I mentioned many conflicts and many countries so this is very broad to cover in one comment but i will try, briefly. I have heard many theories given over the years to justify these interventions - democracy, capitalism, liberalism, oil, minerals, gas-pipelines, gas-fields, neoconservatism, neoliberalism, neo-colonialism, fighting terror, WMDs, fighting rogue states, checking expansionism, checking communism, countering soviet union, countering russia, countering china, oil contractors, defense contractors, petrodollar, maintaining global reserve system, global security, stability, American national security, European security, national security of Gulf allies, shipping lanes and trade routes and finally Israeli national security. How many of those goals were achieved? What did America get out of the Iraq War? Was Libyan intervention a net win for France ? Or Europe? My question is after 20 years, how much of those theories still hold up. Don't get me wrong, many of those things mentioned were indeed motivations and played a part in many of the cases. But ultimately most of these theories crumble in the face of 20 years of evidence. Except the Israel Theory. Reading Israel's national security strategy (outlined in documents like the "Clean break" report and the "Yinon Plan") Suddenly all the seeming 'naive' and 'futile' actions of the west , all the failed intervations, human catastrophes, blowbacks and disasters; they all make sense.

I am not saying all the people, protestors/fighters, parties, involved were mossad/cia agents or all of them arose out of covert action. I am saying that is what shaped them, and ultimately determined their outcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinon_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_...

I agree with @epsters perspective - while it may not have been done at the behest of Israel, it is increasingly becoming clear that most of these so-called "revolutions" exploited the naivety of the youth and incited them through planned (CIA? MI6? Mossad?) social media campaigns on platform all controlled by the west. Throw in a violent, committed group into the mix of these naive young idiots when they are protesting, to deliberately target and provoke the police or the army, and you have the recipe to start a civil war in any country and potentially destabilise it. The aim (from what is apparent in Ukraine, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal etc.) seems to be to replace experienced politicians with inexperienced politicians who can then be easily influenced and manipulated (over a period of time) to completely flip government policies to match the interest of the foreign powers behind the incitement.