The reality is that Israel has emerged as a dominant power in Middle East. The threat posed by Iran has helped Israel to consolidate its power base, to become protectors of Arab regimes against perceived Iranian hegemony. Thus Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman and other have accepted Israeli dominance in Middle East [We may like or not]. This can be countered, if Iran changes its power ambitions, military ventures abroad and resort to dialogue with regional Muslim powers. The KSA and allies also have to give space to Iran, compatible with its status, they must address the genuine Irani concerns about Arab Shia population. Pakistan can play mediator role among brotherly Muslim countries for peace and stability.
Read: Christian Zionism : The Real Threat to The World Peace
Many political scientists, analysts, thinkers and intellectuals have come up with many possible answers. However to explore the issue deeply from another angle, let’s go back in time, 22 years ago a paper titled; “New Bernard Lewis plan will carve up the Mideast” was published. Amazingly the roots of present turmoil in Muslim world can easily be traced back. The events proposed 22 years ago by Bernard Lewis seems to be implemented systematically with some variations. An imperialist design to dominate the world through intrigue, covert and overt operations and wars.
Bernard Lewis, FBA (31 May 1916 – 19 May 2018) was a British American historian specializing in oriental studies. He was also known as a public intellectual and political commentator. Lewis was the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. Lewis’ expertise was in the history of Islam and the interaction between Islam and the West. He was also noted in academic circles for his works on the history of the Ottoman Empire.
Lewis served as a soldier in the British Army in the Royal Armoured Corps and Intelligence Corps during the Second World War before being seconded to the Foreign Office. After the war, he returned to the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London and was appointed to the new chair in Near and Middle Eastern History.
In 2007 and 1999, respectively, Lewis was called “the West’s leading interpreter of the Middle East” and “the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East”. His advice was frequently sought by neoconservative policymakers, including the Bush administration. However, his support of the Iraq War and neoconservative ideals have since come under scrutiny.
Lewis was also notable for his public debates with Edward Said, who accused Lewis and other orientalists of misrepresenting Islam and serving the purposes of imperialist domination, to which Lewis responded by defending Orientalism as a facet of humanism and accusing Said of politicizing the subject. Lewis argued that the deaths of the Armenian Genocide resulted from a struggle between two nationalistic movements and that there is no proof of intent by the Ottoman government to exterminate the Armenian nation. These views prompted a number of scholars to accuse Lewis of genocide denial and resulted in a successful civil lawsuit against him in a French court.
In 1980, it was warned that the strategy behind then U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “Arc of Crisis” was a British plan to destroy the nation-state. The outline is here:-
Algeria: Anglo-French run civil war, pitting the Islamic movement against the government, threatens to spread into Tunisia and Morocco.
Egypt: IMF conditionalities fuel potential for Muslim-Coptic Christian civil strife and war with Sudan.
Egypt-Sudan: Plans to create an artificial Coptic Christian “Namibia,” carved out of the border area, are designed to provoke war between Egypt and Sudan.
Southern Sudan: The British-backed SPLA is attempting to make the region into a
Ethiopia: With a new Constitution approving any desired secessions, Ethiopia is set to be divided up along tribal and ethnic lines, as has already been accomplished with the creation of Eritrea.
Somalia: Fragmentation into numerous warring clan, regions, with clan wars spreading into the Somali-majority ethnic regions of eastern Ethiopia and northern Kenya.
Kenya: British efforts to topple President Daniel and destroy his non tribal ruling coalition, are meant to trigger tribal wars between the Luo and Kikuyu.
Rwanda-Burundi: Ugandan-backed Tutsi massacres of Hutus in both states are designed to make both states into satellites of greater Uganda.
Israel-Palestine: British and World Bank sabotage of the economy is meant to provoke a Hamas-PLO civil war that would destroy the Israel-PLO agreement, and to create the conditions for a new Arab-Israeli war.
