I don't think it's impossible to come to consensus in the Middle East, but I do think it's highly improbable.

It seems like one of the things Huntington was trying to illustrate was that it's not just a matter of opposing interests between us and them, it's a matter of diametrically opposed perspectives. We see things in terms of how it affects our nation and us as Americans and we negotiate with the leaders of other countries based on that. The Muslims see things in terms of how it affects their tribe, or their religious sect, or their immediate community, not a national identity. Huntington's point seemed to be that the nation-state in Islamic society isn't the ultimate authority for negotiation because the people don't recognize the authority of national identity as we do. Unless that changes, like in the case of Turkey, then the strongmen and the dictators in the Middle East may be the best bet for us. They aren't representing the interests of their people, and it creates its own problems, but at least they are a cohesive body to negotiate with and they can usually get their people to adhere to agreements with us (although, of course, not always).