A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

The Institute for Advanced Strategic Studies' "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000"

Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”, is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.

The report should have been entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the [Israeli] Realm” instead. Though it was just an idea, a recommendation, written by a group of passionately pro-Israel Americans led by Richard Perle  for the Likudian Benjamin Netinyahu in light of his candidacy to the Prime Ministry of of the so called state of Israel in 1996, the plan has been wonderfully progressing as planned since then. From the 1996 bloody attacks on Gaza and on Lebanon, to the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, reaching the successive -excessively bloody- uprooting of US-backed arab dictators...all in the aim of instilling the New Middle East Plan.
Read the following and see, for yourself, how the plan is incredibly relevant to our current day's events! 

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for 70 years has dominated the Zionist movement, has generated a stalled and shackled economy. Efforts to salvage Israel’s socialist institutions—which include pursuing supranational over national sovereignty and pursuing a peace process that embraces the slogan, "New Middle East"—undermine the legitimacy of the nation and lead Israel into strategic paralysis and the previous government’s "peace process". That peace process obscured the evidence of eroding national critical mass— including a palpable sense of national exhaustion—and forfeited strategic initiative.

The loss of national critical mass was illustrated best by Israel’s efforts to draw in the United States to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to negotiate sovereignty over its capital, and to respond with resignation to a spate of terror so intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from engaging in normal daily functions, such as commuting to work in buses.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s government comes in with a new set of ideas. While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform. To secure the nation’s streets and borders in the immediate future, Israel can:

Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.

Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat’s exclusive grip on Palestinian society.

Forge a new basis for relations with the United States—stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform.

This report is written with key passages of a possible speech marked TEXT, that highlight the clean break which the new government has an opportunity to make. The body of the report is the commentary explaining the purpose and laying out the strategic context of the passages.

A New Approach to Peace

Early adoption of a bold, new perspective on peace and security is imperative for the new prime minister. While the previous government, and many abroad, may emphasize "land for peace"— which placed Israel in the position of cultural, economic, political, diplomatic, and military retreat — the new government can promote Western values and traditions. Such an approach, which will be well received in the United States, includes "peace for peace", "peace through strength" and self reliance: the balance of power.

A new strategy to seize the initiative can be introduced:

TEXT:

We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle East. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the character and behavior of our foes. We live in a dangerous neighborhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to annihilate it by trading "land for peace" will not secure "peace now". Our claim to the land —to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years--is legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power, no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, "peace for peace", is a solid basis for the future.

Israel’s quest for peace emerges from, and does not replace, the pursuit of its ideals. The Jewish people’s hunger for human rights — burned into their identity by a 2000-year old dream to live free in their own land — informs the concept of peace and reflects continuity of values with Western and Jewish tradition. Israel can now embrace negotiations, but as means, not ends, to pursue those ideals and demonstrate national steadfastness. It can challenge police states; enforce compliance of agreements; and insist on minimal standards of accountability.

Securing the Northern Border

Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:

·       Striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.

·       Paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.

·       Striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.

Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a "Brotherhood Agreement" in 1991, that terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama.

Under Syrian tutelage, the Lebanese drug trade, for which local Syrian military officers receive protection payments, flourishes. Syria’s regime supports the terrorist groups operationally and financially in Lebanon and on its soil. Indeed, the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon has become for terror what the Silicon Valley has become for computers. The Bekaa Valley has become one of the main distribution sources, if not production points, of the "supernote" — counterfeit US currency so well done that it is impossible to detect.

Text:

Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria’s require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side’s good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive toward its neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organizations.

Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace" and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights.

Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy

TEXT:

We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must make sure that our friends across the Middle East never doubt the solidity or value of our friendship.

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.

But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the 'natural axis' with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity.

Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.

Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.

King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein.

Changing the Nature of Relations with the Palestinians

Israel has a chance to forge a new relationship between itself and the Palestinians. First and foremost, Israel’s efforts to secure its streets may require hot pursuit into Palestinian-controlled areas, a justifiable practice with which Americans can sympathize.

A key element of peace is compliance with agreements already signed. Therefore, Israel has the right to insist on compliance, including closing Orient House and disbanding Jibril Rujoub’s operatives in Jerusalem. Moreover, Israel and the United States can establish a Joint Compliance Monitoring Committee to study periodically whether the PLO meets minimum standards of compliance, authority and responsibility, human rights, and judicial and fiduciary accountability.

TEXT:

We believe that the Palestinian Authority must be held to the same minimal standards of accountability as other recipients of U.S. foreign aid. A firm peace cannot tolerate repression and injustice. A regime that cannot fulfill the most rudimentary obligations to its own people cannot be counted upon to fulfill its obligations to its neighbors.

Israel has no obligations under the Oslo agreements if the PLO does not fulfill its obligations. If the PLO cannot comply with these minimal standards, then it can be neither a hope for the future nor a proper interlocutor for present. To prepare for this, Israel may want to cultivate alternatives to Arafat’s base of power. Jordan has ideas on this.

To emphasize the point that Israel regards the actions of the PLO problematic, but not the Arab people, Israel might want to consider making a special effort to reward friends and advance human rights among Arabs. Many Arabs are willing to work with Israel; identifying and helping them are important. Israel may also find that many of her neighbors, such as Jordan, have problems with Arafat and may want to cooperate. Israel may also want to better integrate its own Arabs.