Saudi Arabia and Emirates: The politically discredited British-run royal families and sheiks are about to be dumped, replaced by the networks run by Crown Prince Abdullah.
Yemen: Continuing efforts to renew civil war and spill it over into Saudi Arabia.
Greater Syria,; incorporating Lebanon, has been largely consolidated; an Israeli-Syrian war remains on the agenda.
Kurdish regional, straddling Iraq, Turkey, and Iran, has been blown up by the British, fuelling a possible Turkish-Iranian war.
Turkey: Ethnic, sectarian, and political strife is meant to create a new “Algeria;’ destroying the last modem economy in the region.
Balkans: Serbian invasion of Bosnia and designs on Kosova may lead to conflict with Albania and Turkey; Greece would ally with Serbia.
Azerbaijan’s demands for reunification with Iranian Azerbaijan, from which it had been separated in the early 1800s, could spark a Turkish-Iranian war.
Armenia-Azerbaijan: Continuing war over Nagorno-Karabakh creates conditions for Caucasus wide conflict, drawing in Russia and Turkey.
Chechnya: The Russian invasion and destruction of the ethnic region has set into motion a guerrilla war of indefinite duration.
Iraq is being subjected to continued efforts to divide it into a northern Kurdish area, a southern Shiite area, and a central Baghdad area.
Western Iran: Plans are under way to unify the Turkmen ethnic region of northwest Iran with neighboring Turkmenistan.
Afghanistan: The civil war will split the country into three parts: a Tajik entity in the north, an Uzbek central entity, and a Pushtun entity in the south, to incorporate part of Pakistan.
Tajikistan: Russian manipulated civil war may aid separate British efforts to organize territorial conflict between the Iranic Tajiks and Turki Uzbeks.
China: Turkish supported Turkic-ethnic separatism in Xinjiang province is meant to aid British efforts to split off neighbouring Tibet (ethnically non-Chinese), and fragment China generally.
Pakistan: Karachi riots are meant to split off the Sind; Pakistan is to be divided in to a southern Balochi state that would also include part of neighbouring Iran, a Punjabi state, and the reunification of the Pushtun region into a new Pushtunistan carved out of Afghanistan.
Kashmir: Long-standing Indo-Pakistani conflicting claims on Kashmir are being aggravated by a British supported Kashmir independence movement, and feed plans to foster an Indo-Pakistani nuclear war .
Sri Lanka: The Tamil Tigers, supplied through international drug connections with Stinger-type missiles, have renewed war for the secession of northern Sri Lanka. [Resolved]
The “Bernard Lewis plan,” as it came to be known, was a design to fracture all the countries in the region, from the Middle East to India, along ethnic, sectarian, and linguistic lines. This, was the strategic game plan behind the U. S overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979 and his replacement by Ayatollah Khomeini, and the Oct. 31, I984 assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
In 1974, Lewis was seconded to Princeton University, where he became an adviser to the U. S. foreign policy establishment. Lewis sold his plan to the Carter administration with the argument that ringing the Soviet Union with Muslim fundamentalist states would break up the Soviet Union’s southern tier. From this location, he also has published an update on his thesis, which appears in the Fall 1992 issue of Foreign Affairs, the quarterly of the New York Council on Foreign Relations, the sister agency to Britain’s Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA).
Lewis’s plan is modelled on the imperial methods of the Roman Empire: Grant local autonomy to a myriad of squabbling and politically impotent ethnic enclaves over which Rome can wield its military strength without difficulty. The subjected enclaves have a long leash, as long as the tribute is paid to Rome.
A geopolitical aim of the Bernard Lewis plan was the breakup of the edges of the
Soviet empire. With this now accomplished. Lewis predicted that the entire Middle East would undergo a process of “Lebanonization” a reference to the civil war unleashed in Lebanon in 1975 by then U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. The war pitted Lebanon’s Catholic, Palestinian, Shiite Muslim, Sunni Muslim, Druze, and Greek Orthodox populations against each other. With a steady supply of arms to all sides, the war resulted in the de facto partitioning of Lebanon by Israel and Syria.
