Middle East: Stop Blaming the US President, Confront the Right Culprit

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 thought thinks.

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.


  1. But the president's face is one we know cuz we don't know who the unelected are. And Obama said the buck stops with him anyway.

    1. Hi Unknown :D!

      Welcome to DS!

      The buck stopped with Pres. Obama in the Benghazi case, if my memory serves me well. But if he (and the previous and the succeeding presidents are) is being guided and instructed by the State Dept, how can we blame the President in full conscience of what's going on?

      Unknown, thank you so much for your comment :D. I hope to see more of you here.


  2. Your article, after a brief review, seems very accurate. Electing a different person doesn't make a bit of difference if the system remains unchanged.

    1. Hi Newton :D!

      Thank you *bowing*.
      Exactly, man, exactly.

      Newt, thank you for your comment :D.


  3. The problems in the ME now have gained a momentum of their own and there is no point in going back in history to fix the blame for it. If anything, I think that nature has decided, as Malthus famously predicted, that some culling is needed and it has gone about providing the modern equivalent methods to achieve just that.

    1. Hi Rummy :D!

      I partially agree because going back in history is always useful in life: we see what went wrong and we try to find a different path to fix it. The West needs to leave the ME alone, I think we can all agree to that; and history will help. Right now, to stop them from attacking our countries, all Western leaders have to do is to say the right words: they will fix a lot more than airstrikes alone. But hey, if Sunnis and Shiites want to kill each other in the ME, while leaving us out of it, fine (it's their problem, not ours) - but we need to leave them alone.

      Rummy, thank you for your comment :D. It's food for thought.


  4. Max, I am in general overall agreement with this as well: That the overall meta-narrative that is driving things crosses multiple political parties and is much bigger than the US presidency. The state department is certainly up there as an entity larger than any individual president, but I would claim that the state department doesn't do any original thinking. Instead, the state department is in turn driven by the tunnel vision of the intellectual establishment in our universities. As I have noted elsewhere, the US children have been fed a steady diet of propaganda praising Islam and condemning Christianity for more than a half century. The American intellectual establishment is clearly in the driver seat with the school textbooks.

    As for the Western drawn borders, I am a bit skeptical. T.E. Lawrence wrote that the source of conflict as the Turkish empire was collapsing centered on the need for the Muhammedan religion to pass grudges from one generation to the next and insure retribution, with the careful maintenance of tribal distinctions being important. After all, what good is Jihad if you don't have any enemies to smite? Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom is a good read to get a sense of what things looked like before the western powers stepped in. The possibility I have favored is that it has just taken the ME a few decades to get back onto its warlike feet after the pressure of the Turkish and British empires were removed.

    1. Hi Looney :D!

      I acknowledge the dangers of this modern trend of letting universities concocting foreign policy (if not national in some cases), you are right.
      lol T.E. Lawrence was not entirely wrong. But when they were occupied by the Ottoman empire they didn't have "grievances" because it was an Islamic entity occupying them (how ironic is that?). Their "grievances" began when the West picked up the Ottoman pieces after the Turks joined the German war effort against the rest of the lot. I saw nothing wrong with picking up the Turkish pieces, but the West made a mess of it and violated international agreements in the process to empower a murderous people (i.e. the Saudis) - and now they are having a hard time undoing what they've done. So how to fix it?

      "The possibility I have favored is that it has just taken the ME a few decades to get back onto its warlike feet after the pressure of the Turkish and British empires were removed."

      Can't argue with that but they could've been reigned in if the Brits and the French had done things differently (e.g. the French could've acted differently in Syria and the Brits should've kept their word regarding the Mandate in Palestine).

      Looney, thank you for your super comment :D.


  5. The Kissinger heirs are more evil than Kissinger himself! America has this notion of balance of power in the ME that puzzles me cause it hasn't worked at all! Now they gave power to Iran to counter ISIL and Israel to balance things but they actually made it worse. So I don't get the state department and I suspect them.

    1. Hi Celeste :D!

      I don't know about that, but it seems like Henry Kissinger's acolytes prefer to favour the Arabs (and now the Persians) over America's closest ally...why?
      I understand where you're coming from and I think we need to take a closer look at this phenomenon...

      Cêcê, thank you so much for your comment :D.



Post a Comment

Dissecting Society welcomes all sorts of comments, as we are strong advocates of freedom of speech; however, we reserve the right to delete Troll Activity; libellous and offensive comments (e.g. racist and anti-Semitic) plus those with excessive foul language. This blog does not view vulgarity as being protected by the right to free speech. Cheers