""That's an interesting, and I think an utterly fallacious viewpoint""

It entirely depends on from how (the perspective) you view the quote in the article and the siuation. It does not seem anywhere like an "utterly false" perspective to me.

I suspect the meaning of the quote (from the discussion) had little to do with upholding the interests of the World, but more to do with supporting the interests of the USA (thay can differ).

A main interest of the USA has been financial, stable oil supplies and prices. The other interest, which has evolved, is keeping anti USA regimes at bay (Iran is clearly one), or cutting them down. Like it or not, Israel has been the closest and most stable USA ally in that region,with military and intelligence capacity they can mostly count on. So, keeping Israel in place and militarily strong has been a USA interest (they receive much aid). One can argue that this has not been an effective or the correct approach, but, regardless, it has indeed been an approach in the region.

Who has the "right" to be the most fearful and to take measures to defend (even proactively) their interests, Iran or Israel? I suspect both have a valid point and that is a main reasoon for the situation. Both feel increasingly sourrounded by unfriendly forces,fear for the future and act accordingly. I suspect that either country, with the support of some other nations, would prefer (for a variety of their own reasons) the the other would "dissapear".

What is clear to me is that both Iran and Israel have the most to loose from an direct conflict. While other countries may feel they have a stake in the matter and something potentially to loose (thus their actions), they have less to loose than the people of these two nations.

If there were no oil in the region, I wonder if the potential conflict would be treated more like the world deals with such matters in neighbouring African nations, with no such oil reserves?