Wesley Clark’s Revelation: The U.S. Army Commander’s “Seven Countries in Five Years” Plan

Wesley Clark, General and Senior U.S. Army Commander

General Wesley Clark, a retired senior U.S. military commander, is best known for leading NATO’s allied forces in Europe from 1997 to 2000. He graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1966 and then studied philosophy, politics, and economics at Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship. During his 34 years of service in the Army, Clark earned numerous honors, including the Silver Star and the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, and played a key role in leading NATO forces during the Kosovo War in 1999.

After retirement, Clark turned to writing and political analysis. He authored several books, including “Waging Modern War” in 2001, which provides a firsthand account of modern military strategies and NATO operations; “Winning Modern Wars” in 2003, where he challenges U.S. foreign policy after the September 11 attacks and its interventionist strategies.

In his 2014 book “Don’t Wait for the Next War,” Clark shifted his focus from specific military conflicts to broader strategic challenges facing the United States in the 21st century. Clark argues that the U.S. lost its strategic purpose after the Cold War and has repeatedly been drawn into unclear conflicts with flawed objectives. He believes war should be the last resort, not a substitute for a comprehensive U.S. national strategy.

Wesley Clark’s Controversial Revelation

One of Clark’s most controversial statements came in a 2007 interview, where he revealed a conversation at the Pentagon shortly after the September 11 attacks. He said a high-ranking U.S. Army general showed him a classified memo outlining a plan to attack seven countries within five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. Clark later addressed this in his book “Winning Modern Wars,” and the narrative raised significant questions about the motivations behind U.S. foreign policy and its long-term military strategies. This statement quickly gained media attention and remains a central topic in discussions about U.S. interventionism.

Clark described his account of the “Seven Countries in Five Years” plan in a 2007 interview on “Democracy Now!”: “Shortly after 9/11, I went to the Pentagon and saw a memo explaining that we were going to attack and overthrow the governments of seven countries in five years; the plan started with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finally Iran.” According to Clark, the senior officer indicated that the plan originated from the office of the then-Secretary of Defense. Clark recounted this story in “Winning Modern Wars” as well.

The “Seven Countries in Five Years” Attack Plan

Clark’s statements suggest that some influential figures in the U.S. government sought to redesign the Middle East’s geopolitics after 9/11, consolidate U.S. dominance, and, in their view, counter potential threats. He linked this perspective to neoconservative ideologies, which emphasize preemptive military actions and promoting democracy through force. Clark believed neoconservatives saw the widespread use of U.S. military power as essential to maintaining global superiority, viewing the Middle East as the ideal starting point for this redesign.

According to Clark, this plan was devised immediately after the 9/11 attacks, indicating a sudden shift in U.S. security strategies. The plan was designed to target specific countries step by step, revealing an organized and coordinated agenda in U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East. The goal was not just addressing specific threats but fundamentally restructuring the region’s political frameworks.

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in Europe, visited the Pentagon and learned of a significant shift in U.S. military strategy. About ten days after the attacks, during a face-to-face conversation with a senior military officer at the Pentagon, the officer informed him that a decision had been made to go to war with Iraq. This revelation surprised Clark, as there was no clear evidence linking Iraq to the 9/11 attacks.

A few weeks later, in another Pentagon meeting, the same officer told Clark that the plan extended beyond Iraq. He referred to a memo from the Secretary of Defense’s office outlining a broad strategy to target seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. The aim of this strategy was rapid regime change in these countries, reflecting a fundamental shift and the beginning of an aggressive approach in U.S. foreign policy.

Clark publicly disclosed this information in a 2007 interview, expressing his concerns about the plan’s broad and aggressive nature. He questioned the logic behind such a scheme, especially given the lack of direct links between these countries and the 9/11 attacks. Clark’s revelation highlighted internal disagreements within the U.S. military and government about foreign policy direction in the post-9/11 era.

These disclosures sparked widespread debate and controversy, as they implied that the U.S. had a predetermined agenda for regime change in multiple countries, regardless of their involvement in 9/11. Critics argued that such a strategy could lead to prolonged conflicts and greater instability in the Middle East and North Africa. Clark’s narrative provided a deep insight into the strategic thinking within the U.S. Department of Defense at that time and raised questions about the true motivations behind American military interventions. According to Clark, this program was fully discussed in the Pentagon before the invasion of Iraq.

U.S. Actions in Implementing the Plan

Iraq: War with Long-Term Negative Effects

The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 marked the start of this strategic plan. Although the initial military operations quickly toppled Saddam Hussein’s regime, the consequences led to the country’s collapse, resulting in increased violence, extremism, sectarian conflicts, and instability. As seen, the power vacuum and subsequent insurgencies led to the rise of extremist groups like ISIS, highlighting the negative outcomes of this intervention.

