Log in

View Full Version : The New Middle East



Jamal
4th August 2006, 01:56
The New Middle East! We are hearing it every where at this time; first Bush then Blair and now Rice, all calling for the construction of the New Middle East.

I have read an article written by Ralph Peters, a retired major in the CIA; in it he reveals the famous plan of the New Middle East. He claims that that this division of states is for a better west and specifically, for a better Middle East.

The plan is based on considerations that there was a grave injustice done to minorities when the Middle East was divided among the former "Sykes-Picot" plan in the 1916. It pointes out that these minorities groups or people have been deceived when the division first happened. The most important minorities are: Kurdish and Shiite Arabs. It also depends upon the Christians of the Middle East, Baha'is, Ismaili and Nakkachbandien; The Armenians on the other hand, are referred to by the fact that the massacres they have been subjected to, can not be compensated for an area of land. The plan also stems from the assumption of a strong hatred between groups in the region against each other, therefore, in order for the Middle East to live in peace, it should be apportioned on the basis of Demographic based religions, sects and nationalities and minorities.

The plan divides the region as follows:

Israel: The plan states that in order to live in peace with its neighbors, Israel should revert to the border of before 1967, with the amendments to the draft of basic essential for the security of Israel. The scheme does not refer to Jerusalem itself, but to the lands around Jerusalem, and says that as long as the city's history is filled with blood, and it is disputed over, its problem will not be resolved in this lifetime and so this problem will be left for the future.

Palestine: Palestine is not mentioned in the text, nothing on its National Authority nor Palestine nor the Palestinian Refugees nor the Gaza Strip and even the West Bank. The words "West Bank" where only mentioned in the list of losers in the last bit. The writer published at the end of the article a list titled "who wins and who loses" and at the end of the list of states that will lose, he shows the words "West Bank" but fails explained in article in what way does the West Bank lose! However, the map attached shows something extended from the site of the West Bank where he writes: "West Bank; status has yet to be decided".

Kurdish State: the greatest injustice, as the writer says, between the Balkans and the Himalayan Mountains, is the absence of an independent Kurdish state. The number of Kurds is between 27 million and 36 million (as stated) and the writer here blames the United States and its allies for what he considered as a wasted golden opportunity to declare the independence of a Kurdish state immediately after toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein. He also adds to the Iraqi Kurds the Kurds of Turkey, fifth of the area east of Turkey, as he considered, is an occupied territory and should be returned to the Kurds. The Kurds in Syria and Iran, as he said, will no doubt hurry off to join Kurdistan Free State if they where able, but without mentioning how. The writer ends the topic with this sentence: Free Kurdistan, which runs from Diyarbakir via Tabriz, will be among those states that exist between Japan and Bulgaria: in favor of the West.

Iraq: Iraq is divided into three parts, in the North State which is added to the new Kurdistan. In the south, there will be a new Shiite state. The center keeps the three provinces most inhabited by the Sunnis, and in the great imagination of the scheme, the Sunnis will choose in time to become united with Syria.

Syria and Lebanon: Syria is losing as much as Iraq, the Syrian coast is simply sliced and gifted to the "Larger Lebanon", but that Lebanon will not be similar to the one we know today, what is needed is to move to a country with middle- relationship (to the Mediterranean and not to the Arabs) and thus generate Phoenicia again (as indicated).


Jordan: Jordan retains its territory, plus the land of northern Saudi Arabia. Jordan, in this case, is a very lucky country in comparison to what has happened to other countries. It is obvious that in the future the West Bank or the children of the West Bank will be joined to Jordan.


Saudi Arabia: The writer described it as "non-natural" and is very excited for the fate of the cities of Mecca and Medina (holy Muslim cities). The proposal is to deduct these cities from Saudi Arabia to arise the "Holy Islamic State". A council headed by representatives from the lead Islamic movements and schools and so the representatives would be a kind of an "Islamist Vatican". In addition to the land deducted from northern Saudi Arabia to add to Jordan, there would be a deduction of the land south of the country to add to Yemen. The east of the country will also acknowledge the deduction of the oil fields in favor of the Shiite state.


Iran: Iran is supposed to lose in this project as well, by cutting off many of its territory for the benefit of united Azerbaijan, free Kurdistan, the Shiite State and a new state "free Baluchistan". In compensation Iran will gain some territory from Afghanistan around Herat. The writer says that Iran will eventually become a country ethnically Persian again.


