Arabic
Persian
English
The Clean Break plan is an important and noteworthy document aimed at strengthening and increasing the dominance of the Zionist regime in the Middle East, which also laid the groundwork for subsequent U.S. aggressions for this purpose (such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq). This document was authored in 1996 by a group of strategists affiliated with the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), an Israel-based think tank, for Benjamin Netanyahu, then-prime minister of Israel. The project this group worked on for several years, resulting in the “Clean Break” plan, was known as “A New Strategy for Israel in the 2000s.”
Strategic Shift in Israel’s Foreign Policy and Its Impact on the Middle East and the United States
This plan indicated a fundamental shift in Israel’s foreign policy toward the Middle East. In fact, this program, the product of Zionist neoconservative think tanks to redefine Israel’s security strategy, was a grand plan to achieve absolute security and dominance in the region through actions such as removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and weakening other threats like Syria. Clean Break is a significant document that has influenced U.S. and Israeli policies and decisions since its publication in 1996.
Among the drafters of this document are prominent American policymakers and IASPS members, such as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. Notably, the authors of this document, who were among the most influential figures in U.S. foreign policy, framed its concepts and recommendations entirely based on Israel’s interests and security. This means that the Bush administration’s foreign policy, under the influence of neoconservatives like Richard Perle, served Zionist strategic interests before national U.S. interests.
The Clean Break Plan and the New Middle East
The “Clean Break” plan is an important report for understanding the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East and U.S.-Israel relations in the post-Cold War era. This document symbolizes a strategic shift toward foreign policy based on the belief that military growth and aggressive initiatives can reshape regional changes in your favor. Its recommendations not only shaped the foundation of Israel’s defense strategies but also formed a major part of U.S. foreign policy decisions, especially in the early 21st century.
According to its designers, there was no longer a need to adhere to any past treaties with Palestinians and Arabs, and a phase of aggression and confrontation with these countries should begin. That’s why it was named “Clean Break.” The plan emphasizes that the governments of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran must be overthrown or destabilized, with priority given to overthrowing Saddam. The Clean Break plan explicitly mentions the phrase “New Middle East,” which was later repeated numerous times in the rhetoric of Bush administration officials like Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.
Israel’s Aggressive Approach in the Middle East
This report outlined a strategic approach for Israel, with its main emphasis on adopting more aggressive military positions and fundamental changes in the regime’s regional tactics. The document was utilized during a turbulent period amid Middle East conflicts, particularly at the height of Israel’s attacks on Palestine and the growth of regional rivals to the Zionist regime, such as Iraq and Iran, when Israel was transitioning from a purely defensive stance to adopting a broader geopolitical perspective and expanding its goals in the region.
The drafting of this document stemmed from the Zionists’ need for a new position in security and foreign relations aligned with their interests. In fact, influential figures in presenting this report believed that Israel’s previous policies based on negotiation logic were insufficient in strengthening Israel’s security, and instead proposed an alternative path emphasizing unilateral actions and aggressive military initiatives against perceived threats, particularly Iraq, Iran, and Syria.
Key Components and Sections of the Clean Break Plan
Dismantling the Palestinian Authority: One of the key recommendations in this report is the necessity to disregard the Oslo Accords and weaken the Palestinian Authority. The authors recommended that if Israel views the Palestinian Authority as an obstacle to its goals, it can pursue its objectives with greater freedom and power, and no longer engage in the futile political dynamics associated with the peace process.
Defensive and Offensive Military Strategies: The report suggests that Israel adopt a more aggressive military strategy against its enemies, particularly focusing on Iraq and Syria. This recommendation included exploiting Saddam Hussein’s weakened government in Iraq after the Gulf War to facilitate regime change and thereby reduce threats to Israel’s security from Iraqi and Palestinian resistance forces.
Targeting Regional Enemies: Clearly, the report identifies Saddam Hussein’s regime as a major obstacle to regional stability and Israel’s security. According to the plan’s provisions, Saddam Hussein in Iraq must be removed from power, and to implement this, it was recommended that: “Removing Saddam and overthrowing the Ba’ath regime in Iraq will also weaken Syria, thereby strengthening Israel’s regional security.” This report explicitly placed Saddam Hussein’s removal on the Zionists’ agenda, with the authors primarily identifying Iraq as the main barrier to Israel’s security. They argued that overthrowing Saddam would normalize Israel’s relations in the region and eliminate Iraq’s influence over its neighbors. Condoleezza Rice, without mentioning Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction or other issues, simply stated: “Iraq is the key to creating changes throughout the region.” After Iraq, the document emphasizes the importance of confronting and destabilizing other countries like Syria, Iran, Libya, and Lebanon.
