There are two points of views on whether or not the billions of dollars military aid (and trade) by America to friendly Middle Eastern countries are sensible.

The case against such aid, especially to Israel, is best put forth by the Lebanese Prime Minister  Fouad Seniora.

In a nutshell, his arguments go as follows: More weapons to Israel -> More Arab and Muslim grievances against America-> More Terrorists.
Moreover, according to Seniora, the same money could be spent on promoting peace instead of war. (In his mind, he’s thinking of the Saudi peace initiative)

Proponents of the aid packages on the other hand view them as a critically important component in the new “cold war” against Iran.

Many strategists had argued that the best way to defeat Iran is by using a combination of containment and arms race. In the end, the Iranian regime would collapse just like the Soviet empire did, simply because its economy couldn’t keep up with that of the US and its (very rich) allies.

Recent signs of weakening in Iran have emboldened supporters of containment like secretary of States Condoleezza rice and Journalists like David Ignatius. From petrol rationing leading to violent demonstrations to rising popular discontent that lead to brutal crackdowns on women, students and the elderly, the mullahs are starting to pant.

Bringing in American warships close to Iran’s shores and arming Iran’s strategic opponents (Gulf states, Egypt + Israel) can scare Iran enough to divert even more resources out of basic services for its people into arms for itself and for Its proxies. At the end, the Iranian people would do the dirty work.

So which strategy is more sensible?