Libya: From Intervention to Chaos

In 2011, the U.S., along with NATO allies, launched an operation under the guise of “protecting civilians during the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.” This intervention led to Gaddafi’s ouster and death, but Libya quickly descended into chaos, with various groups vying for power while the central government struggled to assert control. The lack of a coherent post-intervention plan fueled the country’s fragmentation and ongoing conflicts.

Syria: A Devastating Battlefield

After the Syrian civil war began in 2011, the U.S. supported certain rebel groups in efforts to counter the Assad regime. While the U.S. achieved tactical successes against ISIS, the broader goal of regime change was not realized, and Syria remains embroiled in war. The creation of sectarian conflicts and opposition group activities in Syria has brought nothing but instability and insecurity to the country. (The Syrian regime fell in 2024 due to a military attack by armed groups and came under the control of forces known as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, which are close to ISIS.)

Somalia and Sudan: Limited Interventions

In Somalia, the U.S. focus has been on counterterrorism operations against groups like Al-Shabaab. Although drone strikes and special operations have targeted rebel leaders, Somalia remains unstable, with ongoing threats from insurgent groups. Similarly, U.S. intervention in Sudan has been limited, focusing more on diplomatic efforts and sanctions rather than direct military involvement. Nevertheless, the outcome of U.S. involvement in these two countries has been nothing but instability and persistent conflicts.

Iran: Containment Strategy

Unlike the other countries on the list, Iran has not faced direct U.S. military intervention. Instead, the U.S. has employed a containment strategy, including economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and support for opposition groups to counter Iran’s regional influence. Tensions have escalated periodically, but a full-scale war with Iran has been avoided so far.

In summary, while parts of the plan to target the seven countries have been implemented to varying degrees, they have often backfired, leading to prolonged conflicts, regional instability, and humanitarian crises. General Clark’s early warnings highlighted the complexities and unintended consequences of U.S. interventions aimed at regime change in the region.

Fighting Terrorism or Overthrowing Governments

Clark described this plan as derived from a Cold War-era U.S. approach, meaning that in the view of American decision-makers, terrorism necessarily required a “state sponsor,” and thus, to effectively combat terrorism, one must “drain the swamp”—that is, attack the governments that, according to the plan’s designers, provided safe havens and support for terrorism. While Clark personally opposed the plan, the officer who shared it with him believed it was the best way to win the war on terrorism.

However, Clark believed that attacking these seven countries would turn the United States into an enemy of many regional governments rather than solving the problem. He argued that if the U.S. aimed to fight terrorism, it would be better to target terrorist groups directly instead of these countries. Domestically, there were serious concerns about the feasibility of such a program. Although militarily, the U.S. could confront these countries’ armies, the main issue was post-war planning and managing these nations after overthrowing their governments.

Seeking an Excuse for War!

The disclosure of this plan revealed the Bush administration’s pursuit of invading Iraq, even though there was no convincing or direct evidence linking the country to the 9/11 attacks.

Upon examining the roots of this plan, it can be aligned with the actions of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). This think tank operated under influential figures in U.S. defense and foreign policy, such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. In this think tank, a report titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” was published, stating that a “new Pearl Harbor” was needed as an excuse to massively strengthen the military and expand U.S. global influence.

The 9/11 attacks provided the spark that made implementing this ambitious strategy possible for Americans. In fact, the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq was directly linked to the “New American Century” vision. Although it’s unclear whether this plan was fully executed for all countries, various documents show that during that period, U.S. foreign policy noticeably shifted toward an aggressive and interventionist approach—no longer limited to fighting terrorism but aimed at regimes opposing America’s grand plans for reshaping the Middle East.

Clark identifies neoconservative figures like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz as the main architects of this policy. He also says the plan was launched shortly after the 9/11 attacks, and those attacks served as a pretext for broader intervention in the Middle East. However, Clark viewed this strategy as mistaken and dangerous, believing it would turn America into an enemy of many people and governments in the region and scatter terrorists across the area.

The “Seven Countries in Five Years” Plan, with Zionist Approval Attached

This plan also aligned with previous broader Zionist strategies that had been examined. These strategies, such as the Oded Yinon plan, called for the fragmentation of Arab and Islamic countries surrounding Israel into smaller units to weaken their power and ensure Israel’s regional dominance. Additionally, the “Clean Break” plan, written by neoconservatives like Richard Perle, supported preemptive U.S. military involvement in the region to secure Israel’s interests. The authors of these documents saw the destabilization of neighboring countries as key to Israel’s survival, which was also the central goal in executing the Pentagon’s plan to attack the seven countries.

It may seem that the “Seven Countries in Five Years” plan was not fully implemented, but understanding the motivations behind it is crucial. Based on Clark’s statements, the plan’s goal was to redesign the Middle East in a way that served U.S. and allied interests—a goal aligned with the long-term strategy of expanding Israel’s regional dominance, as outlined in Zionist policymakers’ views.

The decline of the Dutch Empire

"I am reading" "I am reading"