In the 50s and 60s, the conservatives (Eisenhower) defined threats in terms of interests while the liberals (Kennedy) defined interests in terms of threats. For an oversimplified example, Eisenhower probably wouldn't have gone into Vietnam even if the commies took over, because the US didn't consider it an "interest" and thus didn't care whether it was threatened. But according to Kennedy, the very fact that the commies were there (e.g. a threat), automatically turned it into an interest.

Kennedy actually had a speech where he said something like, "a threat to freedom anywhere is a threat to free men everywhere" (reminder to self: when I find it put a link here). That in a nutshell is defining interests in terms of threats.

Recently it seems they've traded places again with "neo-cons" defining interests in terms of threats and "liberals" wanting to hold back and define our threats in terms of interests.

Interestingly, during the cold war, while the threats vs. interests ordering got shuffled around a few times, one invariant was the theme of containment. Just meeting with China was Nixon's way to increase the USSR's distrust of China, helping to fragment or contain communism. Supporing Tito in Yugoslavia was enough to help fragment him from the USSR and keep him contained. Where we couldn't prevent communism, we were willing to support small, isolated forms of communism if necessary in order to keep communism as a whole fragmented and contained.

Doing this in the context of the current middle east would mean keeping various groups of fundamentalist extremist Islam fragmented and isolated from each other. Fortunately, they already do this on their own. One of the unique aspects of nearly all religious disputes is because they are based on faith, there is no absolute reference to indicate right from wrong. No dispute ends until one side totally subdues or utterly annihilates the other. Throughout history, religious groups have kept themselves fragmented by bickering or even killing each other over how to split theological hairs. During the first 6 centuries of Christianity, much of the time and energy of the bishops of Rome, Alexandria and Constantinople was spent slaughtering each other over disputes regarding the consubstantiality of the trinity. A more direct and current example is seen in Iraq. The main reason the Sunni and Shiite muslims in Iraq want the Americans to leave is because they want to oppress, terrorize and kill each other yet they know the Americans won't allow that.

Ultimately, I think the people in the middle east, just like people anywhere, do want freedom. But freedom is not necessarily democracy, and democracy is not the only form of self government. In fact, in terms of social stability as measured against ancient and modern history, democracy is overrated as Henry Adams writes so eloquently in his book "The Degradation of the Democratic Dogma." Democracy is only one of many different forms of legitimate self government. As such it is only a means to an end. Yet the US and the rest of the world tend to view democracy as an end in itself. So while the people in the middle east want freedom, they don't necessarily want democracy. And in any case, whatever form of government they end up with, they want to decide for themselves, not have something rammed down their throats (even if what is rammed down their throats is the best long term solution for themselves and the rest of the world).

The big problem here is that these people probably are not in any position to choose for themselves. The populace is rife with extremist religious fundamentalism, low rates of education, high rates of illiteracy, low standards of living, and overall is one giant huddled mass ripe for exploitation by the next demagogue that comes along. And meanwhile, they use the US as a scapegoat for whatever problems they have, regardless of whether those problems have anything to do with the US or its policies. This makes the whole area a ticking time bomb which could explode at any moment whilst we (the US) try to figure out what to do about it.

It must be lots of fun for the analysts (mathematicians and game theorists) in the NSA to mull over this stuff. Unfortunately this is a serious game; the stakes are so high and the lives of millions of people depend on them getting it right.