As that has backfired and led to a Shia dominated government in Iraq that supported Syria more and was moving closer to Tehran ( as well as China starting to get more oil concessions than the USA ) , Syria could be all the more important.
Hague talked about the geopolitical stakes thus in 2011,
"If these countries turn into stable democracies, open economies, imagine the benefits that will bring to the stability of the world.
But imagine if it went wrong. Imagine if, actually, extremism, terrorism were promoted. Imagine the financial consequences as well as the human and moral consequences of this going wrong.
This going wrong in the Middle East, the area that produces so much of the world's oil and gas, that contains so many tensions in the world, would have financial consequences that would make the last three years seem the mere prelude to much greater difficulties. That is why the stakes are so high.".Essentially, stripped of the call upon people to 'imagine' his envisaged future, the stakes are control over the oil and gas of the Middle East and the utter failure of Britain to do anything in the area of trying to ensure energy dependence from these dangerous and volatile lands.
By advancing annd promoting the almost clinically insane policy of arming the Sunni insurgents in Syria, and ensuring the growth of Al Qaida style violence and terrorism, Hague is promoting terrorism and 'extremism'. By any standards his pressure, along with that of France, to end the arms embargo on Syria is extreme.