American President after President is blamed for the situation in the Middle East by many (if not most) around the world. Such accusation is not only unfair but factually incorrect, because when the same policy is conducted by different administrations with different ideologies and postures, then the problem lies not in the White House but in the one place responsible for the American Foreign Policy: the US State Department.
The Unelected Government
Presidents come and go; but there are powerful elements within the State Dept. that remain there dictating world affairs for years. These individuals are not elected by the people and yet they seem to have more power than those who spend millions of dollars to be chosen by the American electorate. This fact is both disturbing and at the same time an opportunity.
After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Middle East was disturbed by Western Powers – namely the United Kingdom and France – who divided the region according to their own interests and in utter disrespect for the local tribes (in other words, they divided families). Furthermore, these Powers when seeking to mend their mistakes violated international agreements by illegally granting Jewish land to their Arab partners – setting thus the stage for decades and decades of conflict.
Then came Henry Kissinger, in 1975, on behalf of the State Department. The United States of America decided to shred the British and French influence in the region, and one of the first moves was to establish a long-term alliance with the Arabs to reduce Israel to historical proportions:
"We don't need Israel for influence in the Arab world. On the contrary, Israel does us more harm than good in the Arab world. (...) We can't negotiate about the existence of Israel, but we can reduce its size to historical proportions." - Henry Kissinger
From this moment onwards the deterioration of the Middle East proceeded.
But let's take a minute to ponder on the following: America can reduce Israel's size to historical proportions. So the State Department
The unelected individuals, at the American Foreign Office, want to dictate the fate of Israel and Lebanon (NB: what's interesting is that the 1975 memorandum seems to suggest that the US contributed to the rise of Hezbollah to decrease the power of the Lebanese Christian community, all to break an alliance and weaken Israel's influence in the region) and to that effect they have been willing to undermine president after president in order to carry out their insidious plan.
The Elected Ones
Many are counting the days until President Obama exits office, since right now he's the “face of evil”; but given America's history, we should expect the next US President to be played in such a way that he, or she, too will be the next “face of evil”.
Question: how come no one called President Bill Clinton the “face of evil”; is it cause it just so happened that he didn't have a foreign name?
If we look at his foreign policy (FP) closer, he not only dodged the responsibility of capturing Osama Bin Laden (meaning that the 9/11 could've been avoided, and circa 3,000 lives would've been saved) but he also pushed for the Oslo Accords that not only encouraged more Arab Terrorism (since the Arab Nations' goal, designed by Abd al-Nasser and brought to fruition in May 1964, was to use the Palestinian issue as an instrument to wage a war of attrition against Israel) but also set in motion the 1975 plan to reduce Israel's territory to “historical proportions”. So why does Bill Clinton go unscathed when his FP was so scathing?
And now that the Arab side rejected the Oslo Accords, the unelected ones are pretending to not have heard about it because it goes against their obsolete policy. And the powerless elected President is playing along with it (for reasons of force majeure).
Not Joining the Bandwagon
So, count me out. I will not insult President Obama, President Bush, President Clinton, and President Bush because, as far as I'm concerned, the Middle East (ME) is in a worse mess because the US State Department decided, 40 years ago, to play a very dangerous game only to serve the interests of the unelected elements sitting there (yes, for according to surveys the voters do not support their ME policies nor their position regarding Israel, Syria and so on).
Rejecting Change We Can Believe In
One could argue that the American Foreign Office didn't know better in 1975; that it was the way of doing politics back then; and indeed, it is a valid argument. However, when in 2015 the same Department refuses to change and continues to carry out the same failed policies that brought so many problems to the US; we have to ask ourselves when the time will come to confront these unelected officials and the obscure interests they seem to be serving.
No nefarious Shadow Government lasts forever.