I wouldn't go that far. The U.S. and other European powers have a long history of involvement in Middle East politics. Significant parts of the Middle East were once parts of various European empires. Many of them gained their independence only to find there were still a lot of strings and (pipe)lines of exploitation attached.

The U.S. did more than its fair share to glom onto those lines of exploitation and keep them alive at the expense of locals. e.g. Iran is what it is today because of U.S. oil interests. The CIA installed an authoritarian Shah when Iran's (at the time) democratic government started taking control of its own oil industry (American oil companies would have had to start paying taxes). Rule under the Shah was "unpleasant" for Iranians and revolution was the direct response. Hence, theocracy.

Israel is a special case in the Middle East. The zionist movement gained state sponsors and convinced European powers (and the U.S.) to pour money in instead of sucking it out. How they did that is a question that stretches back well into the 19th century. I'd argue that a lot of it was the result of people who had their hearts in the right places. Things just went sideways when it came to Israelis and Palestinians co-existing peacefully. At least some of the idealists of the early zionist movement honestly believed the influx of Jewish people would be a benefit to Arabs already living in Palestine.

> Israel controls no strategic resources

Israel is, to use a Pacific-theatre term, our unsinkable aircraft carrier. A better Pakistan.

> long history Israel has of rigging the US elections by funding their pet congressmen

Americans were, until recently, pro Israel. The funding worked because amplifying anti-Israeli sentiments among electeds lost them votes. Now that that balance of perceptions has shifted, the effect has as well. And note that pro-Israel != Israel; lots of America pro-Israeli influence is entirely homegrown.