He said the US would support any state in the Middle East that felt threatened by Iran, and would not "stand by" if Iran destabilised the region.
I think the Secretary of State left out a word there.
It should have read: would not "stand by" if Iran
further destabilised the region
A fair criticism of American policy that led to going into Iraq in 2003 is that it has resulted in a destabilization of the region, politically. A further policy decision to support "the Arab spring" can as well be criticized as having further added to the political instability.
Granted, if change is/was to happen, what goes on during the process of change can be a lessening of stability until change has taken effect, or been rejected and the old way returned to.
But as we are not There yet, in any kind of end state, it is unfair for our Secretary to lay too much burden on Iran for its contribution to regional instability. As I've pointed out before: people against going into Iraq, in 2002, like General Zinni who had just stepped down as CENTCOM commander, asserted based on regional experiences that taking down Iraq would be a boon to Iran and its regional plans.
This has come to pass.
President Bush wanted to change the Middle East, starting in Iraq. This he did, for better or worse.
President Obama wanted to change the Middle East, in his support for "the Arab Spring" etc.
This he did, for better or for worse.
The government in Iran wishes to influence change in the Middle east ... for better or for worse. This they are trying to do, or doing.
Good for the goose, and all that.
