Persian
English
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), as a think tank that profoundly influenced U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding the Middle East, emerged in the late 1990s. PNAC’s mission, founded by neoconservative figures like William Kristol and Robert Kagan, was to develop strong American leadership on the global stage, including ideas like active military engagement under the guise of promoting democracy worldwide. One of the main axes of their agenda was “transforming the Middle East,” where they believed a fundamental transformation was needed to align the Middle East with U.S. interests, especially in security and oil matters.1
Redefining U.S. Policy in West Asia After September 11
Neoconservatives like John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Kristol, and Kagan, who were very active in PNAC and other think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, played a key role in formulating policies aimed at redefining U.S. intervention in the Middle East, especially after the September 11 attacks. This group’s view was rooted in the belief that American power and hegemony not only can influence the world but must be designed based on advancing American values and norms.
For example, Richard Perle, who collaborated with PNAC and the American Enterprise Institute and was also chairman of the Bush administration’s Defense Policy Board, played a fundamental role in promoting the idea that the United States must preemptively eliminate threats, especially those from “rogue” countries in the Middle East. This thinking peaked in the 2003 U.S. attack on Iraq—an important action aligned with PNAC goals. PNAC’s guidelines for U.S. foreign policy included establishing military bases in the Middle East, increasing the military budget to 4% of GDP, military attack on Iraq, and even confrontation with Iran under the pretext of producing weapons of mass destruction.
Alignment with Zionist Aspirations
Douglas Feith was another key PNAC member who served as undersecretary of defense for policy in the Bush administration. He, alongside Perle, was one of the main architects of the Iraq War and a staunch defender of the grand strategy “Clean Break,” pursuing the redefinition of U.S. and Israeli policies in the Middle East. Feith and his colleagues believed that adopting an aggressive and expansionist stance in West Asia would simultaneously enhance U.S. and Israeli security. The important and fundamental point is that the emphasis of these neoconservative figures on the necessity of military action and increasing U.S. presence in the Middle East was, before serving U.S. interests, due to their all-out support for Zionist goals and aspirations, manifested through plans like “Clean Break” and “New Middle East.”.2 3 4
Connection Between Yinon and Clean Break Plans with PNAC
Examining the core ideas and fundamental principles of PNAC and its members shows alignment with the goals and policies of previous plans to strengthen and maintain Israel’s security. The Oded Yinon plan from 1982 included two general goals: turning Israel into a major regional power and fragmenting all regional countries into smaller pieces, a kind of Balkanization of the region. In fact, this fragmentation plan sought to turn these small countries into puppet states following Israel.
The “Clean Break” strategy, with the official title “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” was written in 1996 by a group of American neoconservatives, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, for Benjamin Netanyahu, then-prime minister of Israel. This plan focused on fundamentally changing the U.S. geopolitical landscape in the Middle East to benefit the Zionist regime’s interests, aiming to preserve Israel’s position and increase its power in the region. Proposed tactics include supporting the overthrow of regimes that posed a threat to Israel’s security.
The policies proposed in the “Clean Break” plan for implementation toward the Zionist regime’s grand goals in subsequent decades, including “Greater Israel,” were drafted under the study group “A New Strategy for Israel on the Threshold of 2000.” Subsequently, its members like Richard Perle, after drafting it, tried to get closer to these grand goals through advancing other actions under PNAC’s agenda.
The “Clean Break” Strategy: Shifting Israel’s Approach in the Middle East
Clean Break focused on a fundamental review of Israel’s engagement and policy-making toward West Asia, emphasizing actions like removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and countering Iran’s influence. This document believed that peace negotiations traditionally supported by previous Israeli governments weakened its security and should be completely abandoned to start a decisive and aggressive approach. The “Clean Break” strategy, while focusing on dismantling structures supporting Israel’s enemies in the region, also considered strengthening the U.S.-Israel alliance.
In fact, according to the plan’s drafters, for Israel to become the unrivaled superior power throughout the region, all peace initiatives that provide an opening for rivals to gain power must be removed from the agenda. Instead, they envisioned implementing preventive policies that sought to reshape the Middle East, including a series of military actions alongside diplomatic maneuvers. This mindset, in subsequent plans presented by PNAC such as “Rebuilding America’s Defenses (Zionist Plan for Arab Countries and the Middle East, Michael Chossudovsky),” intended for the United States to eliminate threats before they materialize, especially in areas like the Middle East where dictatorial regimes have the potential to acquire weapons of mass destruction. 9
The “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” Plan: Insecurity in the Middle East
PNAC’s principles emphasize the need for a new military strategy that includes not only deterrence but also aggression and active engagement. Key figures in this think tank believed that America had forgotten the fundamental elements that led to the Reagan administration’s success, such as: a strong military ready to confront current and future threats, a foreign policy that boldly and powerfully promotes and expands American values and norms everywhere, as well as leadership that believes in and executes America’s global responsibilities, and must rebuild its elements of power.