Afghanistan: they lose territory in the west of Afghanistan in the interest of the Persian State and will gain territory in the East, deducted from the north-west of Pakistan, where there is a majority of Afghan tribes. Here, Peters speaking in plural says "We are not doing mapping as we want, but according to the wishes of the peoples of the region". Then he launches the same description to Pakistan as the one launched on Saudi Arabia, as a State that is not normal, it will therefore be diverted from large Pakistan to establish the Free State of Baluchistan.


UAE: called "States of impeccable metropolitan cities", some states will have merged with the Shiite Arab State that goes around the "Persian Gulf" (as indicated). The writer then explains what is meant or required by the Shiite Arab State. The aim, as he considers is that the balance of power will evolve to oppose the Persian State and will not be an ally. Dubai on the other hand is allowed to stay as the land of the filthy rich (as mentioned). Oman and Kuwait are allowed to keep all their land as they are.

The writer concludes that the amendment of limits on the wishes of the people may be impossible, but it is possible to create new borders with time and was quoted as saying that Babylon has fallen more than once.

The map of the New Middle East is below.

Whitten
4th August 2006, 02:03
I take it they dont get a say in this?

Jamal
4th August 2006, 02:10
I take it they dont get a say in this?

are you talking about the Eiddle Easterns or the Americans?

Janus
4th August 2006, 02:23
The US plan is basically to oppose and fight any nation which it deems belligerent while courting the favors of those whom it needs and is friendly with.

This imperialist policy is detailed in the White House's foreign policy.

As for the Kurds, the US is basically trying not to piss off Turkey.

Jamal
4th August 2006, 02:33
The US plan is basically to oppose and fight any nation which it deems belligerent while courting the favors of those whom it needs and is friendly with.


True, as shown, Syria lost a great portion of its land because it is opposing the US and Jordan gaind lots of land because of its relations with Israel and the US.

The USA is even trying to creat new countries so they can support it ( the Arab Shiite State and the Baluchistan and the Holy Islamic State) thats just sick!


As for the Kurds, the US is basically trying not to piss off Turkey

actually they are trying to please the Kurds and then using their support plitically

Janus
4th August 2006, 03:04
actually they are trying to please the Kurds and then using their support plitically
Yes, but if they allow a state to form that will cause trouble with Turkey; the Kurds there will get restless.

Eleutherios
4th August 2006, 03:37
I found a larger version of that map:

Enragé
4th August 2006, 05:07
hmm

the US wants this..

and all of a sudden when the US invades, shia and sunni start killing eachother

hmm..

perhaps this isnt a coincidence..

duh :angry:

Jamal
4th August 2006, 14:44
The USA is causing too many conflicts in the region between religions and races (Sunni and Shiits in Iraq, the secerianism in Lebanon and the hate for Syria, Saddams opression for the Kurds and the kurd's hate for the Arabs...) for the people of the Middle East to finally think that this rediculious plan is good for them and for their interests. It all makes perfect sense now.

Damn they are good, they caused all this trouble, this "controlled trouble", to reach this plan!!!

Jamal
4th August 2006, 16:18
The funny thing is that in the time of Abdul Nasser, Egypt was the whole Middle East according to the USA but now the dont even consider it in the Middle East after it signed a treaty with Israel and is now doing what the US wants

Kamraten
4th August 2006, 16:18
Now you are thinking in the big picture Jamal :) and as i was discussing a bit in the 9/11 thread, what gave them the right to intervene in the middle east again?. Oh yes terror terror terror and terror. hehe.

Phalanx
4th August 2006, 19:54
All of this most likely won't happen anyway. Regardless, the current Middle East is just a product of Winston Churchill drawing lines on a map regardless of the religious/ethnic divides there. The Middle East should be redrawn, but the people themselves should do it.

Jamal
5th August 2006, 00:09
Well as Ralph Peters concluded, Babylon has fallen more than once. Meaning that the Middle East can be rebordered and its maps redrawn more than once too.


The Middle East should be redrawn, but the people themselves should do it.

Well in my opinion, there should be no Middle East, and no nations, no countries, no borders nothing, but the unfortunate fact is that its not up to us to decide :(

Devrim
6th August 2006, 03:03
I think that this piece is nothing more than some U.S. think tank member's pseudo-intellectual fantasies. Does it really bear any relation to reality? Are the people in power in the states so out of touch that they feel that they can impose something like this?

I can see the possibility of the fragmentation of Iraq, and I can believe that there are some in the U.S. state department, who are pushing for this without any realisation of the utter chaos that it would bring to the entire region. Just to bring up one problem; how would the generals in Turkey react to an independent Turkish state sitting on its doorstep? They have been very clear about this in the Turkish press. They would invade. This is without mentioning how Saudi, and the gulf state with large Shia populations feel about a Shiaistan next door.