Forging A New U.S.-Israeli Relationship

In recent years, Israel invited active U.S. intervention in Israel’s domestic and foreign policy for two reasons: to overcome domestic opposition to "land for peace" concessions the Israeli public could not digest, and to lure Arabs — through money, forgiveness of past sins, and access to U.S. weapons — to negotiate. This strategy, which required funneling American money to repressive and aggressive regimes, was risky, expensive, and very costly for both the U.S. and Israel, and placed the United States in roles is should neither have nor want.

Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.

To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his forthcoming visit to announce that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately from at least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent economic reform. [Military aid is separated for the moment until adequate arrangements can be made to ensure that Israel will not encounter supply problems in the means to defend itself]. As outlined in another Institute report, Israel can become self-reliant only by, in a bold stroke rather than in increments, liberalizing its economy, cutting taxes, relegislating a free-processing zone, and selling-off public lands and enterprises — moves which will electrify and find support from a broad bipartisan spectrum of key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders, including Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

Israel can under these conditions better cooperate with the U.S. to counter real threats to the region and the West’s security. Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his desire to cooperate more closely with the United States on anti-missile defense in order to remove the threat of blackmail which even a weak and distant army can pose to either state. Not only would such cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical threat to Israel’s survival, but it would broaden Israel’s base of support among many in the United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care very much about missile defense. Such broad support could be helpful in the effort to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel. If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require a benign American reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996.

Conclusions: Transcending the Arab-Israeli Conflict

TEXT: Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them.

Notable Arab intellectuals have written extensively on their perception of Israel’s floundering and loss of national identity. This perception has invited attack, blocked Israel from achieving true peace, and offered hope for those who would destroy Israel. The previous strategy, therefore, was leading the Middle East toward another Arab-Israeli war. Israel’s new agenda can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response.

Israel’s new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies back to where they are most needed: to rejuvenate its national idea, which can only come through replacing Israel’s socialist foundations with a more sound footing; and to overcome its "exhaustion", which threatens the survival of the nation.

Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict though war. No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace its seeks. When Israel is on a sound economic footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi opposition leader said recently: "Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize its moral and intellectual leadership. It is an important — if not the most important--element in the history of the Middle East". Israel — proud, wealthy, solid, and strong — would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful Middle East.

Participants in the Study Group on "A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000:

Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader

James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs

Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS

Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates

Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies

Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies

Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University

A New Middle East Project, Larger or the Largest?!

“Peres” wrote a book about it, Americans expounded their vision, 

and “Rice” found it now in a state of gestation.

Dr. Moufid El Sawaf


Conflict for a new or greater “Middle East Project” is over oil, and the objective of Greater Lebanon and Greater Jordan is the settlement of Palestinians.

In accordance with many strategic researches and many links with highly-experienced contacts in the United States of America, the secrets of the American project for a new Middle East were revealed, by which geographic and demographic area of the old Middle East is being reformulated (Sykes-Picot) in line with the interests of the United States of America for ten lean years, and with which the countries of the Middle East, including the Arab states go through disputes, conflicts  and differences which lead at the end to federalism, ethnic and sectarian cantons divided on regional states (Israel) with powerful influence of such mini small, scattered sub-States.

  

-Strategic Research has shown also that (China) and (United States of America) both need 70% (Seventy %) of the Middle East oil after ten to fifteen years from now.

-Consequently, the struggle for a new larger Middle East will extend to reach the western border of China (The Smaller Giant) in their dispute over oil in the project named truly ... (Greater Middle East) to include countries of the Middle East and the Near East, both in the cosmic map of the world.


-The emergence of Iran (as a Major Regional State), influential and challenging to the Greater Middle East Regional Project, thereby hindering and encountering the implementation of this American project, where the United States cannot stand against or even occupy Iran's for many considerations including geography, population and the escalating Iranian military arsenal in addition to the relative failure of American involvement in the Iraqi quagmire. Any military strike against Iran would lead to a sharp reaction and retaliation which would negatively affect the oil industry (production, transport and consumption) from the Caspian Sea to the Red Sea due to the central position of Iran geographically and politically in the Middle East.

-Therefore, for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, America preferred to strike Iran's allies, which led to aggression (sixth war) against Lebanon, with American support and motivation, Israeli means, and fitted with an Arab cover. The goal is to eliminate Hezbollah and curb and isolate Syria and thus besiege Iran later on, and finally to end the Palestinian resistance, followed by the resettlement of Palestinians and the normalization of Arabs. However, the real reason for this aggression is that UN Resolution no. 1559 reached a standstill.The other reason is Iran's refusal to negotiate with the United States in regard with Iraq.

-It is the first precedent in the history of Israel that America asks Israel not to accept the suspension of fire, and urges Israel's continued aggression in spite of the faltering Israeli forces and their failure in achieving the objectives of this American aggression. It is the first in the history of previous Arab-Israeli war, that Israeli air force and ground forces, including armor, fail in wounding Lebanese national resistance or crushing them despite the absence of air cover and armor to these small resistance, small in equipment but strong in faith. It is the first time in the history of Israel that Israeli National Security is threatened in depth, to be attacked by rocket shelling of Hezbollah in most towns, settlements and laboratories as well as marine forces, to be bombed in the Mediterranean shores of Lebanon. Really, the Israeli State has been insulted together with its coward army and people. It is time to the Arab States and peoples, by the study of this guerrilla war, which showed us that Israel and America and those behind them could be crushed and defeated. For the first time, the Arabs may be honored and the legend of Israeli power and behind it America as well as the credibility of the United Nations could fall. The Lebanese resistance proved, in its turn, to be a social, military, political and unique resistance.

