Good point.
That's true -- It was being discussed in the 70's and it was probably anticipated before then. However, if the US was simply at war with enemy states in the ME, it would have been out a long time ago. There's much more behind these protracted operations against states that never actually threatened the USA. Follow the money.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement created the fictitious ME states of today and stoked Arab resentment of the West, yes, but much has happened since: Israel, oil demand, Iranian revolution, Russian revolution, all and more have changed things greatly. Besides, if it's reasonable to suggest that the British & French were, at the time, foolish or short-sighted or arrogant, is it not also reasonable to suggest that they were devious or, perhaps, being used? Germany had the Great War won until the US entered; who got what in exchange for that?
Nor should anyone. Follow the money.
Syria's dictator is a moderate, pragmatic, and much-beloved ruler of a state that posed no threat to anyone (not even to Israel for the last 45 years). The "refugee situation" is a result of the West's adventures there and whatever/whoever is behind them.
That's how it's sold.
It took one year for the USA to defeat Imperial Japan (3 more before the Emperor admitted it to himself), while simultaneously prosecuting a war in Europe, and another year or so to transform it into an American-style Democracy. For how long now have we been "advancing Democracy" in the ME? Obama campaigned on getting the USA out of there. Why are we still there? Trump campaigned on getting us out of there. Why are we still there?
It ain't to "make the world safe for Democracy."