We primarily fund the other Middle Eastern countries to keep Israel safe. Were it not for Israel, we would just have normal diplomatic relations with them.
The U.S. did more than its fair share to glom onto those lines of exploitation and keep them alive at the expense of locals. e.g. Iran is what it is today because of U.S. oil interests. The CIA installed an authoritarian Shah when Iran's (at the time) democratic government started taking control of its own oil industry (American oil companies would have had to start paying taxes). Rule under the Shah was "unpleasant" for Iranians and revolution was the direct response. Hence, theocracy.
Israel is a special case in the Middle East. The zionist movement gained state sponsors and convinced European powers (and the U.S.) to pour money in instead of sucking it out. How they did that is a question that stretches back well into the 19th century. I'd argue that a lot of it was the result of people who had their hearts in the right places. Things just went sideways when it came to Israelis and Palestinians co-existing peacefully. At least some of the idealists of the early zionist movement honestly believed the influx of Jewish people would be a benefit to Arabs already living in Palestine.
Teodore Hertzl (Zionism’s founder) was explicit about the need to ethically cleanse the Palestinians from their land.
(I ask not because it's inconceivable, but because Herzl died almost half a century before Israel declared its independence. Ze'ev Jabotinsky is more consistently identified with revisionist Zionism/territorial maximalism.)
https://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quot...
This is in marked contrast to Jabotinsky, who says these things explicitly[1]:
> Zionism is a colonizing adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important to build, it is important to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot – or else I am through with playing at colonialization.
And:
> We cannot offer any adequate compensation to the Palestinian Arabs in return for Palestine. And therefore, there is no likelihood of any voluntary agreement being reached
This isn’t to somehow excuse Herzl; he’s still an essentially colonial thinker. But from what I can tell he never thought deeply about the political mechanics of Israel/Palestine itself, in part because of European colonial assumptions around a lack of Palestinian connection to the land.
(Or in other words: Jabotinsky’s “innovation” is realizing that the Palestinians are a people with real attachments, not just realtors. It’s from there that he concludes, decades later, that displacement is the only workable strategy. He is, needless to say, also wrong.)
Edit: or another framing is that Herzl was too racist and provincializing in his limited view of Arabs/Palestinians to see where his movement would go.