-“Condoleezza Rice” has disclosed for the first time about the project of a new Middle East unlike the old one. It is the war of terrorism of both globalization and Americanization, which gave the green light to Israel to launch immoral assault against Lebanon according to the policy of scorched earth, a deliberate and systematic destruction of the land and people under the complicity of the United Nations, and under the shadow of American-Zionist (John Bolton). Unfortunately, the involvement of the United Nations representative (Tidlarsen), which was the godfather of Oslo and the Quartet Treaty, as well as the peace project which was lamented by the Secretary General of the Arab League (Amr Moussa).  We should not ignore or deny the Arab role in the coverage of the Israeli aggression on Lebanon and the contribution of some Arab countries. Rome conference has been convened and failed, and dropped the masks of conspirators and misleaders from the conferees. Unfortunately, we can see the inability of the Arabs in international negotiations, as they yielded to impartial mediator (America), which handed them over to the rival enemy (Israel).


-As regards Iran, it has sent an international warning to run war if aggression is extended horizontally into a war against Syria. In contrast, as per the statement of Minister of Information, Syria threatened to enter the war by all means if Israel sought to fight a wild war to pass from the red geographical line of Lebanese forces, or if it is struck by Israeli air and, finally, whether Israel was able to defeat Hezbollah. which does not seem possible until now, in addition to that it is to prevent the implementation of any international resolution providing for the deployment of NATO forces or multinational forces on the Lebanese territory or its border with Syria.

-All I hope is that Arabs in their international negotiations do not miss, but invest this victory over Israel, and to turn from the concept of surrender to the concept of resistance and then to an advanced notion in the culture of victory?!!! The victory of the resistance is undoubtedly a victory for the Arab and Islamic nation in all of the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, a conflict over land, water, oil, which is also a conflict over existence and border altogether.

•To return to the very beginning, I recall what was published in the (Cham Press): a translation by Dr. Ahmed Al-Issa of his article (Limits of blood and the new Middle East) in the Journal of the American Armed Forces and published by the American officer (Ralph Peters). This new American project of the new Middle East, along with the abolition of the current limits in favor of new ethnic and sectarian ones. The project is based upon the partition, segmentation and the placement of some current states which grow for definite objectives and turn into new sub-States.

-“Ralph Peters” considers Middle East Conflicts and the recurrent tension in the region as a result of (logical) major imbalance in the current arbitrary boundaries set by, as he put it (Utilitarian Europeans). Based on the premise that (international border could not be fully fair). But the size of the gross injustice that prevailed determines the difference between what he calls "freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, and the legitimacy of terrorism or war and peace." It is alleged that "unfair borders in the Middle East generate turbulent region more than it can bear." It is true that the Middle East suffers from multiple problems, such as cultural stagnation and social injustice, religious extremism, but the key to understanding the great failures in the region, he says, is not Islam but the border between the states of the region about which any discussion is still prohibited.

-While “Ralph Peters” acknowledges that the ethnic and religious groups in the Middle East practiced mixing coexistence and intermarriage, but we have to redraw the boundaries in order to be fair with the existing ethnic groups. A long list of such groups is mentioned from the perspective of ethnic and religious or sectarian classification. He recognizes that the subject matter addressed herein consists of "Enormous manmade deformations – deformations distortions that will not stop of generating hatred and violence unless corrected". Peters recalled those who do not want to rearrange the border as a kind of "thinking of impossible" reminding "ethnic cleansing" which prevailed since five thousand years for a return to the so-called "blood borders". Peters believes that the continuing war between the Arabs and Israel is not a struggle for existence, but is otherwise on the border and that the region will continue to suffer as long as the borders are in turmoil and infinite trouble.

-For these reasons, and for a new Middle East, Peters submits a new American roadmap which abolishes the existing borders and divides States, shifting the current state to many sub-States, whereby new states emerge, small states grow and large states get smaller. The biggest loser in the new map is Saudi Arabia. As for Iraq, it will be transformed into three sub-states. There is a new situation for Syria and others which will appear later.


-Peters casts blame on the United States and its allies not to invest great opportunity after the fall of Baghdad to divide Iraq into three states for what he calls "end injustice". The division will lead to a Shiite state in the south, Sunni in the center and a Kurdish state (Free Kurdistan) in the north. Here Peters addresses Western countries saying "Free Kurdistan from Diyarbakir to Tabriz will be friendlier to the West from Bulgaria to Japan."

-As for the small Iraqi Sunnis made up of three provinces in the center will only choose subsequently unity with Syria. Syria will lose the entire coastal region in favor of the "Greater Lebanon Mediterranean character leading to the return of the Phoenician". But Iraqi Shiite south will be the nucleus "of the State of the Shiite Arab majority which will extend along the Persian Gulf". Jordan will maintain the current territorial borders plus new areas of Saudi Arabia, i.e. there will be larger Lebanon and larger Jordan. The interpretation here is the absorption and resettlement of the Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon.

