Tag Archives: Regime

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

The perhaps most important document ever for us Iranians to read is “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”! The document explains why the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had to die and why the same thing will happen to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. It also explains why other regimes (Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Morroco, Kuwait… ) in the Middle East stayed even though those regimes murdered a 100 times more people than Iraq and Syria together.

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm is a policy document that was prepared Iraq/Syriain 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then Prime Minister of Israel. The report explained a new approach to solving Israel’s security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on “Western values”. It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and the containment of Syria by engaging in proxy warfare and highlighting their possession of “weapons of mass destruction”.

As the United States and others prepared to attack Syria for Israel with a made-up excuse, remember this was all planned out well in advance. Additionally, the USA and Britain used chemical weapons on innocent civilians during the Iraq War.

According to the report’s preamble, it was written by the Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000, which was a part of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies.

Former United States Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle was the “Study Group Leader”, but the final report included ideas from Douglas Feith, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser.

“While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform.”

The introduction specifically proposes three new policies:

1. Rather than pursuing a “comprehensive peace” with the entire Arab world, Israel should work jointly with Jordan and Turkey to “contain, destabilize, and roll-back” those entities that are threats to all three.

2. Changing the nature of relations with the Palestinians, specifically reserving the right of “hot pursuit” anywhere within Palestinian territory as well as attempting to promote alternatives to Arafat’s leadership.

3. Changing relations with the United States stressing self-reliance and strategic cooperation.

“This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform.”

“A New Approach to Peace”

“While the previous government, and many abroad, may emphasize land for peace— which placed Israel in the position of cultural, economic, political, diplomatic, and military retreat — the new government can promote “Western values and traditions”. Such an approach, which will be well received in the United States, includes peace for peace, peace through strength and self reliance: the balance of power.”

“Securing the Northern Border”

“Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by: —striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan. —paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces… “

“Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a “Brotherhood Agreement” in 1991, that terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama… Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan comprehensive peace and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction programs, and rejecting land for peace deals on the Golan Heights.”

“Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy”

“Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.”

“Since Iraq’s future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon… Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein.”

“Changing the Nature of Relations with the Palestinians”

“Israel has a chance to forge a new relationship between itself and the Palestinians. First and foremost, Israel’s efforts to secure its streets may require hot pursuit into Palestinian-controlled areas, a justifiable practice with which Americans can sympathize.”

“To emphasize the point that Israel regards the actions of the PLO problematic, but not the Arab people, Israel might want to consider making a special effort to reward friends and advancehuman rights among Arabs.”

“Forging A New U.S.-Israeli Relationship”

“Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with “Western values” by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs.”

“To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his forthcoming visit to announce that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately from at least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent economic reform.”

“Conclusions – Transcending the Arab-Israeli Conflict”

“Israel’s new agenda can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response.”

“Israel’s new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies back to where they are most needed: to rejuvenate its national idea, which can only come through replacing Israel’s socialist foundations with a more sound footing; and to overcome its exhaustion, which threatens the survival of the nation.”

“Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict though war. No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace its seeks. When Israel is on a sound economic footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi opposition leader said recently: Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize its moral and intellectual leadership. It is an important — if not the most important element in the history of the Middle East. Israel — proud, wealthy, solid, and strong — would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful Middle East.”

“Douglas Feith and Richard Perle advised Netanyahu, who was prime minister in 1996, to make ‘a clean break’ from the Oslo accords with the Palestinians. They also argued that Israeli security would be served best by regime change in surrounding countries. Despite the current mess in Iraq, this is still a commonplace in Washington. In Paul Wolfowitz’s words, ‘The road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad.’ It has indeed become an article of faith (literally in some cases) in Washington that American and Israeli interests are identical, but this was not always so, and Jewish interests are not the main reason for it now.”

“Recently, Netanyahu suggested that President Bush had assured him Iran will be prevented from going nuclear. I take him at his word. Netanyahu seems to be the main mover in America’s official adoption of the 1996 white paper A Clean Break, authored by him and American fellow neocons, which aimed to aggressively remake the strategic environments of Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. As they say in boxing circles, three down, two to go.”

