The world attempts to adopt progressive attitudes toward capitalism, individual human rights, and political equality, some nations remain philosophically opposed to these Western values. But as globalisation continues, and countries are axiologically merged together, this thinking in terms of Western vs. Eastern or First-world vs. Third-world becomes adversative to the social movements we are witnessing at the beginning of the 21st century.Nevertheless, there still remains an element out there in the world that says some civilisations are as incompatible as oil and water. Political scientist Samuel P. Huntington has identified this in a theory he called the clash of civilisations, which states that the primary source of political conflict in the post-Cold War world is the differing identities of wide regions of individuals. These identities result from religion or culture and can diverge from one another to quite an extreme. As opposed to ideological conflict, the clash of civilisation is the result of clashes in religious or cultural identities. This has come about probably as a result of religious extremism in parts of the world, particularly in the Middle East. As Huntington says, The clash of civilisations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilisations will be the battle lines of the future (Huntington).One might wonder what impact this perspective might have on the prospect of American intervention in the affairs of the Middle East, a region whose civilisation is extremely different from that of the West. The answer lies in recognising the simple fact that the United States is but a representative of Western civilisation. Western powers have been meddling in Middle Eastern affairs for nearly a hundred years, ever since the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I.