-Peters considers the reason for the stagnation in the Islamic world because of the way in which the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia deals with Mecca and Medina which despises them as a special "feudal property". He says that such holy places should not be left under the control of the police state, as being one of the world's most intolerant and repressive regimes. He adds that "the arrival of the Saudis to wealth and hegemony is the worst thing that happened to the Muslim world all over centuries, since the age of the Prophet and the worst of what happened to the Arab nation since the "Ottoman victory if not Mongolian" (literal translation). It is therefore proposed to develop Mecca and Medina under the authority of a private religious authority like the Vatican (Super Islamic Vatican). It is proposed to incorporate Saudi coastal oil wells of the Shiite state, particularly as these are Shiite areas and incorporate southeast Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the northern part with Jordan. Thus, the current inventory of Saudis in Riyadh and the surrounding areas can be made. This way, says Ralph Peters "Saudi family would not be able to inflict further harm and evil Islam and the world."

-As for Iran, it will lose, in it turn, large parts of the territory of Azerbaijan and Kurdistan and the Shiite state and Free Baluchistan, but would get the "Heart" of Afghanistan because this region is linked linguistically and historically with Iran. Iran will become an ethnic State once again, but does not take a decision on "Bendrebbas." As for Afghanistan, it will compensate for the loss of Pakistan as it is the return of tribal areas in northwestern Pakistan, Afghan brethren will join the residents of these areas. In order to return non-natural corollary Pakistan to a natural State, it must abandon the Baluch to the emergence of a "Free Baluchistan".

-Kuwait will remain in the new Middle East unchanged. The UAE will include some of the new Shiite state, which will be hostile to Iran and not ally says Peters. Dubai will remain the same club "for the corrupt wealthy people". The author alleges that Babylon fell three times and will remain volatile until the natural boundaries are verified. He concludes his article with the words "Unless there is a correction of the border in the Greater Middle East consistent with these natural borders and bonds of blood and religion, there will be more bloodshed in the region", as if he warns of the bloodiest limits if the American blood boundaries did not succeed.

What is the new Middle East Project?
 Despicably, and with unprecedented arrogance, Condoleezza Rice announced that it had extended another week to «Israel» to continue its brutal war against Lebanon and said: What is happening today is painful for the birth a new Middle East. Thus, the war against the brother Lebanon is an American-Israeli project so as to draw a new map of the region worse than that of Sykes-Picot. Hence, the continuation of aggressive war came from Washington.

•How the new Middle East Project is born? As expressed by Dr. Ghazi Hussein in the Bulletin of integrity: “The term New and Larger Middle East has many political roots behind its usage; it does not stem from the characteristics of the region or its demographic or political nature, but from the vicinity of the area to Europe and European desire to exploit its wealth and fight its people, and the elimination of Arab unity and Arab regime, tearing the Arab homeland into sectarian and ethnic sub-states, and the reinstallation (as is happening in Iraq) and legitimizing the Jewish rape of Palestine and the liquidation of the Arab case of Palestine, the Zionist project established to serve the Zionist entity and American imperialism. Imagine Theodore Hertzel, the founder of the Zionist movement (A Middle Eastern Commonwealth in which Jews have an active state wherein they will have a major economic and leading role and which will be their investments center). The Zionist conference of Baltimore held in 1942, recommended the establishment of a Middle Eastern Commonwealth led by Jews. Jews of Britain and the United States succeeded in instilling «the idea of the Middle East» in the heart of British and American policies during World War II. They set forth a plan for the Judaization of Arab Palestine and the establishment of «Israel» and turning it into a modern industrial base to be the cornerstone of future American projects and schemes in the region.

-«Israel» and the United States planned for a war of aggression in June 1967 and the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 for their military and political targets; the American administration prevented the aggressor «Israel» from the withdrawal in application of the resolutions of international legitimacy. Labor Zionist Party launched the establishment of Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian union like the Benelux union between Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg. Jewish intellectuals called for feeding sectarianism and fragmenting the major Arab Countries.

-This Zionist planning does not care about the principles of right, justice and international law and international covenants and conventions, the sovereignty and independence of Arab countries and the inviolability of its territory, but depends upon the law of the jungle in igniting preventive and preemptive wars and imposing a “fait accompli” resulting from the use of force and the Jewish settler colonialism and to compel Arab governments to be subservient to the Zionist schemes, while violating their will. The American Jewish orientalist “Bernard Lewis” set forth a blueprint for the Middle East published in the American journal “Foreign Affairs” in the fall of 1992 under the title: «Reconsideration of the Middle East». It draws up a new Middle East geographic boundaries to Islamic republics in Central Asia. He expected the abolition of the role of the Arabs in the new history of the region in favor of other regional forces with «Israel» in the forefront.


