Did this president give the Middle-East away?

Involvement. That's an interesting choice of words, euphemistically speaking.

"Creative destruction" is probably a more accurate term to describe Washington's involvement in the middle east and north Africa.

“[W]e are an awesome revolutionary force. Creative destruction is our middle name. We tear down the old order every day, in business and science, literature, art and cinema, politics and the law. Our present enemies hate this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo old conventions, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence – not our policies – threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.” — Michael Ledeen,

I disagree with Ledeen. It is the 100+ year long policy of interventionism both economically and militarily in the affairs of other nations to make them subservient to the western corporate elite that is to blame. Trying to pin it's failure on one or two American administrations that have carried on this long and bloody policy despite the dangers of "blow back" and increasing the hatred and fear of the United States while passing the cost of this dangerous policy off on American citizens and military personnel is like trying to blame the fall of Rome on one or another of it's last two emperors.