Re-Balancing the Middle East Part 1 (of a 3 Part Series)

Israel & the Middle East


It would be best if we explain the key aim of the 2 families. Both want a one-world government – each for their own reason. The Rockefeller family began this journey in the aftermath of World War 1, when the founder built the League of Nations building in Geneva in 1920. Their vision of a global government entailed on efficiency, not ideology. This was the underlying reason why Nelson Rockefeller and his brothers pushed for the establishment of the UN in New York City. The brothers paid $8 million for the land, and had the UN built according to their specs. The UN banks with the Chase Manhattan Bank; and till today, the UN is within the Rockefeller orbit.

The Rothschild family had another vision that was based on the cult formed by some radical Levites in Palestine in the year 950 BC. This cult grew in power over the next 3,000 years. It had many leaders in the past, and its current leadership lies with the Rothschild family. The “unofficial government” of this group went by many names, such as the Levites, then the Pharisees, then the Talmudists, and finally to the Illuminati Council, established in Frankfurt in 1773. Between 1820 and 1830, the Rothschilds assumed the leadership. From it emerged the doctrine of Zionism, in September 1882.

Israel, a “Hidden Superpower”

Israel is the visible tip of an invisible empire – the Rothschild Empire. As such, it has to fulfill its mandate. And what is its mandate? To make Jerusalem the capital city of the world government, and to make all of humanity be its’ slaves – irrespective of race or creed. It is impossible to analyze the international situation portraying Israel as a “satellite”, or a “client state” of the US. As it has acquired many  of the characteristics of a “hidden superpower”. Its ascension was greatly facilitated – there is no other logical way to explain it – by its special links to the world financial power of the Rothschilds and the rise of its power  during the “globalization” era (after 1990).

Israel has not only a regional, but a truly global agenda, from Ukraine to Brazil and from Britain to Sudan, and from India, to China and South Africa. It is also able to intervene to the internal affairs of major European powers, as well as in the US, and Russia. And now, it’s getting a foothold within the Arab countries.

Fast forward to today. New York wants to blow up the Middle East in order to cripple its economic rivals, such as China, Iran, Russia and the EU. In this plan, Israel will be badly damaged, and may not survive. While London and Israel want to change how this happens. Their main aim, currently, is to destroy Iran, as Iran is the backer of both Hezbollah and Syria. If this is done, then Israel will then be in a position to re-structure the boundaries of its enemies – the Arabs. It knows that it cannot rely on America to support it fully, thus, it has embarked on a process of roping the Arab nations on its side. To better understand its long-term plans for the region we have to study the Yinon Plan.

The Yinon Plan

In his diaries, the father of modern political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, wrote that the area of the Jewish State stretched from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates. The “Greater Israel” (or the “Yinon”) plan, first drafted more than a century ago, entails “weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of a US-Israeli expansionist project, with the support of NATO and Saudi Arabia”. And then “a number of proxy States” would be created and include “parts of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the Sinai,” “Iraq and Saudi Arabia”.

Since the pro-Israel lobbying groups in the United States are quite powerful, the Greater Israel design is not strictly a Zionist project for the Middle East, it is an integral part of US foreign policy, especially in recent decades. That is why President Donald Trump has confirmed in no uncertain terms, his support of Israel’s illegal settlements. The fact that he chose “to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital” is also in line with this policy. This decision “is intended to trigger political instability throughout the region”, which would benefit both New York and the supporters of the “Greater Israel” plan. The Yinon Plan was a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East.

The Yinon Plan is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority, which “stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the Balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states”.  Iraq is outlined as the centerpiece to the Balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World, with its division into “a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims”. The Yinon Plan calls for a divided Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria, and that the partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan is also consistent with it.

The Zionist plan for the Middle East bears an intimate relationship to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing wars on Syria, Iraq and Yemen, not to mention the political crisis in Saudi Arabia.

However, the “Yinon Plan” “also calls for dissolution in North Africa”. Israel appears to be “interested” in Africa not only because of potential benefits to be derived from political cooperation with this region and joint efforts to fight Islamic extremism but also due to the plethora of natural resources on this continent. Africa is rich in deposits of manganese, platinum, copper, iron and uranium ores, in crude oil and gas, and in other natural resources. In fact, some processes of change have already started – South Sudan gained independence from the Republic of the Sudan in 2011; Libya is divided, and there have been several Arab Spring uprisings, including one in Egypt.

