Confidential emails" Ms Clinton mentions the desire by the French to re-establish French Influence in North Africa , for Western Corporations to get greater benefits from Libyan Oil and to ensure Qaddafi did not create his gold backed Dinar.
While she was writing these emails in private , she was publiclly proclaiming a "humanitarian crisis" and the need to protect innocent lives from Qaddafi.
Any spokesperson that continues to suggest US Machinations in the area are a result of "naive bumbling" is either naive themself or trying to spin a lie. The USA WANTS to stoke tensions between the Saudis and Iran and encourages them along.