Today, the nation-state of Lebanon, once considered the jewel of the Mideast, no longer exists. “Most of the states of the Middle East,” he wrote, “are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common national identity or overriding allegiance to the nation-state. The state then disintegrates-as happened in Lebanon-into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties.”
The End of Arab Nationalism:
The process of disintegration of the Mideast, projected by Lewis, is facilitated not only by the collapse of the Soviet Union, but what Lewis calls the “demise of pan-Arabism.” The coup de grace for Arab nationalism, Lewis states, was the United States-led war against Iraq. Lewis asserts that the war was primarily a war among Arab states, in which the United States only became involved “reluctantly.” The line up of the Arab nations against Iraq “marked the formal abandonment of the long-cherished dream of pan-Arabism, of a united Arab state or even a coherent Arab political bloc. As a matter of current politics and for the foreseeable future,[Arab nationalism] no longer counts as a political force. It is not a factor in international or inter-Arab or even domestic Arab politics.”
Further marking the political impotence of the Arab world, Lewis states, is the “end-at least for the time being of the effectiveness of oil as a weapon in the hands of the producer countries. This weapon, so powerful as an instrument of policy in past crises, was in this particular crisis totally ineffectual.”
These two phase-changes in Mideast politics represent a significant achievement for Lewis, who is regarded as the dean of Mideast area specialists within the Anglo-American elite. For him, the collapse of Arab nationalism removes the threat of industrial development and national independence in the Mideast. The unstated assumption of all of Lewis’s ruminations is the maintenance of the economic status quo; the Mideast will be developed, if at all, only under circumstances controlled by powers outside the region.
Lewis does not mince words when it comes to the military strength of such outside powers. The “most important lesson of the war,” Lewis proclaims, is that “the swift and overwhelming defeat of the Iraqi armed forces reminded the world of something that it had begun to forget: the technological and military edge that the modern West had achieved over the rest of the world, and which in the past had enabled even small European countries like Holland and Portugal to conquer and govern vast empires in Asia and Africa.”
This outside military strength will only be used to thwart threats to itself, Lewis implies, but the western powers will not directly rule the region. “Because of some resemblances of language and institutions, there is a widespread belief in the Middle East that the United States is the British Empire back in business with new management, a new trading name and a new address. This is not so. . . . The United States will no doubt seek to remain the predominant outside power in the Middle East, but the operative word is ‘outside.’ Instead, Lewis states, U. S.
policy is the “balance of power” method that is associated with Kissinger. American policy, he says, “is to prevent the emergence of a regional hegemony-of a single regional power that could dominate the area and thus establish monopolistic control of Middle Eastern oil.” This overriding concern explains American flip-flops on Iran and Iraq.
The apparent exceptions to such tactical arrangements are US reliance on the “steadfastness of the northern tier” i.e., Turkey; and “the presence of a powerful, self-reliant and stable democratic power in the region”-Israel. Lewis is known in the intelligence community for his affection for Turkey. He published a book for the RNA, The Emergence of Modern Turkey. in which he focused on the potential use of religious, class, and ethnic differences to bring an end to the industrialization policies of the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
In the case of Israel, Lewis states, Americans recognize the United States as having “stronger links, stronger mutual loyalties, and commitments and a more
enduring relationship.” Otherwise, the U. S. has no loyalties to any state in the region: “The United States has obviously felt free to abandon such allies, if the alliance becomes too troublesome or ceases to be cost-effective-as, for example, in South Vietnam, Kurdistan, and Lebanon.”
The Lewis-Kissinger balance of power strategy outlaws the concept of a “community of principle”-alliances of sovereign nation-states based on a commitment to mutual economic development. Lacking such a community of principle and given the worldwide economic breakdown imposed by such agencies as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the countries of the underdeveloped sector are expected to explode into civil strife and wars. As long as the extraction of oil and loot is assured, Lewis makes clear, no one should expect the “outside” powers to become involved in such chaos. Lewis states explicitly:
“The West would no longer be concerned but would remain indifferent to whatever happened, to wars, disasters, and upheavals, as long as the oil continues to flow”.