The American expert in the region's affairs “Robert Stphalo” expected that some Arab countries may involve «Israel» as a principal player directly and openly in the game of balance-of-powers and differences among themselves by building alliances between them and «Israel», by which such countries become more powerful in their conflicts, traditional and contemporary differences. Stphalo attributes this new phenomenon to two facts: firstly, that «Israel» is the dominant military force in the region, capable of shifting the balance-of-power between an Arab State against another Arab country. And secondly, that a number of Arab countries realized that the key to Washington is often in «Israel», and therefore those States should improve their relations with «Israel» to ensure a good relationship with Washington. The creator of “Dimona Atomic Reactor” the butcher of Qana “Shimon Peres” thought about a new Middle East in November 1992 in a meeting with a group of educated Egyptians in the National Institute for Middle East Studies in Cairo. “Israel” submitted in the book of Peres «a new Middle East System», which appeared in 1993 in Oslo agreements and Wadi Araba and the tires economic summits in Casablanca, Amman, Cairo and Doha, a colonial project  for domination of the region's economies, change of its culture and leaderships, revoking the «Larger Israel» geographical approach and adopting the economically «Greater Israel».

• United States & the Greater Middle East Project
-The United States put at the beginning of March 2004 «the Greater Middle East Project» set by Bernard Lewis and Shimon Peres, and replaced the word of the new scheme put forward by Peres by the word “Greater”. But, Condoleezza Rice returned on July 21, 2006 and used the new word “New” instead of “Larger”.


-The American administration believes that there is a real opportunity after changing the Iraqi regime by force and war on Lebanon to redraw the map of the new Arab and Islamic region, worse than that of Sykes-Picot, while the worldwide Judaism and «Israel» had declared war on Arabs and Muslims.


-The “New” or “Larger” Middle East Project came into existence in accordance with a study by the two Jewish advisers in the Bush administration, Richard Perle and Douglas Fayt under the title:“A new strategy to ensure the security of «Israel»”. The study calls for the abandonment of Oslo agreement due to the inability of the Palestinian Authority and respect for human Jews in the «Jewish state of Greater Israel», linking Israeli and U.S. interests in the region with the overall American strategy.

-The killer “Sharon” alleged that terrorism that struck the United States is the same, which strikes «Israel» for several decades, the Jews of the American administration claimed that the detestation of Arabs towards «Israel» is stemming from religious and historical legacy and that the Arab-Islamic culture and curriculum are responsible for the hatred and incitement to murder Jews and Americans.


• American perceptions of the Greater Middle East Project
-The American project is stemmed from two main pillars: the first pillar says that the substantial deterioration in the Arab situation in the political, economic and social aspects requires the beginning in reform. And second: that these conditions constitute a fertile ground for the emergence of extremism and international terrorism.

-The project calls for the need to initiate change and reform, the necessity to assist international efforts to achieve it, because the United States rejected these conditions and insisted to be change them and to eradicate terrorism (resistance), hatred and incitement against «Israel» as well as American interests, the American initiative identified reform in three goals: democracy, knowledge and women's freedom, and included the means to achieve them.


-The United States is working to integrate the Zionist entity in the Arab region and stabilize it on the expense of land and rights of Palestinians, Arabs as well as Muslim rights, and make it the dominant Center and the region to maintain the indivisibility and underdevelopment, dependence and exploitation. The United States sponsored the Zionist project for the future of the region and integrated it in its cosmic strategy and brings it today into existence to secure control over the oil wells and pathways as well as its assets and liquidate the question of Palestine.

-The project aims to force the Arabs to cancel the boycott and scramble for normalization as well as impose the hegemony of «Israel» on the Arab economies. It is characterized by two main indications: firstly, that it is a curtain to integrate «Israel» in the region and assume the role of leader and center, and secondly: that the driver and motivator of the project is American from outside the region. We may be surprised in hearing the talks of the United States about freedom and democracy, which worked and is working to bury the freedom of people in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and everywhere in the world and which is  the most powerful nation in history that practiced genocide wars and other wars of aggression. It is the only country in the world that used nuclear bombs and weapons and ammunition internationally banned completely-American, weapons and used by internationally banned «Israel» in the wars of aggression against Lebanon and Palestine. The new witness is the massacre at Qana first in 1996 and then the second being Qana massacre in 2006, it is the criminal and racist policy of America and Israel against civilians?!!!

In conclusion, I say that history will remember those who are victory makers and those who are conspirators and submissive Arab rulers. History will write down the barbarism, brutality and criminality of America and the Israeli government. We are in a crisis of regional conflicts and international terrorism, which exceeded the dialogue of civilizations into a conflict between religions in the American project for “A New Middle East”.

Copyright © of Dr. M. Al-Sawaf

Bernard Lewis: British Svengali Behind Clash Of Civilizations

PROFILE:BERNARD LEWIS

By Scott Thompson and Jeffrey Steinberg

This article appears in the November 30, 2001 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

On Nov. 19, octogenarian British Orientalist spook Bernard Lewis wrote an elaborate apologia for Osama bin Laden, a fervent pitch for the inevitability of the "Clash of Civilizations," in the pages of New Yorker magazine. Under the headline "The Revolt of Islam”, Lewis lied that the emergence of "Islamic terrorism" in the recent decades, is completely consistent with mainstream Islam, which is committed to the subjugation of the infidels to Islamic law. He went through 14 pages of a fractured fairy-tale history of Islam, quoting bin Laden's Oct. 7, 2001 videotape, where the Saudi expatriate spoke of Islam's "humiliation and disgrace ... for more than 80 years"—a reference to the crushing of the Ottoman Empire by Britain and France in 1918. Lewis invented a tradition of jihad, "bequeathed to Muslims by the Prophet":

"In principle," Lewis explained, "the world was divided into two houses: the House of Islam, in which a Muslim government ruled and Muslim law prevailed, and the House of War, the rest of the world, still inhabited and, more important, ruled by infidels. Between the two, there was to be a perpetual state of war until the entire world either embraced Islam or submitted to the rule of the Muslim state."

