There is no better illustration of why constant, low-level tensions in the Middle East are preferred among planners in the White House, for at least the last eight administrations.
The regional regimes acting as US clients are assigned the task of preserving local and/or regional order. Especially where petroleum resources are at stake, Saudi Arabia and its Persian Gulf neighbors are expected to maintain the status quo. For this reason, the Arab Spring's lack of traction around the Gulf is conspicuous. The tiny island country of Bahrain is a good example of the low tolerance the leadership - in this case the ruling al-Khalifa family (with Saudi support) - has for democratic energies among the population, referred to as "instability" and chalked up to "external manipulation" by one's enemies.
The Gulf states historically have had limited involvement in ensuring regional order. Typically, matters of hard power are tended to by Israel or directly by the Pentagon. Nevertheless, the oil-rich monarchies on the Persian Gulf do come in handy when Washington opens "negotiations" for their purchase of American weaponry.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/09/world/middleeast/piecing-together-a-regional-missile-defense.html
