[TrumpCard]

Our track record of dealing with countries in the Middle East is poor.  Who knows what the world would be like if Eisenhower had refused Churchill's request for help to save its oil business in Iran.  I think all the democratic government in Iran wanted was half the profits, so today we have the Ayotalla.

There is however much more to the story. The elected leader of Iran was arguably clinically insane. At least that thread of opinion very strongly existed in the intelligence community, and his actions in general did nothing but reinforce the idea. It is very hard to say what would have happened if the US hadn't propped up the Shah. We know what happened doing what we did. We can't know whether another course of action (or inaction) would have been better.

Goose makes good points as always, but I am not so uncomfortable with GK3's point that the CIA's intervention in Iran turned out poorly. 
I'm less confident we can generalize about from that point to say that U.S. involvement in foreign policy in the Middle East is a bad idea.
I think the answer depends at least in part on how would you define "intervention" and "Middle East."  
Why would interventions aimed at regime change in Afghanistan, Libya and Iran have strong predictive value for a different type of intervention in a war between Israel and Hamas/Hezbollah?  (Let's assume we aren't happy about the outcomes in any of those 3 countries.)
Does the U.S.' record in regime change by force imply the U.S. shouldn't be involved in a largely non-military moderator capacity, like it is now? 
I would say the U.S. role in moderating the accords with Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, UAE, and Morocco worked out well. 
Even U.S.'s limited military involvement in the Yom Kippur War turned out well.
If we were to look at the history of military engagements in the Middle East, I would argue that's possibly the closest analogy to the current war.

[TrumpCard]

Our track record of dealing with countries in the Middle East is poor.  Who knows what the world would be like if Eisenhower had refused Churchill's request for help to save its oil business in Iran.  I think all the democratic government in Iran wanted was half the profits, so today we have the Ayotalla.

There is however much more to the story. The elected leader of Iran was arguably clinically insane. At least that thread of opinion very strongly existed in the intelligence community, and his actions in general did nothing but reinforce the idea. It is very hard to say what would have happened if the US hadn't propped up the Shah. We know what happened doing what we did. We can't know whether another course of action (or inaction) would have been better.

Goose makes good points as always, but I am not so uncomfortable with GK3's point that the CIA's intervention in Iran turned out poorly. 
I'm less confident we can generalize about from that point to say that U.S. involvement in foreign policy in the Middle East is a bad idea.
I think the answer depends at least in part on how would you define "intervention" and "Middle East."  
Why would interventions aimed at regime change in Afghanistan, Libya and Iran have strong predictive value for a different type of intervention in a war between Israel and Hamas/Hezbollah?  (Let's assume we aren't happy about the outcomes in any of those 3 countries.)
Does the U.S.' record in regime change by force imply the U.S. shouldn't be involved in a largely non-military moderator capacity, like it is now? 
I would say the U.S. role in moderating the accords with Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, UAE, and Morocco worked out well. 
Even U.S.'s limited military involvement in the Yom Kippur War turned out well.
If we were to look at the history of military engagements in the Middle East, I would argue that's possibly the closest analogy to the current war.