I think the phrase that sticks out most to me is "set up just another dictatorship under the guise of democracy", but that's a discussion for another day.
If you read the original source you will find that Soviet itervention was minimal in the region, either simply supplying arms with no political pay-offs when the U.S. would not oblige as was the case in Egypt. Or acting in a peace-keeping role (although never acually mobilising) to try to halt Israeli aggression. The one major intervention, Afghanistan, was undoubtedly an unlawful act of aggression designed to increase Soviet influence in the Middle East and a fatal error. Even in this case the U.S. claim to have drawn the Soviets into an "Afghan trap" and were organising and funding the mujahideen (many of whom had been attacking the country from Pakistan for years) fully a year before the Soviet invasion.
So I think the assumption that the U.S. and yes, Europe, were intervening to halt Soviet expansion has many flaws, crucially the Soviet ambivalence in the region. Personally I think the attitude of the Soviets and much of Europe was that overt intervention and aggression would cause more problems than it would solve and inflame and aggravate the highly nationalist population. The U.S. gave little regard to such subtleties and continued upon a plan of hostility,aggression and repression that has indeed inflamed and aggravated the highly nationalist population and caused far more problems than it has solved.
Finally, your remark about halting the spread of Islamic radicalism and violence spawned from it is perfectly valid. I assume this is the purpose of the 'War on Terror', not to infact end Terrorism, or even those who use terror as a tactic, but Islamic Jihadists who use terror as a tactic. To this end, it is reasonable to ask what are the living conditions which spawn such monsters; what is the political landscape of the region, the economic condition, education and many other highly important indices that measure the socio-economic welfare of the population. I think an examination of these indices is highly relevant, because after all it is very rare that citizens of an afluent and rich country turn on the rulers in such a ferocious manner. There are exceptions certainly, but they must surely compromise a minority of such crimes.
If you look at the important indicators of socio-economic health in the middle-east the results are not good, not good at all. As well as frequent food shortages in certain areas, the economic welfare of Muslims is very poor. Unemployment is skyhigh, illiteracy and lack of education are also found, poor healthcare, low life expectancy, high infant mortality, an AIDS crisis ravaging MENA countries and the lack of basic human and civil rights. Added to the high level of violence in parts of the region, this makes up for a very grim living situation, and perhaps you can already see why Islamic Jihadism is gaining influence in such influence, an illiterate, uneducated, unemployed cross section of young men hostile to the signs of overt foreign infiltration and it's detrimental effects on their society are easy pickings for any form of radicalism whether it is Germany in the 30's or the third world.
Communist radicals, fascist radicals and Islamic radicals have been surfacing for decades, in many regions and the U.S. hasn't and still doesn't care which of the latter two it supports in a quest for profit. This has long been the brunt of U.S. foreign policy, the overriding consideration has always been the bottom line, and in the Middle East that has only ever meant one thing;
"If the chief natural resource of the Middle East were bananas, the region would not have attracted the attention of U.S. policymakers as it has for decades"
"Sheldon L. Richman, "Ancient History: U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly Of Intervention" - (Sheldon L. Richman is senior editor at the Cato Institute)
