Bolton
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.” Iran is
currently the only country in the region with the potential to foil
that plan.
by
Whitney Webb
Part
8 - Syria and Iraq partition: playing with the map
Beyond
pushing for regime change in Iran, John Bolton has long demonstrated
his commitment to helping Israel and its allies entirely remake the
Middle East and thus fundamentally change the region’s balance of
power. A key part of this has been the partition of other secular,
independent nations in the Middle East, namely Syria and Iraq. It is
largely for this reason that Bolton, a major advocate of the U.S.
invasion of Iraq, still stands by the disastrous war — because it
was an essential precursor to Iraq’s partition.
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). Another co-author, David
Wurmser, also went on to become an advisor to Bolton.
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 “reestablishing the principle
of preemption” — i.e., preemptive 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 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.
Source,
links:
Related:
Another wet dream.
ReplyDelete