From Secretary States Rogers to Rice: U.S. and Israel redraw maps
Introduction
2023-2025 saw the coming into fruition of prior plans of USA and Israeli States to redraw the map of the Middle East.
The current unjust war of aggression against the state of Iran, is best understood in the context of USA imperialism and the Israeli state’s long-term plans. As the current Israeli – and now USA – attacks on Iran reminds us – the imperialists have a longer-term goal. These are to completely tear up the artificial constructs of ‘country’ in the Middle East and re-draw the maps of 1918.
Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel has made the case this loudly and in his usual arrogant way, at several forums, including at the UN General Assembly in 2023 (see image above).
In case there remains uncertainty about these statements, the reader is referred to a very detailed legal review entitled “Artificial States and the Remapping of the Middle East”; by Aslı Ü. Bâli – at the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law”; here – Volume 53 March 2020 Number 2″.
We have recently re-discussed the aim to redraw the map of the Middle East, in regard to the USA Secretary of State Rogers plan of 1970 (See “War by Proxy: The Iraq-Iran War” – for ‘Compass’ 1980 at 21 June 2025). Here we examine the USA updating of an Israeli Plan from 1982, made during the term of Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State for USA’s President George W. Bush.
Following the loosening of the British-French stranglehold, the Middle East saw the forceful full emergence of the USA and its Middle Eastern bulwark of Israel. Since the establishment of Israel, a persistent long-term goal has been to erase ‘nationalist’ governments. This became a long-term plan to redraw the map of the Middle East, which has taken several forms over the years.
This was the case right up to 2020. Of course, tragically, since then, the Israeli-led devastation of Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and now Iran, has wrought changes in line with this vision. The changes in Syria and the USA relationship with both Turkey and the Arab Gulf states have been consistent with this overall plan.
This draws from an earlier article (Theses on Kurdistan Part 2 at December 2019).
The Oden Yinon Plan for a Greater Israel 1982
The Oden Yinon Plan for a Greater Israel was drawn up in 1982, and explicitly called for dividing up the state of Iraq :
“the USA built on what was known as the Oden Yinon Plan or the plan for a ‘Greater Israel” articulated in 1982:
“The first argument for partitioning Iraq was made in 1982 by Zionist strategist Oded Yinon, whose plan – often called the Yinon plan or the plan for “Greater Israel” – calls for dividing Iraq into separate statelets for Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. It similarly calls for the division of other secular Arab states, like Syria, into smaller states divided along ethnic or sectarian lines that are constantly at war with each other in order to ensure that Israel “becomes an imperial regional power.”
Whitney Webb, ‘Regime Change, Partition, and “Sunnistan”: John Bolton’s Vision for a New Middle East’; March 30th, 2018; MintPress News, https://www.mintpressnews.com/regime- change-partition-and-sunnistan-john-boltons-vision-for-a-new-middle-east/239714/
The Condoleezza Rice plan of 2000-2006
The Condolezza Rice plan was put forward, modelled on the above-described existing Israeli Oden Yinon Plan. Both in the first Trump presidency, and in the Biden Vice-Presidency under President Obama – the plan was to be followed with some variations.
In 2000-2006 the broad strategic goal was laid out in vivid and stark terms.
“The US made its strategic aims public, in a Pentagon document, released on May 30th, 2000, that is more than 15 months before the events of 11 September. This document was “Joint Vision 2020”, a US Department of Defense plan, prepared around 1992. This explicitly states the strategic aim of the USA is: “full-spectrum dominance… Given the global nature of our interests and obligations, the US must retain its overseas presence forces and the ability of rapidly projecting power worldwide in order to achieve full-spectrum dominance.”
Garbis Altinoglu; Citing Sara Flounders, “Expanding Empire: Pentagon Bootprints Around the Globe”, Workers World, January 31, 2002
In 2006, in a press conference, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice justified the then Israeli attacks on Lebanon by invoking a ‘New Middle East’:
“What we’re seeing here [in regards to the destruction of Lebanon and the Israeli attacks on Lebanon], in a sense, is the growing—the ‘birth pangs’—of a ‘New Middle East’ and whatever we do, we [meaning the United States] have to be certain that we’re pushing forward to the New Middle East [and] not going back to the old one.”
Sec State Condoleezza Rice, Special Briefing on the Travel to the Middle East and Europe of Secretary Condoleezza Rice (Press Conference, U.S. State Department, Washington, D.C., July 21, 2006). Mahdi Nazemroaya, “Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East”; Global Research; https://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle- east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882
All Presidential representatives of USA capital have been in agreement with this. From Bush, to Obama, and subsequently to Trump 1, Biden and Trump 2 – all US presidents have been quite consistent. Trump may have broken with many ‘rules’ set by his Democratic and Republican fellow imperialists – but he is quite consistent with the thrust of prior policies.
A USA re-drawing of the older boundaries was performed by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters (retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy), who floated new maps, as below.