Among all the different "infidels" ruling the House of War, Lewis asserted, Christianity was singled out as "their primary rival in the struggle for world domination." Lewis cited slogans painted on the walls of Jerusalem's Dome of the Rock from the Seventh Century, assailing Christianity.

Lewis then claimed that the evolution of modern Islamic terrorism, specifically the al-Qaeda terrorism, had a long proud history within Islam, dating to the Assassins cult of the 11th-13th Centuries (Lewis wrote a 1967 book, The Assassins, extolling the virtues of this secret society). He also identified Saudi Arabia and Egypt as two regimes legitimately singled out by the Islamic jihadists, for their corruption by "modernism."

He concluded, ominously: "For Osama bin Laden, 2001 marks the resumption of the war for the religious dominance of the world that began in the Seventh Century.... If bin Laden can persuade the world of Islam to accept his views and his leadership, then a long and bitter struggle lies ahead, and not only for America. Sooner or later, al-Qaeda and related groups will clash with the other neighbors of Islam—Russia, China, India—who may prove less squeamish than the Americans in using their power against Muslims and their sanctities. If bin Laden is correct in his calculations and succeeds in his war, then a dark future awaits the world, especially the part of it that embraces Islam."

Bernard Lewis Plan, Take II

Since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Lewis has, not surprisingly, resurfaced in numerous locations. After all, the 85-year old British Arab Bureau mandarin has been London's point-man in the United States since 1974, when he was posted to H.G. Wells' outpost at Princeton University's Center for Advanced Studies, to secure American compliance with British geopolitical manipulations in the Middle East, the Caucasus, the Caspian Basin, and Central Asia.

To put it bluntly: British intelligence senior operator Lewis is the guiding hand behind the ongoing U.S. neo-conservative drive for a new "Thirty Years War" in Eurasia. This drive is at the heart of the ongoing coup d'état attempt against the George W. Bush Administration, which began with the Sept. 11 irregular warfare attacks on New York City and Washington.

Lewis' arrival at Princeton, after serving on the faculty of the University of London's Middle East and Africa faculty (the repository of the original India House files, long officially referred to as the Colonial Department), coincided with then-Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger's fomenting of the civil war in Lebanon. That persists to the present day, and served as a laboratory for the later "Islamic revolution" in Iran.

Lewis is no mere British quackademic. After obtaining his doctorate in the history of Islam from the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies, he joined the university faculty in 1938. From 1940-45, Lewis was, in his own understated words, "otherwise engaged," as a wartime British Military Intelligence officer, later seconded to the British Foreign Office. To this day, Lewis remains mum about his wartime "engagements."

Since arriving at Princeton, Lewis has been demonstrably responsible for every piece of strategic folly and insanity into which the United States has been suckered in Asia Minor. The Wellsian "method to his madness" has been the persistent push to eliminate the nation-state system, and launch murderous wars stretching across the Eurasian region.

* During the Carter Administration, Lewis was the architect of madman Zbigniew Brzezinski's "Arc of Crisis" policy of fomenting Muslim Brotherhood fundamentalist insurrections all along the southern tier of the Soviet Union. The planned fostering of radical Islamist war provocations was known, at the time, as "the Bernard Lewis Plan." Among the fruits of this Lewis-Brzezinski collusion: the February 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini "Islamic Revolution" in Iran, which overthrew the Shah, and sent the once-proud center of the Islamic Renaissance back into a 20-year dark age; and the 1979-1988 Afghanistan War, provoked by Brzezinski's July 1979 launching of covert support for Afghan mujahideen "Contras" inside Afghanistan—six months prior to the Soviet Red Army's Christmas Eve invasion.

As early as 1960, in a book-length study he prepared for the Royal Institute for International Affairs, under the title The Emergence of Modern Turkey, Lewis polemicized against the modernizing, nation-building legacy of Turkey's Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He argued instead for the revival of an Ottoman Empire that could be used as a British geopolitical battering ram against Russia and against the Arab states of the Persian Gulf—in alliance with Israel.

* It was Bernard Lewis who launched the hoax of the "Clash of Civilizations"—in a September 1990 Atlantic Monthly article on "The Roots of Muslim Rage," which appeared three years before Brzezinski clone Samuel Huntington's publication of his Foreign Affairs diatribe, "The Clash Of Civilizations." Huntington's article, and his subsequent book-length treatment of the same subject, were caricatures of Lewis' more sophisticated British Orientalist historical fraud, which painted Islam as engaged in a 14-century-long war against Christianity. Huntington acknowledged that Lewis' 1990 piece coined the term "Clash of Civilizations."

* In 1992, in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, Lewis celebrated in the pages of the New York Council on Foreign Relations' Foreign Affairs that the era of the nation-state in the Middle East had come to an inglorious end, and the entire region should expect to go through a prolonged period of "Lebanonization"—i.e., degeneration into fratricidal, parochialist violence and chaos.

"The eclipse of pan-Arabism," he wrote, "has left Islamic fundamentalism as the most attractive alternative to all those who feel that there has to be something better, truer, and more hopeful than the inept tyrannies of their rulers and the bankrupt ideologies foisted on them from outside." The Islamists represent "a network outside the control of the state.... The more oppressive the regime, the greater the help it gives to fundamentalists by eliminating competing oppositionists."

