Such was the main headline in the Times today. But it does not make sense: if by Sunni leaders, the Times mean the Saudi King and Husni Mubarak, then yes. The US can be very pleased. But Mubarak is gone and Saudi King is having make-up applied to his dead corpse as we speak. Furthermore, the premise of the article is funny: it implies that America's troubles in the region over many decades since WWII, were not with Sunni Arabs but only with Shi`ites. I find that notion his hilarious. So the US, according to the premise of the article, has absolutely no problems with Sunni Arabs, and that only the Shi`ite troublemakers are the problems. But those who attacked the US consulate in Benghazi were also Sunnis, as are all the radical Jihadi groups. The Muslim Brotherhood which used to be an enemy of the US is also Sunni, as are the people the US fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. And in Iraq, the US was aligned with Shi`ite groups, and opposed to Sunni groups. The reduction of America's troubles to a sectarian element is absurd. Don't take my word for it, just enjoy the ride for the next few years. In fact, for much of the cold war, the Shi`ite political movement was largely conservative and aligned with the US in various places.