Your premise that the US is trying to 'destabilize' the Middle East is not correct.

The US - and even China want stability over all else.

Consider the longest-standing geostrategic pact in the M/E - that between Saudi Arabia and the US. This agreement way way predates any kind of support for Israel.

The US keeps the 'House of Saud' in power under the terms that A) there is stability and B) the US has access to the Oil at market prices. The Saudis are free to sell their Oil to whomever they chose, as long as it's competitive. The point being - the Soviets would not roll in and sit on them.

Do you know who the #1 recipient of direct foreign aid is from the USA? Egypt.

Yes - A Muslim country has been, since the 1970's the #1 area of investment for the US.

Why? To keep them from fighting Israel (and to keep the Suez open) The Israel/Egypt conflict is kind of 'in the past' but it is the #1 flashpoint in the M/E - even bigger than the Persian/Arab divide.

The US de-facto controls the Suez - and Panama canal - and guess what? They allow anyone - even 'enemy combat vessels' to flow freely through them. The US, were it truly an Imperial power, could easily not only control the flow, and generate taxes (and tax competitors more than their own) - they could easily forbid Russian, Chinese and Iranian vessels from using those transit points. Same for the Gulf. The US could instantly control who passes and who does not, if they wanted to. But - by and large - they act as police, making sure every vessel can flow freely. (By and large...)

When a small group of young educated people in Afghanistan decided that 'Communism' (Soviet style) was the 'way forward' in Afghanistan in the 1970s, ad Soviet Communism was ravaging through the world in the cold war, the small group of Afghani communists tried to take over Afghanistan. Of course, the population of Afghanistan didn't want that - and forced them out. The young Communists, not to be dissuaded by the 'stupid plebes' - decided to invite in the actual Soviets. The Russian/Soviets came in and ravaged Afghanistan, burning villages, mass killing etc. - causing a carnage of a war. It was reasonable in this scenario for the US to provide small amounts of material support to the Afghanis fighting the Soviets. The Soviets were rocked, the Empire crashed. What was a relatively peaceful Afghanistan for maybe 50 years - so safe it was on the 'hipster travellers circuit of the 1960's - was now a post-war Somalian zone, and the thugs took over - granted they were not 'ideological terrorists'. Of course, they gave protection and comfort to the 'ideological types' (ie. Al Queda), which necessitated intervention after 9/11.

The s*-show in Afghanistan is a part of the after-effects of Soviet Imperialism, and though Afghanistan would still be medieval otherwise, it would be more like the other 'stans' - and not a complete disaster.

The 'cause' of the Iranian government is the spread of their form of Islamic Jihad, and the destruction of the US. They are not 'just some country' - their motivation is existential - and of course this is a problem.

The 'great anarchist/leftist myth' propagated through the last little while is this idea of 'Shock and Awe' i.e Western forces using 'shock' to destabilize and then takeover. It's a myth. Yes - the fall of the Soviet Union caused a flush of dirty money and take-overs, but it was not even classically Western powers that one out, it was others.

'Chaos' is bad for business.

The 'capitalist' instinct of the US is far far stronger than anything else - and what the US 'wants' is to be able to put a 'Starbucks' on every corner of every street of the Middle East, and to get them all buying iPhones, and buying ads on Facebook and Google, and you can't do that in war zones.