Journalist Jason Vest wrote that the report was “a kind of US-Israeli neoconservative manifesto.” He also wrote:

“To properly understand the Syria Accountability Act, one has to go back to a 1996 document, ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,’ drafted by a team of advisers to Benjamin Netanyahu in his run for prime minister of Israel. The authors included current Bush advisers Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. ‘Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil,’ they wrote, calling for ‘striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.’ No wonder Perle was delighted by the Israeli strike. ‘It will help the peace process,’ he told the Washington Post, adding later that the United States itself might have to attack Syria. But what Perle means by ‘helping the peace process’ is not resolving the conflict by bringing about a viable, sovereign Palestinian state but rather – as underscored in ‘A Clean Break’ – ‘transcending the Arab-Israeli conflict’ altogether by forcing the Arabs to accept most, if not all, of Israel’s territorial conquests and its nuclear hegemony in the region.”

The document has been in use for the last 18 years and it did secure Israel thereby destroying almost all of the Middle East and North Africa… That’s what the Jews do best, killing people and destroying nations!

Do you want to stop them? Join our party before it’s Iran’s turn…

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi

Mohammad Reza Shah

Nationalist or traitor?

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (born 25 October 1919 – died 27 July 1980) was the Shah of Iran from 16 September 1941 until his overthrow by the Iranian Revolution on 11 February 1979. He was the second and last monarch of the House of Pahlavi of the Iranian monarchy.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came to power in 1941 after the British-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father Reza Shah, due to him being pro-German during World War II. Iran was occupied by enemy forces from 1941 until 1946.

During Mohammad Reza’s reign, the Iranian oil industry was briefly nationalized under Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq before a U.S./Israel-backed coup d’état got rid of Mosaddeq and brought back foreign oil firms. His White Revolution – a series of economic and social reforms intended to transform Iran into a global power – succeeded in modernizing the nation, nationalizing many natural resources and extending suffrage to women. Though some achievements of the Shah — such as broadened education — had unintended consequences. While school attendance rose, Iran’s labor market could not absorb a high number of educated youth. In 1966 high school graduates had a higher rate of unemployment than the illiterate, and educated unemployed often supported the revolution.

He financed Kurdish separatist rebels in Iraq, and to cover his tracks, armed them with Soviet weapons which Israel had seized from Soviet-backed Arab regimes, and then handed over to Iran. The operation was a disaster, but the Shah continued attempts to support the rebels and weaken Iraq. Then in 1975, the countries signed the Algiers Accord, and the Shah unwillingly agreed to end his support for Iraqi Kurdish rebels.

In 1982, the New York Times reported that during the Shah’s reign, half of the weapons supplied to Iran were being supplied or arranged by Israel.

Although a Muslim himself, the Shah gradually lost support from the Shia clergy of Iran as well as the working class, due to his strong policy of modernization, recognition and support of Israel and corruption issues surrounding himself, his family, and the ruling elite. Other factors that contributed to his downfall were: the banning of all parties that were against the Shah’s policies, suppression of political resistance by the SAVAK, Iran’s intelligence agency. Clashes with Islamists, increased communist activity and a 1953 period of political disagreements with Mohammad Mosaddeq caused what the Shah’s opponents believe to have been an increasingly autocratic rule.

Explanations for why the Shah was overthrown include that he was a puppet of a jewish run Western power (United States), whose alien culture was seen as contaminating that of Iran.
Other factors included perceptions of oppression, brutality, corruption, and extravagance.
Basic functional failures of the regime have also been blamed — shortages and inflation; the regime’s overly ambitious economic program; the failure of its security forces to deal with protest and demonstration; the overly centralized royal power structure.

Several other factors contributed to strong opposition to the Shah, the most notable of which were US, UK and Israeli support for his regime and his increasingly autocratic rule. By 1979, the Iranian monarchy was abolished, and Iran was declared an Islamic republic led by Ayatollah Khomeini.

It was because of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi that Iran became an Islamic republic. If he had went a different way and not became such a slave to Israel, things would have looked much different today. Because of his greed and lust for power he choose the wrong path and doomed his nation. He lived a life in luxury, traveled the world and didn’t even realize that the people had enough of his system. He had several years to change things, but didn’t do anything. He was much more interested in turning Iran into a global power than feeding his own people. In 1979, the people had finally gotten enough and a revolution had become reality, millions of people were on the streets and forced the Shah to leave. Initially the idea was to get rid of the Shah and replace him with a new nationalist government, but the Islamists (led by Khomeini) gained the upper hand in street fighting, because of them having access to weapons and by them being in bigger numbers. Khomeini was seen as stronger than the nationalist forces and most people found him to be a stronger man against enemies like the US and Israel. This power struggle continued until 1981 when Khomeini definitely came out the winner.

That is how Iran got turned into the Islamic republic it is today. The people haven’t yet managed to free Iran, so now it’s in our hands to make that happen!

Join us to free our nation!