Natural resources dominating the economy drives conflict and economic clusterfucks in all but the richest, most stable democracies (i.e. everywhere except Norway).
Oil's decline in importance might be the only way to escape this cycle (even if it will probably lead to bloodshed first).
It's been violent and reactionary for centuries.
The natural resource that drove the Romans and Greeks, and later Europe to colonize that region was: trade routes.
Frankly; Turkey, Persia, and Egypt have also been at each other's throats over regional dominance for centuries.
The middle-east has been a powerhouse since before Europe was a thing. They have been fighting each other for tens of millenniums.
I don't think oil was that big a factor before WWI though. You have to remember that until cars come along the entire industrial revolution is powered by coal and the UK had plenty of coal. Oil only becomes important after the first world war -- at the same time the Ottoman Empire that had ruled most of the middle-east is broken up, so you have a bunch of new countries with new civil infrastructure getting massively wealthy from a seemingly endless gift from the group - and all of those countries are ruled by tribal people and strongmen, if only because they were set up that way by the British and French.
Colonialism did that, the oil was just a motivating factor.
So, the Arab conquest after the 600s was not violent and reactionary?
Is that a common abbreviation for Saudi? We used to use KSA when I lived there, but I don't trust South Africans not to be violent either. ;)