Well, maybe if the US hadn't gotten rid of every democratically elected government in the region and replaced them all with 'friendly' theocratic dictators the region wouldn't have had so many of them.
I'm not in favor of the US toppling democratically elected governments, but what exactly is your claim here? That the Middle East was a region full of flourishing liberal democracies before western interference? Or simply that US intervention contributed to an already messy region full of autocratic rulers and patchwork states? Because I'm totally onboard with the second sentiment but it's hard to make an argument for the first. In fact, my take on the elections for the countries we've invaded and wrecked up has always been to allow them to elect whatever kind of crazy people they want to elect and eat the shit sandwich they want to make for themselves. Us trying to meddle with the elections in Iraq, for example, just made us obviously complicit in whatever tribal conflicts would ever come from bringing in new leaders. In places where sectarian conflict is almost guaranteed, putting our thumb on the scale during elections just means we own part of the pain and suffering that follow.
Whenever a country elects a crazy hard-liner and the press asks the President, "How did you let that happen?" his answer should be it happened because I don't run their government, and we should stop acting like we have veto power on every foreign election.
Of course you conveniently ignore that most of the countries at war with ISIS now are not ruled by theocrats - they are the same countries that, over the past ten years, got rid of the US-installed dictators and replaced with with new democratically elected governments - many of which are secular and now have secular constitutions.
Can you list those countries, specifically? This is very hand-wavy, using terms like "many" and noting "secular constitutions" instead of coming up with actual numbers and looking at the actual de facto forms of government. One could argue that hardly any Middle Eastern countries are theocracies by a strict definition simply because the clergy don't directly run the country, but the reality is one of widespread autocracy and religious repression.
And it's not like the Muslim population have a larger percentage of hateful bigots among them - if they did, Donald Trump would never have been the republican nominee.
This is another very spongy claim with soft equivalancy that doesn't really survive close scrutiny. Among the problems:
1) Again, it's very hard to figure out what your actual claim is. Are you asserting that the US and the assorted majority Muslim countries have precisely the same level of "bigotry" ingrained in public discourse, law, and politics? If that's the claim you want to push, I'll gladly let you define "bigotry" however you want and give you the floor.
2) Electing a weirdo in a primary doesn't really mean all that much. There were about 28M votes in the Republican primary and Donald Trump received about 13M of them out of a country of 330M. I'll absolutely grant that that's an alarming number given the positions he has taken, but if we're to grant that the opinions of about 5% of the population who took the time to pull the lever for Trump is representative, we should look at the Pew survey results on the favorability of ISIS in various countries with large Muslim populations. The majority of Muslims were not positive, but an alarmingly large minority had a favorable view, and a very alarming percentage "don't know." And of course, getting back to my original point, you don't have to support ISIS to be at least moderately in favor of a bunch of their more extreme beliefs about how societies should be ruled.
3) As bad as Donald Trump is, he's still not in the same ballpark as places that execute gay people, convict rape victims for "illicit sex" and behead people for witchcraft. If you disagree, I'm all for hearing your case, but we need to come up with some standards for badness.
My big concern here is that in our effort to look like we're not picking on poor, downtrodden people, we tie ourselves into knots trying to explain away the role of culture and religion in behaviors that obviously have at least something to do with culture and religion. When the average American sees a fanatical Muslim army trying to take over the Middle East and committing unthinkable atrocities in the process and the only politician who doesn't say something like, "This has nothing to do with Islam" is a narcissistic kook who also wants to put Muslims on a tracking list, their bullshit detectors push them to see the kook as the only person who is telling the truth about the situation. This is not helpful. In fact, I think it's counterproductive for people who want stability and reasonable policies.
I'm optimistic about the world overall. People like to say that ISIS is a "medieval" culture and that we're way ahead of them, but the reality is that we just figured out that free speech and freedom of religion were good over the past couple hundred years, that racism is wrong over the past few decades, and that abusing gay people is wrong pretty much in less than the last generation, and even then the lessons haven't 100% stuck. Countries can make a lot of progress very quickly if they identify the roots of their misery, and I don't doubt that the long run direction for the last countries soaked in superstitious nonsense will be a good direction in the long run. Belief systems that make people miserable tend to get dropped or heavily modified unless they're enforced at gunpoint, and even then, it's hard to keep the lid on people forever.