An eye to who seeks profit from having us prop up proxy states is always enlightening.  And deserves some consideration on the hostory of how long this particular game has been going on at our people's expense. In fact all peoples mortal peril.

These people who propose these deals are not puppet master dimensional chess players. They are craven, with learned  attributes, adopted and supported by the society their peers create anew each generation. Attributes that become unconcerned for the welfare of those that they can ascribe as them, the other, not us.

This is why I love hanging with historical scholars trained to cut through the interpretations laud in by time. Your develop a birds eye viewpoint.

Others suggest that The Great Game was all a figment of the over-excited imaginations of a few jingoist politicians, military officers and journalists on both sides.[13] The use of the term The Great Game to describe Anglo-Russian rivalry in Central Asia became common only after the Second World War. It was rarely used before that period.[94] Another author proposed that some Britons had used the term The Great Game in the late 19th century to describe several different things in relation to its interests in Asia, but the primary concern of British authorities in India was the control of the indigenous population and not preventing a Russian invasion.[95]

The rule of thumb used to be... The Republicans want a huge military, but they don't want to send it anywhere.  The Democrats want a small military and they want to send it everywhere.