He concluded the Foreign Affairs piece by forecasting the "Lebanonization" of the entire region, save Israel: "Most of the states of the Middle East ... are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common national identity or overriding allegiance to the nation-state. The state then disintegrates—as happened in Lebanon—into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties."

* In 1998, it was Lewis who catapulted Osama bin Laden into prominence with a November/December Foreign Affairs article, legitimizing the Saudi black sheep as a serious proponent of mainstream, militant Islam. Lewis' piece, "License To Kill: Osama bin Laden's Declaration Of Jihad," showered praise on bin Laden, pronouncing his "Declaration of Jihad Versus Jews and Crusaders" "a magnificent piece of eloquent, at times even poetic Arabic prose ... which reveals a version of history that most Westerners will find unfamiliar."

Caught In The Act

Osama bin Laden released his 1998 jihad call on Feb. 23, 1998, six months before the truck bombing attacks against the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. The very next day, Bernard Lewis' signature appeared on a widely circulated Open Letter To President Bill Clinton, released by a previously unheard-of entity called the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, demanding that the U.S. government throw its full support behind a military campaign to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The Open Letter called for carpet bombing Iraq, and for the United States to aggressively give financial and military support for the Iraqi National Congress, yet another corrupt and inept "Contra" pseudo-gang, created by U.S. and British intelligence elements, and based in London.

In addition to Bernard Lewis, the Open Letter was endorsed by former U.S. Rep. Steven Solarz (D-N.Y.), notorious Anglo-Israeli propagandist and spy Richard Perle, convicted Iran-Contra criminal Elliott Abrams, Jonathan Pollard fellow-traveller Steven Bryen, Frank Gaffney, New Republic publisher and Al Gore mentor Martin Peretz, Paul Wolfowitz, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) research director David Wurmser, and Dov Zakheim.

Lewis' public alliance at that time with the leading lights of the "Mega" apparatus—now waging all-out war against the Bush Administration's efforts to box in Israeli madman Ariel Sharon—is noteworthy, but not surprising. Lewis is lionized inside Israel, and by the Israeli Lobby in America as a geopolitical giant. On Feb. 19, 1996, Lewis was feted in Jerusalem, where he delivered the ninth annual B'nai B'rith World Center "Jerusalem Address" on "The Middle East Towards the Year 2000." His son, Michael Lewis, is the director of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee's super-secret "opposition research section." This is one of the most important wellsprings of propaganda and disinformation, presently saturating the U.S. Congress and American media with war-cries for precisely the Clash of Civilizations Bernard Lewis has been promoting for decades.

 Copyright ©  Scott Thompson and Jeffrey Steinberg 2001

The USA: The Global Government Through The Art Of Wars

Global Governance Archive
The Globalist Map Room, Number Six | 8 July 2011

A serious movement, for good or ill, generally develops strategies and plans for long-term execution. Such strategies may not be evil in and of themselves. The end result will eventually reveal the true nature of the scheme.

Sun Tzu wrote the seminal “Art of War” somewhere at the turn of the 5th century B.C., whose timeless strategies may be used for good or ill in numerous contexts.

“Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.”[1]

Niccoló Machiavelli developed a sophisticated system of management, laying “down the law about how princes should rule; because just as men who are sketching the landscape put themselves down in the plain to study the nature of the mountains and the highlands, and to study the low-lying land they put themselves high on the mountains, so, to comprehend fully the nature of the people, one must be a prince, and to comprehend fully the nature of princes one must be an ordinary citizen.”[2]

God wrote a set of instructions for the Judeo-Christian peoples in what is known as the Bible, whose countless ancient manuscripts date back thousands of years.

G. Edward Griffin developed a secular stratagem and "Creed of Freedom" for the 21st century in what is today known as Freedom Force International.

Thus, as Machiavelli states, for the ordinary citizen to comprehend the nature of the frog prince globalist, let them march themselves upon the highlands.

Mackinder’s “Heartland” (1904)
"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland, Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island, Who rules the World Island commands the World."

Sir Halford Mackinder, a master British geopolitical strategist, is a figure whose work all should study to some extent. The “Heartland” idea first came about in a 1904 presentation to the Royal Geographical Society.[3] The Heartland was defined as the former U.S.S.R. in addition to what he termed Lenaland and whose theory he found even more prescient in 1943 than 1904.[4] The World Island was of course the great landmass of Eurasia. He interestingly notes how when coal and oil are exhausted, the Sahara may be where the planet will focus its energies in deriving solar power.[5]

Spykman’s "Rimland" (1938)
Nicholas J. Spykman redefined Mackinder’s theory, believing that control of the Outer Heartland, the Crescent or Rimlands, is key to planetary domination. Believing power needed to be centralized from great centers moving outward, he drafted what today seems to be regionalism and what George Orwell may have alluded to in the ever-warring Eastasia, Eurasia and Oceania.

