Few points here:

1.) Afghanistan: the US went in there and cleaned up the Taliban, back in 2002-2003, which was 'all nice and fine' - but de-facto 'curing effects of disease, not the disease itself'. Nothing was done about Pakistan, and nothing about primary supporters of Wahhabism. And where is Wahhabism an official state religion...?

(Connect the dots for yourself.)

And to make matters worse: the US then de-facto forgot about this war and started the Iraq-quagmire instead.

What a surprise then, the Taliban 'are back'. How could that happen...?

2.) Iraq: yes, the US did really everything wrong there. But what's worse, Obama seems to be so insistent on building-up and expanding Bush Jr's mistakes... I really have a huge problem believing what kind of nonsense is he doing there.

Result: given there is not a word of complaint from Tehran about Shi'a ethnically cleansing Sunnis from areas still under Baghdad control (actually: being more busy with this than fighting the Daesh), I would say Iranians are perfectly happy with having a better part of Iraq delivered under their control. That said, they were already in economic control of much of it before, but now they're going to establish themselves so firmly there, there will be no way to do anything in Iraq without consent from Tehran.

But hey, Obama says Iran is fighting the Daesh and that's making even such terrorists like the IRGC, and such Islamist fanatics like their Shi'a militias from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere...'friends'...?!?

3.) Syria: ....sigh... what I find as amazing as Obama's insistent failures in Iraq, is not only the US, but general Western ignorance of the fact that the Assadist regime there is now completely dependent on Tehran. Nobody cares about the fact that two organizations from FBI's list of 'terrorist organizations' - namely the IRGC and Hezbollah - are in charge of regime's military and intelligence apparatus, nor that this apparatus now consists of IRGC/Basiji-like mix of militias (half of these non-Syrian) and little more but gangs of criminals that are using chemical weapons as they like.

But, 'who cares', eh? Saving Iranian-controlled parts of Iraq is so much more important...?!?

Why? Because 'Iraqi government is US-friendly'....?

4.) Kurds: oh yeah, but sure, lets support Kurds, they're the 'good' ones, they're laicist, and pluralist, and inclusive and thus 'unlike all the Moslems that are all terrorists'.

Hey, has anybody there beyond the great barn realized that:

- a) Kurds are fighting for their own, Kurdish state only, not for the USA, not for a unified Iraq, nor for anybody else?

- b) majority of Kurds are Moslems?

- c) nearly a third of Daesh is consisting of Kurds?

- d) none of major Kurdish 'political' parties is 'pluralist', and they act as 'inclusive' only for show?

- e) half of various important Kurdish groups are considered 'terrorists' not only by the USA, but by Turkey, Iran, even Iraq etc.?

5.) Sunni Arabs: the US politics in the Middle East already proved costly for local Christians and other minorities. Now it's proving exceptionally costly for supposedly major 'Arab' allies of the USA - the Sunnis.

But hey: no problem. Keep on teaching Sunnis that they're incompatible with democracy, pluralism, and non-inclusive, and that they should stick with their police-kingdoms. Because these are maintaining control of their population with help of brutal oppression and extremist religion.

All of this is 'perfectly rational', of course - as long as it's for the sake of oil: who cares if the latter is meanwhile hardly interesting for anybody else but for China, India and Japan...