This map was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006; (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006). Cited in: Mahdi Nazemroaya, “Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East”; Global Research; https://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle- east/3882
Map: Anticipated re-division of the Middle East in 2006
Division of Iraq into religious-based statelets
Two key aspects were to carve out a new state of Kurdistan from Turkey, Iran, and Syria; and to divide Iraq into Sunni and a Shia sections. In reality, the plan logically flowed from the already existing geographic divide in Iraq between South, central and Northern parts, corresponding to religious and racial divides.
The Democratic Party followed the entire game plan, as it was originally set by the Bush regime. For example, Joe Biden (before he became Vice-President to Obama), offered a ‘soft partition plan’:
“Biden’s so-called soft-partition plan – a variation of the blueprint dividing up Bosnia in 1995 – calls for dividing Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions, held together by a central government. There would be a loose Kurdistan, a loose Shiastan, and a loose Sunnistan, all under a big, if weak, Iraq umbrella.
“The idea, as in Bosnia, is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group – Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab – room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests,” Biden and Gelb wrote in their opinion piece on May 1, 2006. “We could drive this in place with irresistible sweeteners for the Sunnis to join in, a plan designed by the military for withdrawing and redeploying American forces, and a regional nonaggression pact.”
Helene Cooper, ‘Biden plan for ‘soft partition’ of Iraq gains momentum’, New York Times; July 30, 2007. At https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/americas/30iht-letter.1.6894357.html
The proposal in the middle of the ongoing sectarian war in USA-occupied Iraq – acknowledged forthrightly what a growing number of Middle East experts estimated was as plain as day:
“Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis are not moving toward reconciliation; they still haven’t managed to get an oil law passed, and de facto ethnic cleansing is underway as Sunnis flee largely Shiite neighborhoods and towns, and vice versa.”
Helene Cooper, ‘Biden plan for ‘soft partition’ of Iraq gains momentum’, New York Times; July 30, 2007. At https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/americas/30iht-letter.1.6894357.html
There remained some fine-tuning (for example, there was disagreement about whether there should be ‘federalism’ or simply a frank partition).
Max Fisher, “Why DC loves Biden’s terrible plan to divide Iraq Aug 5, 2015. https://www.vox.com/2015/8/5/9097133/iraq-biden; and, Ben Connable, ‘Commentary: Partitioning Iraq: Make a Detailed Case, or Cease and Desist’; May 16, 201;6 At War on the Rocks’; and, https://www.rand.org/blog/2016/05/partitioning-iraq-make-a-detailed-case-or-cease- and.html
The overall intent was clear, as stated by Trump’s Secretary of Defence, Ash Carter:
“When Secretary of Defense Ash Carter attended a recent House Armed Services Committee hearing, and ranking Democrat Rep. Adam Smith suggested that Iraq would never again return to political unity (“Iraq is no more,” he said), Carter agreed. “There will not be a single state of Iraq,” he said, suggesting that “a multi-sectarian Iraq” might no longer be possible.”
Helene Cooper, ‘Biden plan for ‘soft partition’ of Iraq gains momentum’, New York Times; July 30, 2007. At https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/americas/30iht-letter.1.6894357.html
John Bolton in March 2018, was installed as the National Security Adviser. It is true that Bolton and Trump disagreed on some details of geopolitics, causing Bolton to resign in acrimony. But there is no indication that any disagreements were with Israel.
Nonetheless, Bolton had a prior long history of wanting to re-carve the Middle East into an American flavor.
(Whitney Webb, ‘Regime Change, Partition, and “Sunnistan”: John Bolton’s Vision for a New Middle East’; March 30th, 2018; MintPress News, https://www.mintpressnews.com/regime- change-partition-and-sunnistan-john-boltons-vision-for-a-new-middle-east/239714/ )
Bolton’s stated views included the centrality of Israel and, of course, oil. Finally, a major role was forseen as being undertaken by the major oil producers of the region, most notably Saudi Arabia. This was also the case in the most recent plan to ‘re-draw’ the Middle East prior to the October 2023 caesura (following the Hamas terrorist led attack on Israel). That was the USA and Israeli so-called “Abraham Plan”.
We cite a long informative quote from Webb as below:
“A major part of the groundwork for partition, the invasion of Iraq, and the current Syrian conflict, was laid out in the neo-conservative manifesto “A Clean Break,” whose lead author Richard Perle is Bolton’s mentor, and who, along with Bolton, later co-founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)…
The title of the document comes from its suggestion that Israel make a “clean break from the slogan ‘comprehensive peace’ to a traditional concept of strategy based on the balance of power.” The manifesto states:
“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.”
“A Clean Break” also calls for “re-establishing the principle of pre-emption” — i.e., pre-emptive war – as well as the creation of a “new Middle East.”
