The Middle East as Netanyahu Wants It: Recommendations Drafted by American Jews 28 Years Ago Are Now Being Implemented by the Occupation

“Our goal is to change the strategic reality in the Middle East,” declared Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, commenting on the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah and leaders of Hezbollah. Prior to this, he spoke about a “new Middle East.” But are Netanyahu’s plans and ambitions really new?

Certainly not. The Zionist ideology has long envisioned a Jewish state extending from the Nile to the Euphrates, a concept known to all, especially the rulers of Arab states. However, what’s striking during the ongoing war is that it’s a manifestation of a document dating back to 1996, when Netanyahu first became prime minister.

This document, prepared by American and Jewish experts, laid out Netanyahu’s governing strategy concerning Israel’s security, how to deal with Palestinians, and Israel’s relationship with Arab states. Yet, Netanyahu waited over 25 years to bring this plan into reality, starting with normalization agreements and leading to the current war.

In this report, we shed light on the details of the document titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” What does it entail? Who drafted it? And how is Netanyahu currently implementing it on the ground to create a “new Middle East”?

Emergence of the “New Middle East” Concept

The term “New Middle East” first appeared in the 1990s, specifically in 1992, as the title of a book by the late Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres. In his book, Peres outlined Israel’s strategy for the era of peace negotiations and beyond.

In “The New Middle East,” Peres painted a picture of a region where Israel is at the heart, acting as a driver, guide, and leader. This vision targeted two audiences: the external Arab regimes and the internal Israeli public.

Two-Fold Strategy:

1. 1. Towards Arab Regimes: The narrative arrogantly portrayed Israel as a stabilizer of the region, highlighting areas of potential cooperation to serve the stability of the ruling systems.

1. 1. Towards Israeli Public Opinion: The book rallied arguments to convince Israelis that Israel could achieve through peace what it hadn’t been able to accomplish through war.

But four years later, the concept resurfaced in the document drafted by researchers led by Richard Perle in 1996 for a Jewish-American think tank, titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” which contradicted Peres’s “peaceful” approach. This document was directed at Netanyahu when he first assumed office as Israel’s youngest prime minister. It focused on reshaping regional relations and influencing neighboring countries to bolster Israel’s security.

Expansion of the Concept in 2003: The term gained more traction in 2003 after the invasion of Iraq, with American officials using it widely to describe Washington’s strategy to change political regimes in the Middle East to promote democracy and reshape the regional order to align with Western interests. One of the notable figures to advocate for the “New Middle East” was former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during the 2006 Lebanon war, referring to the political changes she envisioned for the region’s future.

“A Clean Break”: The Blueprint for Netanyahu’s Strategy

“A Clean Break” is a strategic report published in 1996, authored by a team of American political advisors led by Richard Perle, who served as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board at the U.S. Department of Defense at various times.

The report, issued by the “Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies,” was prepared for Benjamin Netanyahu and provided a roadmap for achieving Israeli security by reshaping regional policies in the Middle East.

Contrast with Peres’s Vision: Unlike Peres’s narrative, which promoted “peace” as beneficial for Israel, the document argued that the peace process masked evidence of the erosion of critical national security and compromised strategic initiatives. It envisioned a “clean break,” allowing Israel to establish a new strategic framework that would revive its strategic initiatives and enable the nation to channel all possible energies towards rebuilding Zionism.

This document shaped the political vision of many American neoconservatives who were influential during President George W. Bush’s administration and who strongly advocated for the concept of a “New Middle East.”

Key Proposals of the Document:

1. Reshaping the Regional Order

The document proposed abandoning traditional peace talks and negotiations with Palestinians and Arab states. Instead, it advocated for a more assertive approach, enhancing Israeli influence through military and political means, including pressuring adversarial regimes.

According to the document, Israel should consider negotiations as a tool rather than an objective, using them to pursue its core principles while demonstrating national resolve. It suggested challenging oppressive regimes, enforcing compliance with agreements, and insisting on minimum standards of accountability.

2. Weakening Syrian Influence

A major focus was on undermining Syrian influence in Lebanon and isolating the Syrian regime internationally, possibly even targeting it militarily. The document recommended targeting Syria’s financial networks linked to drug trafficking and counterfeiting in Lebanon, and mimicking Syrian behavior by ensuring that Syrian territories were not immune to attacks originating from Lebanon via Israeli proxies.

It also suggested hitting Syrian military targets in Lebanon and, if necessary, selected targets within Syria itself.

3. Containing Iraq

The document stressed the need to contain Iraq as a regional power. Post-Gulf War, Iraq posed a continuous threat to Israel, according to the authors. Thus, it recommended a combination of diplomatic, economic, and possibly military efforts to weaken the Iraqi regime. Explicitly, it mentioned the need to topple Saddam Hussein, viewing it as a strategic necessity for Israel to disrupt regional ambitions, especially those of Syria.

4. Security Through Deterrence and Dominance

The document called for enhancing Israel’s military and political capabilities, enabling it to act independently of its traditional allies, such as the United States, if necessary. This strategy was built on the premise that Israel could secure itself through strong deterrence and regional dominance.

Rejection of the Oslo Accords: The American-Jewish document opposed the peace process represented by the 1993 Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). It argued that these agreements had not provided real security for Israel but rather increased threats.

From this perspective, the document suggested Israel seize the opportunity to redefine its relationship with the Palestinians, asserting that efforts to secure Israeli streets might justify direct actions within Palestinian-controlled areas, a practice that Americans could understand.

Moving Towards a “New Middle East”

Since returning to power in 2009, Netanyahu has launched five wars on Gaza, with the latest ongoing conflict following Operation “Al-Aqsa Flood,” which the resistance initiated in response to repeated Israeli aggressions in Gaza, the West Bank, and Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem.

During the ongoing war since October 7, 2023, Netanyahu has continued to promote the “New Middle East” concept. The Israeli leader even presented a new map of the Middle East during his speech at the United Nations General Assembly in September 2024. Does this signify Netanyahu’s implementation of the “A Clean Break” recommendations on the ground?

One of the document’s recommendations was that Israel insists on a minimum level of accountability, which has been evident during the aggression on Gaza, as the occupation disregarded all international laws, committing war crimes without being deterred by the condemnations from the West or Arab nations.

The success of Israel’s policy in weakening “hostile regimes,” as recommended in the document, was evident in the toppling of Saddam Hussein 23 years ago and the weakening of Syria, which continues to endure repeated Israeli strikes without responding.

Simultaneously, Netanyahu has been pushing forward with new “peace agreements” with several Arab nations, marking a new wave of normalization initiated by the signing of the “Abraham Accords” with the UAE and Bahrain in 2020, followed by Morocco after American mediation.