You say this, but then plot a graph of "historic interest of the US in the ME" against, "oil dependency on the middle east" -- you'll find out why US influence is at a historic low.
The widthdrawl from afganistan wouldntve happened without shale, america would be giving up a overwhelming order-imposing capacity in the region to induce chaos; that wouldnt make sense if it needed the ME as it did in the 2000s.
It's not entirely clear how relationships would exist in the ME if it wasnt the site of great power resource competition. The superstructure of the current setup, indeed the borders of the countries we are talking about, are drawn by these issues.
You are indeed agreeing with me when you say that part of what's happening is waning US "influence" (really: interest) -- the US has had, since obama, an explicit ME withdrawl policy that it's never been able to fully execute.
What we are, indeed, seeing are the effects of that withdrawl over time.
> then plot a graph of "historic interest of the US in the ME" against, "oil dependency on the middle east"
I'd love to see such a plot :D One would have to come up with some proxy-metrics to stand in (one shouldn't use explicit axis labels though, that would destroy the nice vibe of having such a plot). There might be dozens of plausible versions of such a plot that might even differ enough to allow any claim one wants.