The western capacity for turning a blind eye, already manifested in other respects, should not be underrated. In the past, outside powers have sometimes intervened to prevent, to limit or to halt Arab-Israel wars. Arabs and Israelis alike would be unwise to count on such interventions in the future.”
In this regard, Lewis looks with favour on a particular variant of the diverse and often competing movements misleadingly termed “Islamic fundamentalist.” That British run variant which he favours is opposed to modern science and technology and, in opposition to the tenets of Islam banning usury, is loyally committed to paying IMF debt. As such, Lewis sees such a variety of fundamentalism as a battering ram against the nation-state.
“The eclipse of pan-Arabism” he writes, “has left Islamic fundamentalism as the most attractive alternative to all those who feel that there has to be something better, truer and more hopeful than the inept tyrannies of their rulers and the bankrupt ideologies foisted on them from outside.” He notes that British subversive movements acting under such a cover enjoy a practical advantage in societies like the Middle East. “Dictators can forbid parties, they can forbid meetings they cannot forbid public worship, and they can to only a limited extent control sermons.” As such they represent a “network outside the control of the state the more oppressive the regime, the greater the help it gives to fundamentalists by eliminating competing oppositions.”
Elaborating on the subversive capacities of that variety of fundamentalism run out of Britain, he adds: “In a program of aggression and expansion these movements would enjoy, like their Jacobin and Bolshevik predecessors, the advantage of fifth columns in every country and community with which they share a common universe of discourse. There is also the possibility that they might have nuclear weapons, either for terrorist or regular military use.” Such developments will lead to the process which he dubs “Lebanonization.” “Most of the states of the Middle East . . . are of recent and artificial construction and are’ vulnerable to such a process,” he analyzes. “If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common national identity or overriding allegiance to the nation-state. The state then disintegrates as happened in Lebanon-into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties.”
A new phase of wars
A look at the area of the world Lewis designates as the Middle East shows that Lewis‘s pronouncements are active Anglo-American policy. Take the case of Iraq. The Anglo-American/French imposition of a “no-fly” zone over southern Iraq accelerated the dismemberment of that state into three pans, a Kurdish north, a central Baghdad region , and a Shiite south. Because of a common denomination, Shiaism, as well as diverse geographic and historical factors, a Shiite statelet carved out of southern Iraq would tend to fall under the control of neighbouring Iran.
This fact, in addition to Iranian ambitions toward other Arab Gulf sheikdoms, will tend to foster the condition for a new Iranian-Arab war. A Kurdish statelet carved out of northern Iraq will tend to fall under the control of the increasingly ambitious Turkey. Control over oil-rich Iraqi Kurdistan was one of the promises made to the Turkish establishment to induce them to enter the war against Iraq. But the creation of an even nominally independent Kurdistan carved out of Iraq would also inflame the adjacent Kurdish regions in Iran, and in Turkey itself, where a near war between the Turkish army and Kurds is ongoing. For such reasons, the division of northern Iraq will tend to provoke an Iranian-Turkish war. Such a war is made more likely because the Turkish-allied former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan is laying claim to Iranian Azerbaijan.
In the Balkans, the war in former Yugoslavia is rapidly drawing in neighbouring powers [this is almost over, paper written years ago]. If Serbia invades Kosovo as projected, Albania and then Turkey will join the war against Serbia, while Greece will side with Serbia.
In Central Asia, Anglo-American planners are attempting to pit Tajikistan, an Iranian-ethnic republic, against Uzbekistan, which is Turkic. The war could spread into neighbouring Afghanistan, already in a civil war, and even into neighbouring Chinese Turkestan, whose population is ethnically the same as the new Central Asian republics.