Those who think that American allies such as Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Saudis are going to give up large parts of their territory in the interests of some bizarre American plan may well be very surprised. Just seeing a map like that will drive the Turkish nationalists into near apoplexy. It is all of their paranoid nightmares come true. As for the idea of the House of Saud giving up the Hijaz, it is beyond belief.

America is pushing the entire region onto a path of war, and destruction. I feel that this is too extreme even for the wilder neo-cons in the State Department though.

Devrim Valerian

Enternasyonalist Komünist Sol

McLeft
6th August 2006, 03:49
This is rather disturbing :blink:

Jamal
6th August 2006, 13:58
Those who think that American allies such as Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Saudis are going to give up large parts of their territory in the interests of some bizarre American plan may well be very surprised. Just seeing a map like that will drive the Turkish nationalists into near apoplexy. It is all of their paranoid nightmares come true. As for the idea of the House of Saud giving up the Hijaz, it is beyond belief.

Well, who would have thought that Iraq can be federalized in such sectarian and racist way? Who would have thought that Syria can also be simply reduced to its inlands?
Well the USA has its way of making its plans work by entering the society from the back door and vandilize the hell out of it. The US brings with it sectarianism and racism and many other things like it for it to be in total control of these people.

Cheung Mo
6th August 2006, 18:38
The new Middle East should involve socialists and feminists annihilating our Islamist, Zionist, and pro-Washington enemies!

Devrim
6th August 2006, 21:14
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 10:59 AM

Those who think that American allies such as Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Saudis are going to give up large parts of their territory in the interests of some bizarre American plan may well be very surprised. Just seeing a map like that will drive the Turkish nationalists into near apoplexy. It is all of their paranoid nightmares come true. As for the idea of the House of Saud giving up the Hijaz, it is beyond belief.

Well, who would have thought that Iraq can be federalized in such sectarian and racist way? Who would have thought that Syria can also be simply reduced to its inlands?
Well the USA has its way of making its plans work by entering the society from the back door and vandilize the hell out of it. The US brings with it sectarianism and racism and many other things like it for it to be in total control of these people.
Well yes, I have to agree that you are right there, but the process in Iraq didn't just start after the latest invasion. It started after the Kuwait war. Certainly the Kurdish autonomus region in the north has been developing since then. As for the sectarianism, it existed before the US came, which is not to say that the US hasn't fanned it.
Devrim

Devrim
6th August 2006, 21:17
Also one of the differences between the four countries that I mentioned, and Iraq is that Iraq was not an ally of the US, but the other four are. I know that it was at one point, but it did take a war to lead us to the present situation. I can concieve that it is possible that the US would launch a war against one of those states, but all four!

TupacAndChe4Eva
6th August 2006, 22:56
Do the people that live there get a say in this?

:rolleyes:

Thought not.

:angry:

They won't take this.

;)

Noah
7th August 2006, 00:52
Surely this is not true, just a conspiracy! I hope...A Shia state and a Sunni state, so where do the native Iraqis go? :rolleyes:

How will America and the west, implement this plan?

Enragé
7th August 2006, 15:41
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 09:53 PM
Surely this is not true, just a conspiracy! I hope...A Shia state and a Sunni state, so where do the native Iraqis go? :rolleyes:

How will America and the west, implement this plan?
:huh:
shia + sunni = two currents in islam

they are the largest part of "iraqi natives"

how to implement?
look at iraq
by encouraging sectarianism

Free Left
7th August 2006, 16:15
My worry is how do they intend to implement this plan? With an outright invasion? This plan seems idealistic at best and if it is accurate of the US plans for the Middle East we should all be wary of a global conflict.

Noah
7th August 2006, 17:31
shia + sunni = two currents in islam

they are the largest part of "iraqi natives"

how to implement?
look at iraq
by encouraging sectarianism

Makes sense I guess..

If you read the books by Ms Drower and Ms Buckley, you'll find that Muslims are not Iraqi natives as the majority came from Saudi Arabia or converted to Islam at the time of the Islamic revolution.

Jamal
7th August 2006, 23:12
Well the rest are converted, all natives I meen. You still have Christians in Iraq but they are a minority.

This plan in my opinion needs time. But its not too impossible. When the people are sepparated, they cannot do anything.

Raisa
8th August 2006, 09:24
The only thing i think is decent out of all that is the Holy Islamic state being its own place.

Even so, they need to keep their hands out of peoples shit.
I am disgusted.