The strategic premise of the report’s authors was based on the belief that destroying or weakening these states would enhance Israel’s security by eliminating hostile actors from the region. Although the Clean Break report was written years before the 2003 attack on Iraq, it had a significant influence on the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq. The recommendations in this plan represent justifications for the 2003 aggression against Iraq, stating that Saddam Hussein must be toppled not only because of weapons of mass destruction but as a vital link in Iraq; in this plan, Iraq was introduced as an axis of evil posing a first-degree threat to both America and its allies, including Israel.
Shifting U.S. Foreign Policy Orientation: One of the main goals of Clean Break was to change U.S. foreign policy to fully support Israel’s objectives. The authors called for a reassessment of U.S. military and diplomatic strategies to align with the assumption that a stronger Israel contributes to broader regional stability and U.S. interests. The authors also believed that “Israel now has the ability to manage its affairs in the region,” indicating a shift in the joint strategy between Americans and Zionists from sole reliance on the United States to playing a bolder role in shaping Middle East geopolitics. As mentioned, the Clean Break plan was prepared by prominent U.S. neoconservatives, including Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. These individuals held key roles in the Bush administration, and their views on attacking Iraq were heavily influenced by this program.
A New Era of Military Actions: The report recommends that Israel shift its strategy from reactive engagement to proactive preemption in the region. The “Clean Break” plan states that Israel must use military actions that can reshape the regional power structure in a way that benefits it and America, such as preemptive war strategies that later manifested in U.S. policies during the war on terrorism, to counter threats. The authors recommend that Israel expand its engagement from the domestic level to the regional level.
Cultivating Alternatives to Palestinian Leadership: To reshape the political landscape in the occupied territories, the report suggests weakening Yasser Arafat’s authority and strengthening new governance structures in Palestine. In fact, nurturing and supporting elements more aligned with Israel’s interests was placed on the Zionists’ agenda as a key principle in this plan. The report’s focus on preemptive actions and regime change in the Middle East was also reflected in the U.S. National Security Strategy of 2002. This document outlined a new strategy for combating terrorism and promoting democracy (as a pretext for promoting violent actions), but its language was deliberately designed ambiguously to serve Zionist objectives.
Connection of the Clean Break Plan to Other Zionist Programs
According to experts in this field, the Clean Break plan, drafted in 1996 for Benjamin Netanyahu, then-prime minister of the Zionist regime, with an emphasis on the necessity of destabilizing countries like Iraq and Syria to ensure Israel’s strategic interests, was a continuation of the “Oded Yinon” plan, merely updated and upgraded with changes. Additionally, the “Clean Break” strategy explicitly states that Israel should no longer pursue a land-for-peace policy and its goal should be to ensure its dominance in the region. Zionists have long sought to expand their borders and achieve “Greater Israel.” This thinking involves destabilizing surrounding countries.
Furthermore, the strategic emphasis that “Clean Break” places on removing leaders like Saddam Hussein and defining it as a vital step toward Israel’s regional dominance highlights the report’s connection to other long-term and extensive American programs. In fact, policies and ideas such as the “war on terror,” “clash of civilizations,” and the notion that control over oil resources and spreading instability in the Middle East should serve Israel’s hegemony are all linked to the “New Middle East” idea. This reflects a general goal: that the collection of these actions should lead to weakening Israel’s rivals and suppressing Palestinian resistance—a matter precisely pursued in the Bush administration.
Main Authors of the Report and Their Roles
Richard Perle is a significant figure in U.S. foreign and defense policy; he served as deputy secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan and later as a military advisor to George W. Bush. His involvement in this document indicates the deep intertwining of U.S. and Israeli interests, particularly in shaping the Middle East situation. His support for military actions in Iraq and his role in other programs like the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) were effective in promoting an interventionist agenda in the region aggressively. Other prominent members of the study group responsible for drafting the Clean Break document include Douglas Feith, Charles Fairbanks Jr., and David Wurmser, all of whom participated in creating an influential yet controversial narrative. This narrative promoted decisive actions free from any engagement against Israel’s security threats—threats that the report itself introduced and then outlined paths to neutralize.