 Tel Aviv has been seemingly creating pro-Israeli territories, as envisioned in the “Yinon” plan. coordination between Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar (the commander of the Libyan National Army (LNA)) and the Israelis, which has been conducted through the UAE, began in 2015, if not sooner.  Israel’s backing of the LNA illustrates the regional geopolitical dynamics which have led Sunni-majority Arab states—specifically Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE—to find themselves in the same boat with Israel, sharing the same perceptions of security threats. All of these nations view Iran, Hezbollah and extremist Islamic movements as a threat.

 Khalifa Haftar met with “Mossad agents in Jordan in strict secrecy” in 2015 and 2016, which is when “Israel began providing the LNA with sniper rifles and night vision equipment”. Citing media outlet Al-Araby al-Jadeed, the Middle East Monitor reported that “Haftar sought a stronger Israeli presence in southern Libya to thwart Italy” from asserting significant influence throughout the Fezzan (in southern Libya). Then the LNA commander allegedly met with Israeli intelligence agents a number of times, including in Amman and Cairo. Later on, Israeli military began carrying out air raids in Libya in coordination with the LNA after Haftar launched Operation Dignity in 2014.  The Middle East Monitor reported that “officials in Algiers warned Haftar against receiving Israeli military support”. Algeria -very much wary of any Anglo-American plans – also appears to be critical of the “Greater Israel” plan and views it with suspicion.

Concurrently, Israel is proceeding with the plan to annex large chunks of Palestinian territory while keeping the Palestinian inhabitants in conditions of severe deprivation and isolation. If the manoeuvre is successful, Israel will end up with all of the territories it conquered during the 1967 war, including all of the Golan Heights and Jerusalem and most of the Palestinian Territories, including the best sources of water and agricultural land. The West Bank will find itself in the same situation as the Gaza strip, cut off from the outside world and surrounded by hostile Israeli military forces and Israeli settlements.”.

 The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views.

The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation. This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.

Viewed in this context, the war on Syria and Iraq is part of the process of Israeli territorial expansion. 

In this regard, the defeat of US sponsored terrorists (ISIS, Al Nusra) by Syrian Forces with the support of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah constitute a significant setback for Israel. There are 2 camps in the Middle East: those countries which work with Israel, and those who do not.  The countries which have established relationships with Israel are Turkey; United Arab Emirates (UAE); Saudi Arabia; Qatar; Bahrain; Oman; Jordan; Morocco, Sudan and Egypt. This group of countries is backed up by the US and the EU. The countries which do not have a relationship with Israel are Syria; Lebanon; Iraq; Iran; Occupied Palestinian; Yemen; Algeria.  This group of countries has established a very good relationship with Russia and China.

The world is split between 2 spheres of influence, with the US and EU on 1 side (Zone A), and Russia and China on the other (Zone B).  This situation is very similar to the ‘Cold War’ years when the world was split between the Soviet Union and the US.

The Anglo-American Military Roadmap in the Middle East and Central Asia 

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s speech, in 2006, on the “New Middle East” had set the stage. The Israeli attacks on Lebanon – which had been fully endorsed by Washington and London – have further compromised and validated the existence of the geo-strategic objectives of the United States, Britain, and Israel. According to Professor Mark Levine the “neo-liberal globalizers and neo-conservatives, and ultimately the Bush Administration, would latch on to creative destruction as a way of describing the process by which they hoped to create their new world order”.

Anglo-American occupied Iraq, particularly Iraqi Kurdistan, seems to be the preparatory ground for the balkanization (division) and finlandization (pacification) of the Middle East. Already the legislative framework, under the Iraqi Parliament and the name of Iraqi federalization, for the partition of Iraq into three portions is being drawn out. (See map below)

Moreover, the Anglo-American military roadmap appears to be vying an entry into Central Asia via the Middle East. The Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are stepping stones for extending U.S. influence into the former Soviet Union and the ex-Soviet Republics of Central Asia. The Middle East is to some extent the southern tier of Central Asia. Central Asia in turn is also termed as “Russia’s Southern Tier” or the Russian “Near Abroad.”

Many Russian and Central Asian scholars, military planners, strategists, security advisors, economists, and politicians consider Central Asia (“Russia’s Southern Tier”) to be the vulnerable and “soft under-belly” of the Russian Federation.

