I disagree with the article and don't like its snide and contemptuous tone.
I agree with those that feel the west bears a great deal of the responsibility for the current situation by imposing artificial borders.
The US encouraged and supported Saddam Hussein's war against Iran and provided him with military intelligence and weapons, including the chemical/biological weapons that he used against the Iranians.
He was useful to them then. When he later became less co-operative and his actions threatened the US's access to very cheap oil, the US suddenly decided that he was a tyrant - which he undoubtedly was, but they had managed to overlook it when he was "their" tyrant.
The invasion of Iraq was, I feel, wrong and I and thousands of other "peaceniks" as this article sneeringly referred to us, marched against it. The warnings that many knowledgeable people gave were ignored and now we have a terrible situation in Iraq and surrounding countries. It appears that the US's opposition to the Syrian and Iranian regimes may now be "temporarily suspended" but the whole thing is such a mess now that who knows where it will all end.
During the Iraq war, David Aaronovitch was wheeled out on many occasions to give his unwavering support to the invasion.