“Spykman sketched a geopolitical world framework consisting of two great landmasses, Eurasia and North America; three islands, South America, Africa, and Australia; and five major bodies of water.  Spykman concluded that the United States, with direct access to the Atlantic and Pacific basins, was ‘the most favored state in the world from the point of view of location.’”[6]

Post-War New World Map (1942)

Created by some Maurice Gomberg, this map warrants serious study, for many of its “plans” have already come to pass.[7] Years ahead of time, it had he United Nations" will be reorganized and transformed into a "Supreme Military and Economic Council" to assist in reconstruction and to enforce world peace."

Club of Rome (1968)

The infamous globalist Club of Rome first met in 1968. Their white papers dictate mass population reduction and the proponing of a false environmental religion. They developed a map carving the world up into ten regions.

The interesting thing with this map is if compared to the historical text of the Book of Daniel, whose manuscript dates back over two thousand years, Daniel interpreted that the fourth (Roman) empire would break into two legs of iron (Byzantine, ca. 324-395 A.D.) and that finally there would be ten toes of iron and clay ruling the world. Well, here we have ten planned regions written up by, ironically, the Club of Rome.[9]

FEMA's Ten Regions (1970)

Ongoing efforts from Nixon's Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 to subsequent executive orders have carved the United States into ten FEMA regions with each region having its own capital. This seems to go along with the preparations put in place for Continuity of Government (COG) as described by diplomat and professor Peter Dale Scott.

Bernard Lewis and the "Arc of Crisis" (1979)
Bernard Lewis was British Intelligence and a Bilderberg attendee. Utilizing the “Clash of Civilizations” mythology, the foundation for the Arab terrorist narrative was laid as the Cold War narrative was on its way out.[10]

UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the Wildlands Project (1992)
Dr. Michael Coffman's fantastic effort to map out the United Nations radical environmental agenda for North America.

Zbigniew Brzezinski (1997)
War criminal Kissinger called the southern rim of Asia a “pivot of world security” demonstrating the continuation of thought since the time of Mackinder and Spykman. Brzezinski, in his magnum opus “Grand Chessboard”, tells us to keep the “barbarians” from coming together, implying a “global zone of percolating violence.”[11]

Thomas P. M. Barnett (2003)
Strategic Naval War College researcher discusses the “Pentagon’s New Map,” which evidently seeks to bring in line the “non-integrating gap” or “non-globalized” sovereign part of the world into the “functioning core” or “globalized” world system. This is at the heart of what is happening in Libya today.

Trans-Texas Corridor or NAFTA Superhighway (2005)
The required infrastructure under a North American Union, pushed along with the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). Obama has just signed a deal allowing Mexican truckers into the US territories.

Ralph Peters and the "Project for the New Middle East" (2006)
This NATO training map was put together by the Lieutenant-Colonel in what seems to be the “Project for a New Middle East.”[12]

The Map Of The New Middle East

Color Revolutions (2008)
The ever-evolving blueprint used by the globalists in their color revolutions.[14]

Project for the New World Order
People still want to talk to me about the spontaneity and greatness of the "Arab Spring,""democracy," European Union regionalism now spreading like a virus and the Agenda 21 inroads we are beginning to see in nations worldwide, as if they just don't get it.

Look at the maps. Look at the documentation going back a century. To see these designs and not factor them into world events is simply delusional.

The diagrams clearly dictate that the "Arab Spring" sprang from globalist think tank, Pentagon and NATO map rooms, composing one key variable of events now occurring in the Middle East. The NAFTA corridor eerily resembles something akin to European Schengen and clear progress toward the superhighway and integration is obvious. The UN Wildlands project seems to be coming alive in the Rural Council's now being assembled by President select Obama. And, well, I'll venture to say again that the old Club of Rome document resembles descriptions from a certain ancient text.

Notes:
[1] Sun Tzu, Art of War. .
[2] Machiavelli, Niccoló, The Prince. .
[3] Mackinder, Halford J. "The Geographical Pivot of History." The Geographical Journal 23.4 (1904): 298-321. .
[4] Mackinder, Halford J. "The Round World and the Winning of the Peace." Foreign Affairs 21.4 (1943): 595-605. .
[5] Oldenburger, Gary E. "The Cold War: The Geography of Containment." The Virtual Oldenburgers. .
[6] Sempa, Francis P. "Spykman's World." American Diplomacy. 3 Apr. 2006. .
[7] Jacobs, Frank. "The New World Order (1942)." Strange Maps. 6 June 2008. .
[8] "ATS Video: 1941 WW2 NWO Map." Above Top Secret. 26 Feb. 2009. .
[9] Bay, David. "Hidden Agenda Behind the Unrest in North Africa and Middle East." News With Views. 12 Mar. 2011. .
[10] Marshall, Andrew G. "Creating an "Arc of Crisis": The Destabilization of the Middle East and Central Asia." Centre for Research on Globalization. 7 Dec. 2008. .
[11] Nazemroaya, Mahdi D. "America's "Long War": The Legacy of the Iraq-Iran and Soviet-Afghan Wars." Centre for Research on Globalization. 16 Sept. 2007. .
[12] Peters, Ralph. "Blood Borders." Armed Forces Journal. June 2006. .
[13] Nazemroaya, Mahdi D. "Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East”." Centre for Research on Globalization. 18 Nov. 2006. .
[14] Baffi, Oskar. “Color Revolutions and Grey Eminences: U.S. NGOs, Spearhead of Interference?” Globalization of Security Trends and Perspectives. Ed. Alexandre Vautravers, Geneva: Webster University, 2007.