Agreed. We tend to underestimate just how strategic "foreign policies" can be; indeed, they were incredibly sophisticated back in the days of Ancient Rome and Greece - especially so during the reign of Rome's first emperor, Augustus Caesar (Octavian), who, it could be argued, was one of history's greatest 'masters of spin'. No doubt, the elite's knowledge of behavorism and persuasion-techniques has grown exponentially since then, which leads me to believe that there are very few 'unintended consequences.'
I am reminded of an excellent work on exactly the point you have raised on creating regime destabilization, 'The Shock Doctrine' by Naomi Klein. One review encapsulates it thus: "Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America’s “free market” policies have come to dominate the world-- through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries. "
That's a very interesting take, @kain-jc. Thank you for your comment. I think you are right that the elite's knowledge of behaviorism and persuasion-techniques have grown, but I think that planning only works in the grander scheme of things. Those who are planning these are the 'top elites' and make just a very small % of the total population. I think that most policy makers have good intentions in mind and don't realize that they are working within a larger scheme.
I am aware of "The Shock Doctrine". I think you are right that shock doctrines are used to destabilize regimes, but I don't see how "free markets" are used to dominate the world. It happens through other means like terrorist attacks and having a population scared so that people accept their freedoms and rights to be curbed for the sake of safety.
You offer an optimistic perspective, which is always welcome as a balance to my often more apocalyptic ones :)