It should be noted that in his book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. National Security Advisor ( and a Rockefeller protégé), alluded to the modern Middle East as a control lever of an area he, Brzezinski, calls the Eurasian Balkans. The Eurasian Balkans consists of the Caucasus (Georgia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Armenia) and Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan) and to some extent both Iran and Turkey. Iran and Turkey both form the northernmost tiers of the Middle East (excluding the Caucasus) that edge into Europe and the former Soviet Union.

The Map of the “New Middle East”

A relatively unknown map of the Middle East, NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, and Pakistan has been circulating around strategic, governmental, NATO, policy and military circles since mid-2006. It has been causally allowed to surface in public, maybe in an attempt to build consensus and to slowly prepare the general public for possible, maybe even cataclysmic, changes in the Middle East. This is a map of a redrawn and restructured Middle East identified as the “New Middle East.”


Note: The following map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. 

Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military officers. This map, as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles.

This map of the “New Middle East” seems to be based on several other maps, including older maps of potential boundaries in the Middle East extending back to the era of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and World War I. This map is showcased and presented as the brainchild of retired Lieutenant-Colonel (U.S. Army) Ralph Peters, who believes the redesigned borders contained in the map will fundamentally solve the problems of the contemporary Middle East.

The map of the “New Middle East” was a key element in the retired Lieutenant-Colonel’s book, Never Quit the Fightwhich was released to the public on July 10, 2006. This map of a redrawn Middle East was also published, under the title of Blood Borders: How a better Middle East would look, in the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal with commentary from Ralph Peters. It should be noted that Lieutenant-Colonel Peters was last posted to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, within the U.S. Defence Department, and has been one of the Pentagon’s foremost authors with numerous essays on strategy for military journals and U.S. foreign policy.

It has been written that Ralph Peters’ “four previous books on strategy have been highly influential in government and military circles,” but one can be pardoned for asking if in fact quite the opposite could be taking place. Could it be Lieutenant-Colonel Peters is revealing and putting forward what Washington D.C. and its strategic planners have anticipated for the Middle East?

The concept of a redrawn Middle East has been presented as a “humanitarian” and “righteous” arrangement that would benefit the people(s) of the Middle East and its peripheral regions.

 “Necessary Pain”

 Ralph Peters, but he insists that they are necessary pains for the people of the Middle East. This view of necessary pain and suffering is in startling parallel to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s belief that the devastation of Lebanon by the Israeli military was a necessary pain or “birth pang” in order to create the “New Middle East” that Washington, London, and Tel Aviv envision.

The overhaul, dismantlement, and reassembly of the nation-states of the Middle East have been packaged as a solution to the hostilities in the Middle East, but this is categorically misleading, false, and fictitious. The advocates of a “New Middle East” and redrawn boundaries in the region avoid and fail to candidly depict the roots of the problems and conflicts in the contemporary Middle East. What the media does not acknowledge is the fact that almost all major conflicts afflicting the Middle East are the consequence of overlapping Anglo-American-Israeli agendas?

Many of the problems affecting the contemporary Middle East are the result of the deliberate aggravation of pre-existing regional tensions. Sectarian division, ethnic tension and internal violence have been traditionally exploited by the United States and Britain in various parts of the globe including Africa, Latin America, the Balkans, and the Middle East. Iraq is just one of many examples of the Anglo-American strategy of “divide and conquer.” Other examples are Rwanda, Yugoslavia, the Caucasus, and Afghanistan.

Is there a Connection between Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “Eurasian Balkans” and the “New Middle East” Project?

The following are important excerpts and passages from former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book (published in 1997, but more than relevant today), The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives.

 Brzezinski also states that both Turkey and Iran, the two most powerful states of the “Eurasian Balkans,” located on its southern tier, are “potentially vulnerable to internal ethnic conflicts [balkanization],” and that, “If either or both of them were to be destabilized, the internal problems of the region would become unmanageable.”

“It seems that a divided and balkanized Iraq would be the best means of accomplishing this. 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:-“

“In Europe, the Word “Balkans” conjures up images of ethnic conflicts and great-power regional rivalries. Eurasia, too, has its “Balkans,” but the Eurasian Balkans are much larger, more populated, even more religiously and ethnically heterogeneous. They are located within that large geographic oblong that demarcates the central zone of global instability (…) that embraces portions of southeastern Europe, Central Asia and parts of South Asia [Pakistan, Kashmir, Western India], the Persian Gulf area, and the Middle East “.

