Especially those between Shia and Sunni, Arab and Persian, Kurd and Persian, Arab and Kurd, etc... One would be somewhat foolish to think in terms of 'containment', 'detente' and 'counterbalance'.

With respect to the somewhat artificial and very corrupt and autocratic nation-states which are laid on top of the main struggles, yes- there can be those essentially contemporary and western notions. They apply because the usually degenerate and autocratic governments in the region are still motivated by self interest, greed, power- etc. In other words, all the basic motivations of nation states.

However, and this is key: even in as much as those things apply to the over-laid governments, the strength of the detente, containment or whatever is only as powerful as the deficient government in question.

Take these examples:

Egypt and Syria, as governmental agencies, no longer view it as in their political interest to continue warfare or open aggression towards Israel... However, the various radical factions that operate within these countries freely (due to the fact that their governments are not cohesive or effectual) want nothing more than to kill every Israeli and are busily engaged in that endeavor.

Iraq and Iran fought to a political stalemate, but many Iraqi Shia and many Iranian Shia see eachother as natural allies and perhaps even long-lost brothers. Same thing with Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey and the Kurdish population.

So we can try to play Saudi Arabia against Iran in classic western arrogance (you know, the same arrogance that drew a lot of artificial political boundaries over preexisting political boundaries and ethnic divisions... helping to bring about this hellhole called the middle east), we can think in terms of setting up 'checks and balances' where its in the 'best political interest' of the countries not to go to war with eachother....

But then there is the genocidal tensions boiling beneath the plastic surface of the political boundaries.

Chances are, with the CIA and State Department as ignored and isolated from the policy decisions as they are, we will more likely than not end up throwing lit matches and gasoline on the situation... See Also: The invasion of Iraq.

Arming Saudi Arabia is nothing new. However, the context of our arming Saudi Arabia has fundamentally changed, and I don't think its a good idea.

What would be Ideal is to make oil a worthless commodity, so these worthless, corrupt nation states (dictators and 14th century style royal families!) will be forced to express the will of their populace, and these preposterous idiologies-turned-governments (Iran, radical Islam, etc) that couldn't stack one block on top of the other without billions of dollars of oil money to hire foreign consultants will fail. So that these hollow-shell countries could not afford the first-world militaries that they lack the economic infrastructure to produce.

How to do it all without a number of genocidal wars is as intractable a problem as getting the world off oil (thus rendering it worthless).

However, what is not a good answer is walking into these ant-hill pseudo-countries and throwing around guns, bombs and standing up yet-even-more deficient governments.

In the aftermath of 911, we wanted a WWII like scene of tanks rolling en-mass across enemy lines. Defeated 'bad guys' and Camel smoking GIJoes putting the evil doers under their boot hill. Thats the victory that we wanted, and various factions of our government sold the American populace the idea that they would get that culturally-defined victory if we accepted that Iraq was a valid target.

But, unfortunately, it wasn't. It was like shooting the next-door-neighbor of the person who burned down your house.

Ohwell. What the answers are, I don't have many, but what we shouldn't have done and where this could all end up if we don't pull a rabbit out of the geopolitical hat in the next few years: Thats pretty clear.