This is one reason to steer clear of 'current events' in any AH. I have studied the history of the region since the early bronze age quite extensively (this is ongoing) and the amount of bad information, very biased material and political left/right/whatever interpretations really is truly remarkable.  I was very lucky to have as an initial lecturer a dispassionate and well regarded historian, and part of the course was 'bias identification and removal of emotion from assessment'. Oversimplifying outrageously, the main biases are derivatives of 19th century Romanticism and 19th century anti-semitism/racism and their modern analogues.

These days, ideological polarisation is such that I routinely observe that a rational discussion of Middle-East issues is close to impossible with Europeans and is very difficult with North Americans, Kiwis and my fellow Australians. I have had perfectly calm and rational discussions with Singaporeans, Indians, Taiwanese, South Koreans, Japanese, Chinese and Filipinos over the years, they tend to stand outside the polarisation (Singaporeans, Chinese and South Koreans especially).

The Chinese in general are deeply contemptuous of most 'round-eye-views' on the subject. A rather pragmatic folk, PRC/ROC/Singaporean Chinese take a general view that with Israel, Egypt and Jordan business can be done and they behave as civilised people in that order: these are civilised states although that can change fast with Egypt. The Saudis and minor gulf states tend to be considered semi-civilised barbarians with whom business can be done on Chinese terms only and cash before delivery, thanks. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Sudan they tend to regard as "barbaric chaos-zones full of howling savages" (yes, that's a quote from one interlocutor - and he was a Malaysian Muslim! Others are ... more blunt.) - keep well away unless you have lots of well-armed mercenaries or have colonised the place and own its power-elite (which is what the PRC's done to North Sudan!).

All of which explains that when we had to look at 'what to do from 'old FFO to APOD', neutralising current polarisation and passions was a natural and desirable move. That is accorded with the 'old FFO' drivers just made it a no-brainer.

If we extend APOD postwar, we won't get trolled to death by the partisan ignoratii. Seriously, who wants that sort of hassle?

Basically what is nebulously planned is that we have King Faisal sell a big slab of the Sinai to Israel while an Imperial Strategic Reserve sits in the Canal Zone and Sinai to guarantee the canal and make sure Egypt gets paid. So no 1956, no Arab-Israeli wars, nothing except Cold War matters with Nasser's nationalists and his lot. And that will be lessened as the Muslim brotherhood will be extinct.

That will enable us to basically ignore the ME, as it's neutralised.

Cheers: Mark

On a personal note, I hope you have a similar dispassionate teacher on that course. I have observed in too many universities here in Australia that it's too often a case of 'Comrade Professor personally hates Israel and says that wahabist and Salafist terrorists are just dreamy'

As a guy until recently employed in a basic CT role, that's quite disturbing.