middle east

I think that the problem of terrorism is based on two fundamental matters: the presence of USA in the Persian Gulf and the Palestinian case. And it will be solved or radically improved when USA cease to consider the Persian Gulf a sort of personal property, and when the Palestinians will at last have a land.
After the end of British colonialism in Iran, the British refused to give Iran the control of the oil in Iran territory. And this is the beginning of some terrorist actions. USA joined the contrast and they never ceased to control the area: they eliminated Mossadegh in Iran and established the criminal dictatorship of Shah Palevi. Carter, at the end of the 70s, was one of the mildest US Presidents (the Americans would say the weakest) and he emphasized the importance of peaceful international relationships and the defense of human rights. He also disliked Shah Palavi but he refused to extradite him to Iran after the beginning of Komeini's power because the Shah would certainly have been killed. After the assault of the US Embassy in Teheran in 1979 and the capture of the 50 American hostages by Iranian students, the situation got worse. He could not solve the problem of the hostages, and another important problem rose: the Soviets invaded Afganistan and even he, the most peaceful of the US Presidents, considered this an attack to US themselves, and concentrated his efforts to free the Persian Gulf of the Soviet power, considering it unbearable that the Soviet Union replaced US in the control of the Persian Gulf. With Reagan there are new wars in the Persian Gulf ... up to now.
The question is: which rights do the US have to control the Persian Gulf as if it were the backyard of their house?
Terrorism is also a reply to this.
Second: Palestine. If the Palestinians do not have a land of their own, peace in the Middle East will remain impossible. There is no Palestine. There is only the State of Israel which controls also Palestine. Both Israelis and Palestinians have right to a piece of land, but so far only Israelis have one.
Terrorism will finish, I think, when the Persian Gulf countries will no longer be controlled by foreign countries and when the Palestinians will have a territory.
Is it really so absurd to think that a nation should do what is clearly right and not only what is its interest? Carter gave up the control of Panama Channel: this of course was considered a small suicide by Americans as they would no longer control the area. But this improved the international relationships, the independence of Panama and it was simply right: that nation at last got again the control of its territory. Carter is considered weak by Americans but he did some good choices, if not from the interested point of view of American safes, from the point of view of the international law. Reagan is, on the contrary, appreciated as a strong President who improved the economy of USA. But no matter if the cost of this improvement was a strong reduction of the workers' rights and an increase of the tension in the Persian Gulf. I think each citizen has the duty to judge the politics of one's country not only from a local point of view, but considering the consequences of one's policy also on the foreign countries.
As regards Iraq, how can people not see that a whole country is being completely destroyed? How can people not wonder if the US presence there is legitimate?