The 2003 invasion of Iraq that Bolton helped manifest (and that he continues to support) fulfilled several of the objectives laid out in “A Clean Break,” by removing Saddam Hussein from power and altering the region’s “balance of power.” Yet, now, with Saddam long gone and Syria weakened after years of fighting off foreign-funded proxies, the next step needed to cement this “new Middle East” is the partitioning of both Syria and Iraq.
The first argument for partitioning Iraq was made in 1982 by Zionist strategist Oded Yinon, whose plan – often called the Yinon plan or the plan for “Greater Israel” – calls for dividing Iraq into separate statelets for Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. It similarly calls for the division of other secular Arab states, like Syria, into smaller states divided along ethnic or sectarian lines that are constantly at war with each other in order to ensure that Israel “becomes an imperial regional power.”
Unsurprisingly, Bolton has, since leaving his post in the Bush administration, consistently advocated for partitioning both Syria and Iraq. In 2014, Bolton asserted that Iraq was inevitably “headed toward partition.” In 2015, on Fox News, Bolton stated:
“I think our objective should be a new Sunni state out of the western part of Iraq, the eastern part of Syria run by moderates or at least authoritarians who are not radical Islamists.”
A few months later, Bolton – in a New York Times op-ed – detailed his plan to create the Sunni state out of northeastern Syria and western Iraq, which he nicknames “Sunni-stan.” He asserts that such a country has “economic potential” as an oil producer, would be a “bulwark” against the Syrian government and “Iran-allied Baghdad”, and would help defeat Daesh (ISIS). Bolton’s mention of oil is notable, as the proposed area for this Sunni state sits on key oil fields that U.S. oil interests, such as ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers, have sought to control if the partition of Iraq and Syria comes to pass.
Bolton also suggested that Arab Gulf States “could provide significant financing”, adding that “the Arab monarchies like Saudi Arabia must not only fund much of the new state’s early needs, but also ensure its stability and resistance to radical forces.” He fails to note that Saudi Arabia is one of the chief financiers of Daesh and is largely responsible for spreading “radical” Wahhabi Islam throughout the Middle East.
Notably, Bolton directly mentions who would benefit from this partition, and it certainly isn’t the Syrians or the Iraqis.
“Restoring Iraqi and Syrian governments to their former borders,” Bolton writes, “is a goal fundamentally contrary to American, Israeli, and friendly Arab state interests.”
Control of northeastern Syria, currently occupied by U.S. forces, is set to be given to Saudi Arabia if the Saudis commit to spending $4 billion to “rebuild” the area, a first step towards preventing the reunification of Syria and creating an “independent” sectarian state. Bolton, as national security adviser, is likely to push for the creation of a new sectarian state out of Syrian and Iraqi territory, now that the groundwork has been laid and the path largely cleared to building a “new Middle East.” However, as previously mentioned, Iran is currently the only country in the region with the potential to foil the plan to fundamentally reshape the Middle East.”
Whitney Webb, ‘Regime Change, Partition, and “Sunnistan”: John Bolton’s Vision for a New Middle East’; March 30th, 2018; MintPress News, https://www.mintpressnews.com/regime- change-partition-and-sunnistan-john-boltons-vision-for-a-new-middle-east/239714/
The USA vision extends to all parts of the Middle East, including Turkey and Iran. No doubt, this will ultimately depend upon how compliant these states are with USA’s demands.
Envisaging the Balkanization of Iran
The current USA belligerence against Iran was not discussed in detail in these plans, but is relevant:
“(In) former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives…. (He envisages) a divided and balkanized Iraq… Taking what we know from the White House’s own admissions, there is a belief that “creative destruction and chaos” in the Middle East are beneficial assets to reshaping the Middle East, creating the “New Middle East,” and furthering the Anglo-American roadmap in the Middle East and Central Asia…
The Eurasian Balkans include nine countries that one way or another fit the foregoing description, with two others as potential candidates. The nine are Kazakstan [or Kazakhstan], Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia – all of them formerly part of the defunct Soviet Union – as well as Afghanistan.
The potential additions to the list are Turkey and Iran, both of them much more politically and economically viable, both active contestants for regional influence within the Eurasian Balkans, and thus both significant geo-strategic players in the region. At the same time, both are potentially vulnerable to internal ethnic conflicts. If either or both of them were to be destabilized, the internal problems of the region would become unmanageable, while efforts to restrain regional domination by Russia could even become futile.”
Zbigniew Brzezinski; Cited by: Mahdi Nazemroaya, “Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East”; originally 2006; reprinted by Global Research; 2017; at: https://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle- east/3882
We will now see how the USA government attempted to effect its plans for the division of Iraq. Of course, the best plans of mice and men can go astray.
In this case they were forced astray by Iran.
Until the October 2023-25 genocide of Palestinians, the USA and Israel – have failed to achieve their strategic goals in the Middle East. This has of course now changed, but the full magnitude of these changes is only taking shape now.
Based on Pages 89-94 at “Theses on Kurdistan Part 2”