While provoking wars, the Anglo-Americans are hard at work in assembling regional alliances to administer the region on their behalf, most notably a Saudi-Israeli and Turkish-Israeli axis. As part of this effort, the Anglo-Americans are fostering a Camp David-style separate peace deal between Syria and Israel. Under earlier arrangements, Syria and Israel gobbled up Lebanon. Now, it appears, Jordan is set to be “Lebanonized.” As far back as 1990, Pentagon planners began reconsideration of an old plan to overthrow the Hashemite dynasty of Jordan and put in its place a “Palestinian state,” jointly administered by Israel and Syria. The arrest of Jordanian parliamentarian Laith Shubeilat on US orders has destabilized the country, especially given the fact that Shubeilat has been associated with a pro-Iraq policy. As Lyndon LaRouche has warned, an Israeli move to blow up the Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem can be expected. Such attempts have been made by Jewish zealots before, under the professed aim of clearing the way for constructing the Third Temple of Solomon. The ensuing riots would set the stage for broader religious warfare in the region.
It is common to brush aside the conspiracy theories. However if one critically examines the plans conceived decades back by scholar or groups with close association with the policy makers in USA and UK and the events on ground bear close semblance, its difficult to reject it out rightly. The governments of Muslim countries should consider these aspects seriously and instead of investing in construction of high rise building and other symbols of luxury, should invest in education, and establish think tanks, with genuine intellectuals, analysts and thinkers. They should constantly review the international plans and conspiracies, suggesting concrete counter measures for the national survival and advancement of peace and stability. Also read: http://aftabkhan-net.page.tl/Middle-East-Division_Bernard-Lewis-Plan-and-Oded-Yinon-Plans.htm
ومن الشائع أن فرشاة جانبا نظريات المؤامرة. ولكن إذا كان واحد يدرس خطيرة خطط تصور عقود إلى الوراء عالم أو مجموعات مع ارتباط وثيق مع صانعي السياسة في الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية والمملكة المتحدة والأحداث على الأرض تحمل مظاهر الوثيق، يبدو من الصعب أن يرفض بها بحق. يجب على حكومات الدول الإسلامية أن تنظر في هذه الجوانب على محمل الجد وبدلا من الاستثمار في بناء مبنى عال وغيرها من رموز الترف، ينبغي أن تستثمر في التعليم، وإنشاء مؤسسات الفكر والرأي، مع المثقفين حقيقي والمحللين والمفكرين. عليهم مراجعة باستمرار الخطط والمؤامرات الدولية، واقتراح تدابير مضادة ملموسة لبقاء الوطني
والنهوض بالسلام والاستقرار.
یہ سازشی نظریات ایک طرف برش کرنے کے لئے عام ہے. ایک شدید امریکہ اور برطانیہ میں پالیسی سازوں اور زمین پر واقعات قریبی جھلک برداشت کے ساتھ قریبی ایسوسی ایشن کے ساتھ واپس عالم یا گروہوں کی طرف سے دہائیوں سمجھے منصوبوں کا معائنہ تاہم، اگر، اس مشکل کو بجا طور پر اس سے باہر کو مسترد کرنے. مسلم ممالک کی حکومتوں کو سنجیدگی سے ان پہلوؤں پر غور کرنا چاہئے اور اس کی بجائے اعلی اضافہ کی عمارت اور عیش و آرام کی دیگر علامات کی تعمیر میں سرمایہ کاری کی، حقیقی دانشور، تجزیہ کاروں اور دانشوروں کے ساتھ، تعلیم میں سرمایہ کاری، اور تھنک ٹینک قائم کرنا چاہئے. وہ مسلسل امن اور استحکام کی قومی بقا اور ترقی کے لئے ٹھوس اقدامات تجویز انسداد، بین الاقوامی منصوبوں اور سازشوں ..کاجائزہ لینے چاہئے. مزید پرہیں … لنک …