By tying compensation to short rather than long term performance.

The Board of Directors does that, not “Wall Street”.

Many other companies “Wall Street” trades shares in did not have a problem with setting long term goals for compensation, why did Intel?

Why would Wall St want Intel’s market cap graph to look like this:

https://companiesmarketcap.com/intel/marketcap/

Rather than this:

https://companiesmarketcap.com/tsmc/marketcap/

https://companiesmarketcap.com/nvidia/marketcap/

https://companiesmarketcap.com/apple/marketcap/

https://companiesmarketcap.com/qualcomm/marketcap/

It makes no sense to scapegoat Wall Street, when the SP500 was a rocketship (does Wall Street not get the blame for that, if they are apparently responsible for Intel’s demise?)

Who elects the board?

Various shareholders, or fund managers on behalf of shareholders. What difference does it make? It is still inconsistent to blame “Wall Street” for one company when the SP500 has plenty of examples of success.

Wall Street has more examples of failure than success. It's just that the returns from the successes outweigh the losses from the failures. They could be making decisions that are good for the SP500 but bad for Intel.

All businesses (endeavors, even) have more examples of failure than success.

All the Intel executives are paid in stock. The value of those holdings has declined dramatically.