Jamal
10th August 2006, 17:22
How is a holy islamic state a good thing?
do you want another vatican?

Tarik
10th August 2006, 17:27
An islamic state would be totally useless, because there's no equivalent of the pope or a spiritual leader in islam.No structure, no personal, only god.So I don't think that an islamic state is a good idea, cause there's no sense to create it.

Morag
10th August 2006, 18:59
Originally posted by Chinghis [email protected] 4 2006, 04:55 PM
All of this most likely won't happen anyway. Regardless, the current Middle East is just a product of Winston Churchill drawing lines on a map regardless of the religious/ethnic divides there.
No, it's not; it's the reality of the League of Nations and the Paris Conferences, which Churchill didn't have much to do with. Nor is it the results of the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916. I would seriously doubt the authenticity or, maybe just general capabilities, of the former CIA agent if he's claiming this.

The Middle East after 1918 was etched out of geopolitical realities, imperialism, and the changing power equation between Britain and France during the war. 1916's plan was thrown out everytime the war shifted in Britain's favour just a little. In the Sykes-Picot plan, France came out on top, Palestine was to be an international country, and Britain had to do with much less territory. After the war, France was stuck with not much more then the Levant, Syria and Lebanon, areas that were already able and demanding self-rule. Britain on the other hand had a stretch of land from Palestine to Iraq, and some heavy heavy influence in Iran until the 1930s and Saudi Arabia and of course Egypt, that allowed them oil (important ffor the navy which had just switched over from coal) and communication and defense routes to India.

For instance, Britian dealed their way into Iraq becoming one nation instead of three, which it technically should have been, based on ethnic groups, geography, economics, and traditions. But, one country under one king, is easier to control.


I think that this piece is nothing more than some U.S. think tank member's pseudo-intellectual fantasies.

I agree. This bears nothing to reality. We're all so ready to believe any conspiracy that comes out of the US that I think we've been fed some ridiculous ideas here. Not to say that the US doesn't have it's eye on the Middle East, and in weakening it, but such grand plans as to completely reshape the entire thing is not in their ability, and I think we all know that. Plus, even if this was their grand master plan, why do it through war? I mean, the work in this plan would need twenty years of war, interspersed with a few peaceful periods for negotiations to fall through. Just for the end result of... a newly shaped Middle East that's kinder and gentler to it's interests? So much easier to just concentrate on one or two countries and... oh, yeah. Nevermind.

Plus, it plays too much like a Risk game. What about the rest of the world? What about Egypt, Japan, Russia, India, the EU, China?

Patchd
10th August 2006, 21:19
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 02:28 PM
An islamic state would be totally useless, because there's no equivalent of the pope or a spiritual leader in islam.No structure, no personal, only god.So I don't think that an islamic state is a good idea, cause there's no sense to create it.
I agree, there will just be another clerical fascist state like that of Iran and Syria, or you'll get a state similar to the former Taliban controlled Afghanistan where women, gays, and people with different religions or no religions at all are suppressed. An Islamic state would not benefit the working class, it will only benefit the Sheikh leaders. What is needed however is a socialist Middle East.

Jamal
10th August 2006, 23:23
I mean, the work in this plan would need twenty years of war, interspersed with a few peaceful periods for negotiations to fall through

No, In my opinion the war is just a diversion. This plan won't workout by war, but how the people will react to this war. What I mean is the people for the war, the people against the war will split up. And things would stop being so nice. What I'm trying to say is in the end, people would want this plan and think its better for them. They cannot, in their opinion, live with such people anymore( the people of different race, relidioun, entity, ethnic group, place...that have a different opinion)

Morag
11th August 2006, 04:17
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 08:24 PM

I mean, the work in this plan would need twenty years of war, interspersed with a few peaceful periods for negotiations to fall through

No, In my opinion the war is just a diversion. This plan won't workout by war, but how the people will react to this war. What I mean is the people for the war, the people against the war will split up. And things would stop being so nice. What I'm trying to say is in the end, people would want this plan and think its better for them. They cannot, in their opinion, live with such people anymore( the people of different race, relidioun, entity, ethnic group, place...that have a different opinion)
which is what I meant when I said that it needed "twenty years of war interspersed with a few peaceful periods for negotiations to fall through."

Jamal
12th August 2006, 00:32
no its much less than 20 years and spread out to many countries. In each country, the war should not take very long, but should rather focus on things that are fragile in the political area. Like for example, if the Kurds hate the arabs, in the war in that region an important kurdish polititian will die, and the blame would be on an arabic country...