To operationalize their maps for the Middle East to make it insecure, they presented a 76-page plan “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” under the pretext of America weakening against international threats, especially in the Middle East. They also stated that to awaken America to these threats, a catastrophic and surprising event like the Pearl Harbor attack (the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which was so devastating and surprising that America immediately entered World War II afterward, and here PNAC neoconservatives were seeking an incident like that to justify U.S. military attacks on Middle Eastern countries in support of Israel. In fact, September 11 was that event) is needed. After September 11, this doctrine gained attention in the Bush administration and led to the 2003 attack on Iraq. Figures like Richard Perle and Douglas Feith justified this action as primarily essential for enhancing U.S. security and then for maintaining stability and security in the Middle East. 10 11 12
Reshaping the Middle East in Favor of Israel
Therefore, the idea of reshaping the entire Middle East under the name “New Middle East” from the early 2000s and under the influence of neoconservative thinking (through all previous plans and their linkage to PNAC programs), with the goal of weakening Israel’s enemies like Syria and Iran, by promoting the idea that Middle East instability leads to increased Israeli security, became a fundamental part of U.S. administrations’ foreign policy. This view indicated that a fragmented Middle East with weak and dependent states creates a suitable opportunity for Israel to increase its dominance in the region.
In summary, PNAC set the ideological foundation and provided the necessary driving force for U.S. foreign policy aligned with Israel’s interests; in fact, like the Clean Break strategy, PNAC’s thoughts and maps are considered a grand plan that impacted both the “New Middle East” and launching U.S. military attacks in the region, with the goal of geopolitical transformation in favor of America and Israel. 13 14 15
Labeling Iraq, Iran, and Syria: A Tool to Justify War
Neoconservatives affiliated with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), such as John Bolton, used the constructed narrative of the “Axis of Evil” to portray certain nations as sponsors of terrorism and sources of instability in the Middle East. This framing served to justify and operationalize military action against them as part of fine-tuning the coordinates of the “New Middle East” plan. In February 2003, just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Bolton explicitly stated that after occupying Iraq, similar action should be taken against Iran. PNAC and its members, by labeling countries like Iraq, Iran, and Syria as part of the “Axis of Evil,” sought to shape both domestic and international public opinion to accept the necessity of military confrontation.
From this analysis, the core principles and strategic pillars of PNAC and the “New Middle East” plan can be summarized. 16 17
Main Thoughts Governing PNAC
American Hegemony and Global Superiority
PNAC emphasized the necessity of preserving the United States’ role as the superior power globally. This idea is embedded in recommendations calling for a strong military presence and an active international engagement strategy. The organization believed that U.S. hegemony is essential not only for American security but also for achieving and maintaining global stability.18
Military Superiority
PNAC called for a significant increase in defense spending and U.S. military capabilities. Their codified document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” highlighted the need for an army capable of fighting multiple major wars simultaneously and maintaining dominance over hostile states. In their view, achieving this required a “new Pearl Harbor” to accelerate public support for such bold military initiatives.
Unilateral Actions and Regime Change
PNAC promoted the principle that the United States should not hesitate in the slightest to carry out unilateral actions to advance its interests, especially in the Middle East. This included supporting regime change in Iraq, with its members openly backing the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as a vital component of this strategy.19
Balkanization of the Middle East
A key part of PNAC’s maps was Balkanizing Middle Eastern countries, similar to the strategies in the Oded Yinon plan. Partitioning Iraq into smaller ethnic and sectarian parts was considered a way to create stability in the region and make it more compatible with U.S. and Israeli interests.20
Promoting Democratic Values
PNAC intertwined U.S. military intervention with promoting democracy in the region. This was presented as both a moral imperative and a strategic necessity for long-term regional peace, framed in such a way that pursuing it became a primary government priority and the basis for aligning domestic societal opinions.
Fundamental Principles of the New Middle East Plan
Israel as the Superior Power in the Middle East
The New Middle East vision considered Israel as the region’s superior power, needing a favorable strategic environment for its security. In this view, dividing Arab countries into smaller entities that could be used to provide stability and Israel’s security interests was a priority.
Using U.S. Forces to Maintain Israel’s Security
PNAC was aware of the vital role of U.S. military power in realizing its vision and plans. The idea was to use the U.S. army as a tool to advance Israel’s interests and create a desired power balance in the region.21
Destabilization as the Main Strategy
In the New Middle East, using chaos and destabilization as a mechanism to weaken opponents and strengthen control over the fragmented region was a key and fundamental element. Historically, this strategy has always been considered essential for preserving Israel’s survival.22
Creating Strategic Coalitions
Creating partnerships with key regional actors to implement the “New Middle East” plan was an important policy. The goal of this policy was to create a network of allied (and somewhat puppet) states and factions against common threats, typically including nationalist governments and non-state actors.23
In summary, PNAC’s main ideas focused on advancing an aggressive strategy to preserve U.S. power through military dominance, unilateral intervention, and aligned alliances, all designed to rebuild the Middle East in a way that guaranteed U.S. and Israeli interests. These principles have had a lasting impact on U.S. foreign policy and still form part of the discourse governing American geopolitical issues in the Middle East today.
How does money affect US policies and regulations?
no comment