"Archipelago"

After some additional study, I have begun to believe that political/intelligence/diplomatic/military actions involving the US, Great Britain, France, Israel, and the Soviet Union led to a new international order in the Middle East that would outlast the Cold War. It has long-lasting ramifications that we are still dealing with, in one way or another, today.

In fact, yes, it would outlast the Cold War, and the foundations for radical Islamist ideology were laid within this specific window in time. 

(Instability in Syria, Egypt, and Iraq are the focus here. Sunni Wahhabism linked to Osama Bin Laden developed in Saudi Arabia are somewhat of a different focus, although it is indeed linked to a broader, overarching theory about the End of the Age. In the future, a Sunni bloc will end up in a conflict with an alliance of Shia beliefs/finance melded with what I would like to call a "warped version of Catholicism.")

Of particular note is the connection between Israel in the Sinai and the legacy of Hamas.
Also, these covert actions involving Syria, Egypt, and Iraq seem tied to exercising a locus of control over petrol resources.

Before I expound, please keep these two main ideas above in mind.

I would like to direct your attention to Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA (Archipelago, pgs. 162-165).

To me, it seems clear. Egypt's President, Gamal Abdel Nasser seemed intent on pushing pan-Arab and nationalist policies. What do I think took place beneath the veneer of day-to-day business as usual? Does Nasser's actions come across as rational to you?

In 1953, the CIA offered Nasser a $3 million bribe for "terminal control" of the canal zone base.
Or, in other words, to join a proposed Middle East Defense Organization. Nasser took the bribe but refused to follow through on the deal.

The plain fact that Nasser may have been open to bribery indicates that something seemingly uncouth may have be transpiring.

Meanwhile in Syria, the covert activities of the United States were also at work, destabilizing the existing order. By 1955, the Syrian leader Adnan al-Malki was assassinated. The Syrian public linked it to the US and gravitated toward Nasser in Egypt. It had a galvanizing effect, in other words, which I believe was the intended effect. This covert activities continued.

In September 1955, Nasser purchased arms from the Soviet Union through Czechoslovakia. This seemingly irrational, self-destructive activity continued with the nationalization of the Suez canal zone.

Records indicate that the CIA's Cairo station chief James Eichelberger was seemingly caught off-guard, with no "advance notice." (He was probably ignorant of something going on at a higher level in the NSC). Britain's response was disgust. Indications are that France spun the view of Nasser as being cahoots with revolutionaries they were contending with in Algeria, as their colonial ambitions were on the decline.

Israelis were enlisted in a plan to exercise influence in the Suez region.
The Israelis invade the Suez on October 29, 1956.

The idea here seems to be that then the British and French would then intervene, posing as "neutral" arbiters in the conflict.

They did so, two days later.

Some details are disputed in the book Safe for Democracy: Secret Wars of the CIA.

On September 12, 1956, the Paramount Committee was created to track developments in the Suez region in full time. I believe that this committee's collected surveillance would serve as insulation (a "spin buffer") against a level of US complicity in these actions.

"Later, the U-2's by chance captured the very moment of the British bombing of Egyptian airfields."
Sure.

The text continues "the war began with the Israeli attack on October 29, with the Anglo-French intervention a few days later. Equipped with the CIA's intelligence, Eisenhower felt obliged to veto the Anglo-French resolution at the UN Security Council that would have given legal justification for the intervention."
"Compelled?"
In other words, at that point, so far so good.

The British, French, and Israelis would then withdraw their occupation of the Suez, but, in my opinion, the foundation (or origins) of Hamas in the Suez was set up at this point in time.

As stated previously, the Israelis' attacked on October 29. The Paramount Committee was founded on September 12. To me, it seems that the idea was to blame the Brits (accusing them of manipulating the CIA. I don't believe this.) They accused them publicly of blatant colonialist ambitions. (I read a formation of a new order, or the Brits and French "letting go," so to speak.)

The (intended in my opinion) result in Syria was a link in the minds of the Druze tribesmen of the activies in Egypt with the events on the ground in Syria.  They had to move ahead with the plans, due to such short notice. (One Syrian operative had already been paid $65,000 by us agents.)

With this priming of the atmosphere on the ground in Syria, new, continuous action was required.
The next step was Operation Wappen. This involved the CIA in Beirut, Lebanon.

They worked with the SIS (later MI6), plus Iraqi and Jordanian intelligence as well.
They engaged with the Syrian Security, by "suborning the commander of the Syrian armor school."The idea was to have him position his tanks around Damascus in a revolt effort.

Howard Stone relied on his deputy Arthur Close as well as Frank Jetton.
$3 million dollars exchanged hands, but Syria security turned around, handed in the money they had received, and exposed the subversive elements. Stone and Jetton were subsequently exposed in the Syrian press, and they were expelled from the country.

In August 26, 1957, Time Magazine referred to it as "Soviet Propaganda." I think it was an intentional failure. (Syria later became a Soviet client state, with the naval base being built in 1971. Soviet/Russian involvement with the al-Assad family dates back to this time.)

As stated earlier, the CIA was also active in Iraq, for reasons stated above.
In April, 1959, an NSC interagency group (under the guise of anti-Communism) was created.
Eisenhower endorsed an assassination attempt on Abdul Karim Qasim. A junior officer in the Iraqi government, Saddam Hussein, was involved. Regardless of the exact arrangements, or route of involvement, a Ba'ath activist was desired for such a role as this.

"More conspiratorial views hold that Saddam took payments from an Egyptian attache', or that his CIA contact, an Iraqi dentist, had parallel ties to the Egyptians. Unlike the 1958 coup, which took the CIA by surprise, the agency knew of the attempted assassination beforehand. Saddam, who failed, fled to Egypt and returned years later. By one account, it would only be in Egypt that Saddam got in touch with the CIA. Collusion reached everywhere. Iraqi exiles in Beirut bragged of their CIA connections- one told anyone who would listen that he had Allen Dulles's private telephone number. Other evidence suggests the CIA again took measures to incapacitate or eliminate Qasim in 1960, and that it was involved in the coup that overthrew him in 1963. James Critchfield has been cited as making the initial recruitments for the 1963 coup. A senior Iraqi official, in the successor government openly averred, "We came to power on a CIA train."

While the US has been engaging with the myth of the "moderate Syrian rebels," it appears quite clear that additional measures will have to be taken in order to get rid of the Islamic State.

This much is a given and quite obvious.

What also appears obvious is the continued need for the US to work with the allies we may have at hand going into the future, although on a renewed, fresh basis. One that is fit for the 21st century and the world as we now see it, as the world evolves and changes on a daily, hourly, or even minute-by minute basis.

These responsibilities are not to be taken lightly, and I certainly don't.

I'll try not to work so hard.