While I definitely agree with your points, I have some objections:
1. The Fatimids I would argue at any point were not as strong as the Safavid state at the time of Chaldiran, the Fatimids were barely respected by the crusader armies much less by other Turko-Arab regimes. Further more the Saljuks were definitely stronger than the earlier Fatimid state and were defeated by the crusaders... Don't neglect the fact that the crusaders were a fierce force capable of many things and would be difficult for any Islamic regime to face.
2. The Abbasids were not as strong as say the Umayyads in that the Umayyads were clear and definite in the way in which they waged Jihad and were not as wracked by rebellion as the Abbasid (Mu'Tazila I'm looking at you) and composed continuous Jihad upon Byzantium. The Abbasids did not do such. Further the Abbasid for all the supposed manpower was not I contest the military power claimed, I mean their hobby was basically getting phyric victories over religious rebels.
3. Also, do not neglect how difficult and powerful enemies the Ottomans fought. Let me give examples, Timurids, Safavids, Spain, Russia, Venice, Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, Habsburg empire, etc... The Ottomans were an extremely resilient state as well. It in many ways was much more so than any other Islamic state (perhaps it inherited this from Byzantium?) and I and one could argue that the Ottomabs was the greatest Islamic state in history followed by the Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, Muwahiddun, etc