The decadence of U.S. foreign policy did not recently start in the Trump era; it is just the latest in an impressive series of false steps initiated after the United States’“ideological” victory over its Soviet enemy during the Cold War. The “hyperpuissance” has been completely unable to play a leadership role, to set out a vision, or even to interpret it.

This inability is related to Middle East geography, one of the more problematic regions in the world, which did not change after the dissolution of the Berlin Wall in 1989, an event that did not impact geography there for local reasons, but also because of the West was unable to shape a real democratic foreign policy.

The “success” of the twofold Thatcher – Reagan Neo-liberal policy was historically unable to develop economic- democratic ties, while to the contrary, was particularly successful at preserving long-standing autocratic regimes.

In any case, “Jerusalem’s” final step clarifies not only the U.S.’s inability to be a real peacemaker or moderator regarding the historical controversy surrounding the Holy Land; to be honest, the U.S. never actually assumed a real mediator figure: already during the Clinton era, while a peace agreement was under construction during the 1990s, the U.S.’s inability to stop the “colonization” of the West Bank was supported by factual evidence.

With George W. Bush’s policy in the region after 9/11, U.S. action provoked an isolationist perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, highlighting not only Washington’s disengagement on the matter, but also emphasizing its specific will not to intervene. In any case, the U.S. foreign policy “narrative” continued to be linked to a two state solution, but with confirmed “difficulties” in making that possible with the increasing presence of half a million colonists in the Occupied territories.

In parallel, all Arab countries historically engaged with the “peace process.” Egypt and Jordan in specific began to regard U.S. policy on the topic with increasing suspicion. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice’s role, as U.S. Secretaries of State preserved their willed inability to interfere in Israeli internal policy, in particular when a previously well-known project, Jerusalem Municipality, implemented the expropriation of Palestinian houses in the east side of the Holy City.

The most unexpected surprise came from Obama, a former Nobel Peace Prize winner. He was vocal about his disapproval of the previous Republican administration’s policy in the Middle East, but was unable to make significant steps on the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, such as stopping the cementification of the West Bank. In this case, the Democratic party’s responsibility is particularly noteworthy, even if it is commonly known that during Obama’s double mandate,  the Tel Aviv-Washington relationship reached its lowest point.

Trump’s latest declaration, during a time when his impeachment is frequently discussed, underlines that the U.S.’s on-going “foreign policy” lacks ideas and perspectives on this long-standing matter. This also seems to be the case with the majority of matters related to world peace and security, including North Korea, the environmental question, and the Iraqi-Syrian conflict. This lack of credibility is even more evident in relationship to Trump’s presidential campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” as it was in relationship to Obama’s “Yes, We Can” slogan. It seems a presidential campaign motto is only realistic for a limited period of time.

There was a time in which U.S. foreign policy in the area was completely different.  After the end of WWI, Wilson’s 14 points emphasized the creation of the King-Crane commission, a plenipotentiary-academic inquiry committee for the Middle East that, in 1919, was already able to describe the clear and possible difficulties that could emerge in the face of an unlimited Zionist emigration policy.

At that time, old Europe, and Great Britain in particular, were still able to preserve their interests in the region while the United States, a New World power, only entered in the war during 1917. Today, the situation is completely different and, unfortunately, the narrative continues to be trivialized by the Western world’s inability to find an equitable solution, starting with the “two- state” solution propaganda. Honestly, the “two state” solution should be taken off the table because it would be impossible to implement it and is no longer a viable option.

There is no more space on the West Bank for a Palestinian state; its colonization made that impossible with more than half a million colonists amassing during the 1970s, and even more during the 1990s with the silence of every peace-process actor. Politicians and secretaries of state responsible for the U.S.’s foreign policy who continue to talk of this possibility are either completely ignorant or lying, and neither side in the conflict deserves that kind of ongoing diplomatic behaviour.

The only possible outcome at the moment is the one-state solution, but reaching it is still far off. Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Former U.S. President Carter and many others defined Israel as an apartheid regime. As history has repeatedly shown, apartheid regimes are limited in time; we should hope that, in this case, this time limit does not bring with it a new war in the region because, as in the past, the West would be called on to bear calamitous responsibilities.