The Concept of “Realm” in the Clean Break Plan
In the text of this document, the term “Realm” is notably emphasized. This concept is not limited to Israel’s primary goals regarding preserving its territorial integrity but includes broader areas in the Middle East where Zionists seek to expand their sphere of influence. This framework introduces a vision in which not only Israel but also the United States can exercise its hegemony in the region as an independent power with greater initiative. This approach requires adopting a long-term strategy to ensure Israel’s dominance among the Arab and Muslim countries in the region, ultimately placing most of them either aside or in the category of Zionist puppet states in terms of loyalty and influence.
Destabilization: Main Tactics in Dealing with Countries
One of the fundamental aspects of “Clean Break” lies in its detailed plans for destabilizing Syria. The document calls for a multifaceted approach where Israel’s interests align with the efforts of the Zionist regime’s regional partners, such as Jordan and Turkey, to weaken Syria’s position in the region. The document states: “Israel can shape its strategic environment in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria (militarily).”
As mentioned, these recommendations pertain to implementing practical actions, including military intervention and support for opposition movements in Syria. The document’s authors believed that weakening, containing, and decisively confronting Syria, ultimately leading to its instability, could also serve as a suitable security buffer for Israel.
Overthrowing Saddam and Weakening Syria: Israel’s Effort to Recreate the Middle East
The document also considers removing Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s president, crucial for weakening Syria’s regional ambitions. It further suggests that Iraq should be partitioned, with its central part as Sunni Muslims opposing Syria joining a regional strategic coalition against Damascus, thereby creating a more favorable geopolitical environment for Israel.
Perle and his colleagues’ recommendation was also to use the role of Lebanese opposition groups to weaken Syria’s control over Lebanon and dismantle relations between them. This is what later led to the assassination of Rafic Hariri, and a chain of subsequent events including the Cedar Revolution and the formation of the anti-Syrian March 14 Alliance led by the corrupt Saad Hariri in 2005.
Incorporating Soft and Hard War into Israel’s Strategy
The document also emphasizes the importance of using public opinion to portray the Syrian regime as a threat and preparing a global narrative to garner support for aggressive actions against Syria and its allies. Public deception campaigns and creating false narratives, as part of Zionist efforts to advance soft war against Syria and its regional allies, were so extensive that in 2009, official Israeli media openly admitted that Tel Aviv had shaped a global campaign through its embassies and diplomatic representations worldwide to discredit and promote instability in Iran’s presidential elections.
On the domestic front, based on the Clean Break plan, Israel, with the help of Turkey and Jordan, strengthened tribes and groups opposing the ruling regime in Syria and introduced them into the country. To the extent that internal chaos and unrest eventually led to the 2011 uprising, ongoing instability in the region, arms smuggling, and rebel movements along the borders between Syria, Jordan, and Turkey, turning the region into a complex battlefield and paving the way for the growth of groups like ISIS.
Neoconservative Thoughts and Their Influence on Clean Break
The Clean Break strategy represents the deep connection between neoconservative thought and U.S. foreign policy regarding the Middle East. The strong inclination toward shaping aggressive military actions and a redefined approach to securing Israel, embodied in the “Clean Break” plan, not only formed a significant part of U.S.-Israel relations but also left a lasting impact on the region’s situation.
As history testifies, doctrines derived from this document in U.S. foreign policy facilitated military-based actions and redefined Washington’s role in the region as increasingly characterized by interventionism and destabilization. Neoconservatism stems from a specific ideological background that combines aggressive nationalism with a commitment to a unilateral U.S.-led order that prioritizes the interests of its allies like Israel. In the neoconservative view, there is a belief that the United States, as a superpower, not only can but “must” change global policies to align with its values and strategic interests.
The influence of this ideology became notably evident after September 11, as the Bush administration adopted many of the recommendations in the Clean Break strategy and applied them accordingly. Neoconservatives pressuring Bush for regime change in Iraq successfully portrayed the U.S. invasion of Iraq as a way to transform the entire region in line with their vision of a “democratic” Middle East, resulting in the desired instability.
Consequences of the Clean Break Plan
The consequences of adopting the policies outlined in Clean Break have been profound and enduring in shaping U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East. Creating pressure to advance regime change policy, presented as a necessity for U.S. and Israeli security, led to choices with widespread destructive effects. These actions were not only aimed at destroying Saddam Hussein’s government but also initiated a new era of direct U.S. intervention in the region. The consequences of the aggressive strategies presented in this plan have been significantly harmful, leading to instability across the Middle East. The vacuum created after these actions led to sectarian conflicts, the emergence of insurgent groups like ISIS, and a cycle of violence and extremism that still hinders the formation of a basis for cooperation and stability.
Jewish political power and international influence
No comment