Version : 6 December 2024
Background
The recent sudden collapse of the Assad regime in Syria has raised questions about its connection to long-term strategic plans for the Middle East. Three key elements warrant examination:
- The 1996 “Clean Break” strategy
- General Wesley Clark’s revelation of a post-9/11 Pentagon plan
- The Iraq War and its connection to subsequent Middle East interventions
The “Clean Break” Strategy
In 1996, a group of neoconservative thinkers, led by Richard Perle, drafted a policy paper titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” for then-newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Richard Perle, a prominent neoconservative, served as an advisor to multiple U.S. presidential administrations and was chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee from 2001 to 2003.
Key points of the “Clean Break” strategy included:
- Moving away from the “land for peace” approach
- Asserting Israel’s right to pursue its security interests more aggressively
- Reshaping the Middle East to Israel’s advantage
- Removing regimes hostile to Israel, starting with Iraq
The document advocated for a more assertive Israeli stance, backed by U.S. military power, to reshape the Middle East.
General Wesley Clark’s Revelation
In 2007, retired U.S. General Wesley Clark publicly revealed information he had received shortly after the 9/11 attacks. According to Clark, a senior military officer at the Pentagon informed him of a plan to overthrow seven countries in five years:
- Iraq
- Syria
- Lebanon
- Libya
- Somalia
- Sudan
- Iran
Clark stated that this information was shared with him in late September or early October 2001, indicating a broader strategy to reshape the Middle East beyond just responding to the 9/11 attacks.
The Iraq War and Subsequent Interventions
Despite Iraq having no connection to the 9/11 attacks, it was chosen as the first target for invasion in the broader Middle East strategy. This decision was based on a legal pretext rather than actual security concerns:
- The 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton, made regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy.
- This act provided a legal “fig leaf” for the invasion, despite the absence of weapons of mass destruction (which planners knew did not exist).
- The original plan was to overthrow Syria immediately after Iraq.
- However, the unexpected insurgency in Iraq tied down U.S. military resources, delaying the planned intervention in Syria from 2003 to 2011.
Connection to Syria
The recent collapse of the Assad regime in Syria appears to align with both the “Clean Break” strategy and the plan revealed by General Clark:
- Syria was explicitly mentioned in both plans as a target for regime change.
- The destabilization of Syria fits the broader goal of reshaping the Middle East in favor of Israel and U.S. interests.
- The timing and sequence of events in the region since 2001 largely correspond with the plan outlined to General Clark, albeit with delays due to complications in Iraq.
Netanyahu’s Role
Benjamin Netanyahu, as the Israeli Prime Minister in 1996, was the primary recipient of the “Clean Break” strategy document. While he did not fully implement the strategy during his first term, Netanyahu has maintained a hawkish stance on regional security issues throughout his political career.
In recent statements, Netanyahu has claimed credit for the chain of events leading to Assad’s fall, stating it was part of a long-term strategy to remake the Middle East.
Implications
The alignment between the “Clean Break” strategy, General Clark’s revelation, the Iraq War, and recent events in Syria suggests a possible continuity in U.S. and Israeli strategic thinking regarding the Middle East over the past three decades. However, it is important to note that the implementation of such strategies often leads to unforeseen consequences and regional instability.
Conclusion
While a direct causal link cannot be definitively established, the parallels between the “Clean Break” strategy, General Clark’s revelation, the Iraq War, and the current situation in Syria are striking. These connections raise important questions about the long-term strategic planning and its impact on regional stability in the Middle East. The unexpected complications in Iraq demonstrate the potential for such plans to face significant setbacks and delays, potentially altering the timeline but not necessarily the overall strategic goals.
This policy brief is proprietary to Prezytion. The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this brief are based on the information available at the time of publication and do not purport to contain or incorporate all the information that may be relevant or necessary for every user. The brief is intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity that downloaded it and may not be copied, shared, sold, or redistributed in any form without the prior written consent of Prezytion. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this brief is strictly prohibited. Prezytion and its affiliates make no representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability, completeness, or currency of the information in this brief. Users are responsible for assessing the relevance and accuracy of the content of this brief. Prezytion and its affiliates will not be responsible for any damage, loss, or liability incurred as a result of using or relying on the information or recommendations contained in this brief. By accessing and using this brief, you agree to these terms and conditions.