PNN – In 2008, the Carnegie Foundation think tank dealt with the pathology of the American government’s policies in West Asia in a detailed article and presented proposals to the Bush administration to create a new Middle East.
According to the report of Pakistan News Network, The issue of territorial expansion of “Israel”, known as the “Greater Israel” plan, is directly related to what the Americans put forward under the title of “New Middle East” plan in the 90s. Undoubtedly, developments in the Middle East during the past few decades can be interpreted and analyzed according to these designs. Due to the increasing importance of this issue, we will address this issue in the form of several separate articles in the coming days.
The first part of this series titled “A plan for the Middle East; The plan of the Israeli regime to weaken Iran.
The second part introduces the “complete separation” plan.
The third part of this collection has examined the opinions of experts about the complete separation plan.
The fourth section will be devoted to the “Changed Zone” section of the Carnegie Institution’s important paper.
“Carnegie Foundation for International Peace” is considered as one of the study centers that examines the issue of American foreign policy at the macro level. Also, Carnegie Foundation has been the main designer of the doctrine of color revolution and soft coup in Eastern European countries and newly independent states from communism. Even the wide scope of the Carnegie Color Revolution project has covered other countries in the Middle East. The Carnegie Foundation was also one of the main designers of the “Greater Middle East” project, in which the US and its Western allies attacked Iraq and Afghanistan. For this reason, it is said that the Carnegie Foundation has a special role in NATO’s decision-making field, so that many of the strategies and international missions of the North Atlantic Council (NATO) are explained and shaped by the Carnegie Foundation.
In 2008, the “Carnegie Foundation” think tank published a 48-page report entitled “The New Middle East”, which examined this issue in detail and provided suggestions to the American government.
This detailed report includes sections with the following titles:
1- Changed area
2- The realities of the new Middle East
3- The case of Iran and Iraq
4- The case of Syria and Lebanon
5- Israeli-Palestinian conflict
6- The issue of the proliferation of nuclear weapons
7- Sectarian conflict
8- Dealing with Iran and the nuclear issue
In the first part of this report titled “Changed Area”, it is stated: After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration began an ambitious policy to create a new Middle East by intervening in Iraq as the beginning of a transformation in the region. Bush Jr. announced on November 7, 2003: “The establishment of a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be an important event in the global democratic revolution”. In numerous speeches, Bush administration officials made it clear that they will not follow a policy to manage and contain the existing crises, but they intend to overcome the existing problems in this region by creating a new region. This idea was expressed in a statement by Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State at the time, during the war between Lebanon and Israel in the summer of 2006. He argued that pressuring Israel to accept a ceasefire would not help peace in the region, as the ceasefire could easily be violated again. The previous situation does not help to create a new Middle East.
Despite the presence of more than 160,000 American troops in Iraq at the end of 2007 and the improvement of the security situation, Iraq remains an unstable, violent and deeply divided country, and indeed a failed country. As the Bush administration had repeatedly warned, progress was undermined by the refusal of Iraqi political factions to engage in a serious reconciliation process. In addition, with the fall of Saddam Hussein, the balance of power between Iran and Iraq was disrupted and Tehran’s influence in the Persian Gulf and beyond increased. Meanwhile, Iran continues its uranium enrichment program without hindrance from UN Security Council resolutions or the threat of US military action.
Obviously, this new, more turbulent Middle East was not created solely by US policies. Regional state and non-state actors have shaped and continue to shape its changing reality. But US policies have been the main factor. The main goal of these policies has been confrontation, including the threat of force or, in the words of the US National Security Strategy of September 2002, “preemptive action.” The United States has used force in Afghanistan, Iraq, and in many other areas of the war on terrorism. The Bush administration also relied on other forms of force, calling for UN Security Council resolutions condemning Syria and Iran, or imposing unilateral sanctions, such as those against the Palestinian Authority.