Yes, I agree.
From what I’ve read so far, Oppenheimer’s major talent was not being a ‘scientific genius’. His strong suit was understanding things rapidly and being able to explain them to other people - in such a way that intelligent people would arrive at a consensus. I’ve run into two people like that in the past and would describe them as ‘non confrontational communicators’.
Shrub is the opposite.
I’m not sure, while I agree that there are other forces, they could pick a none too bright figurehead, and that person could get out of control. To some extent we had the same phenomenon in the UK with Thatcher.
Personally I don’t go in for conspiracy theories, but I do reckon that there is a degree of consensus which tends to act in a similar manner.
The acid test of whether something is idiotic, is if it will clearly not achieve its objectives, and then produces results that are the opposite if its objectives.
Obviously nobody would give a toss about the Middle East if it did not have oil, but my understanding is that the USA wanted to ensure stability in the area, which they have certainly not done. You are probably aware that Iran was friendly and helpful when it came to Afghanistan, and it was the ‘Axis of Evil’ stuff that really rattled them. Both are examples of unintended but easily predictable consequences.