This is nonsense. The Arab dictators would be more popular if they weren't seen as bootlickers of Israel (e.g. Sisi in Egypt or the king in Jordan), even if they would still be loathed, just less so. Also: the US doesn't need Israel to corrupt these dictators.
The idea that Israel is helping US objectives in the region is also nonsensical. There is no inherent reason why Iran and the West cannot have amicable relations. Iran is a problem for Israel. It is not a serious threat to the West in any way. Our bad relations are just a function of US MENA policy being driven by Israeli obsessions.
By the way, before the ascendancy of the Israel lobby, many US diplomats were even overtly pro-Arab, the so-called "Arabists". Many were hostile to Israel. So US foreign policy in MENA wasn't always Israel-tilted. It makes sense to have good relations with all sides and to extract maximum benefit rather than take one side blindly (Israel's) and give them unconditional aid.
Your theory falls apart because it doesn't explain US policy prior to the ascendancy of the Israel lobby (1900-1980). Make no mistake: the US is hardly an angel. They did tons of coups and overthrowing regimes. But they never shifted towards one side blindly before the Israel lobby gained prominence the way it did now. And they generally speaking kept US troops out of the regional conflicts. There was no Iraq war-equivalent in prior decades. And that war had a lot of crucial input from Israel, including Bibi himself, as well as Jewish neocons in the Bush admin. Hussein was a known hostile force against Israel. Mearsheimer writes about the crucial impact the Israel lobby had in the run-up to the Iraq war.