“The Eurasian Balkans, astride the inevitably emerging transportation network meant to link more directly Eurasia’s richest and most industrious western and eastern extremities are also geopolitically significant. Moreover, they are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely, Russia, Turkey, and Iran, with Russia and China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.

 The world’s energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of Energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia’s economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy. Access to that resource and sharing in its potential wealth represent objectives that stir national ambitions, motivate corporate interests, rekindle historical claims, revive imperial aspirations, and fuel international rivalries. The situation is made all the more volatile by the fact that the region is not only a power vacuum but is also internally unstable.

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 , 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“. 

Redrawing the Middle East

The Middle East, in some regards, is a striking parallel to the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe during the years leading up the First World War. In the wake of the First World War the borders of the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe were redrawn. This region experienced a period of upheaval, violence and conflict, before and after World War I, which was the direct result of foreign economic interests and interference.

The reasons behind the First World War are more sinister than the standard school-book explanation, the assassination of the heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian (Habsburg) Empire, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in Sarajevo. Economic factors were the real motivation for the large-scale war in 1914.

Norman Dodd, a former Wall Street banker and investigator for the U.S. Congress, who examined U.S. tax-exempt foundations, confirmed in a 1982 interview that those powerful individuals who from behind the scenes controlled the finances, policies, and government of the United States had in fact also planned U.S. involvement in a war, which would contribute to entrenching their grip on power.

The following testimonial is from the transcript of Norman Dodd’s interview with G. Edward Griffin;

 “We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations.  And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion.  And the question is this:  Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?  And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war.  So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war? And finally, they answer that question as follows:  we must control the State Department.
And then, that very naturally raises the question of how do we do that? They answer it by saying, we must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country and, finally, they resolve to aim at that as an objective.  Then, time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which would be World War I.  At that time, they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatch to President Wilson a telegram cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly.  And finally, of course, the war is over.  At that time, their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914, when World War I broke out. “ The last point here is crucial to understand what the current situation is, and how these 2 families will prevent “a reversion to life” to what it was prior to 2020- globally, between the game-plans of the Lockdown scenarios and ending with Ice Nine. And this will be in parallel with an outbreak of war in the Middle East.

The redrawing and partition of the Middle East from the Eastern Mediterranean shores of Lebanon and Syria to Anatolia (Asia Minor), Arabia, the Persian Gulf, and the Iranian Plateau responds to broad economic, strategic and military objectives, which are part of a longstanding Anglo-American and Israeli agenda in the region. The Middle East has been conditioned by outside forces into a powder keg that is ready to explode with the right trigger, possibly the launching of Anglo-American and/or Israeli air raids against Iran.  A wider war in the Middle East could result in redrawn borders that are strategically advantageous to Anglo-American interests and Israel.

NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan has been successfully divided, all but in name. Animosity has been inseminated in the Levant, where a Palestinian civil war is being nurtured and divisions in Lebanon agitated. The Eastern Mediterranean has been successfully militarized by NATO. Syria and Iran continue to be demonized by the Western media. In turn, the Western media has fed, on a daily basis, incorrect and biased notions that the populations of Iraq and Syria cannot co-exist and that the conflict is not a war of occupation but a “civil war” characterised by domestic strife between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

Attempts at intentionally creating animosity between the different ethno-cultural and religious groups of the Middle East have been systematic. In fact, they are part of a carefully designed covert intelligence agenda.

Even more ominous, many Middle Eastern governments, such as that of Saudi Arabia, are assisting Washington in fomenting divisions between Middle Eastern populations. The ultimate objective is to weaken the resistance movement against foreign occupation through a “divide and conquer strategy” which serves Anglo-American and Israeli interests in the broader region.

The key interest of the Rockefeller family in the region is OIL. It is so obvious. As Kissinger said in the early 1970s, “If one controls food, one can control people, if one controls finance; one can control governments, and if one controls oil, then one can control the destinies of nations”. Now let us review what and how these 2 families’ agenda for the region plays out, and this will be discussed in the next part of this article, which is Part 2 of a 3-part series.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Posts by Month