The Memo that Outlined U.S. Plans to Overthrow 7 Countries in 5 Years

A shocking revelation of a secret memo detailing plans for regime changes in the Middle East, driven by a small group of neoconservatives, before 9/11 reshaped U.S. foreign policy.

General Wesley Clark

America’s Hidden Agenda:

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, a narrative began to unfold that suggested the United States was embarking on a premeditated plan to destabilize the Middle East. This plan, allegedly formulated by a group of influential neoconservatives in Washington, was not widely known or debated publicly at the time. However, according to some high-ranking officials, there was a deliberate and strategic objective to change governments in seven countries within five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. This ambitious scheme, rooted in a vision for a new American century, has since been a subject of much controversy and debate.

The Plan to Overthrow Seven Countries in Five Years

The Origins of the Plan: The Project for the New American Century

The foundation of this purported strategy can be traced back to a think tank known as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Established in 1997, PNAC was a neoconservative group that advocated for a more aggressive U.S. foreign policy aimed at maintaining American global dominance. Key figures involved in the PNAC included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and other prominent defense and foreign policy hawks who would later become central figures in the George W. Bush administration.

In September 2000, a year before the 9/11 attacks, PNAC released a report titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources for a New Century.” This document called for a transformation of the U.S. military and a more assertive foreign policy to secure American interests abroad. The report stated that “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.” This phrase would gain chilling relevance a year later when the 9/11 attacks provided the “Pearl Harbor” moment that many argue was used to justify an aggressive foreign policy shift.

The Memo: A Blueprint for Regime Change

The claim that the U.S. planned to overthrow governments in seven countries within five years comes from retired General Wesley Clark, a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander. In a 2007 interview, Clark recalled a conversation he had shortly after the 9/11 attacks with a senior military officer at the Pentagon. Clark stated that the officer showed him a memo from the Secretary of Defense’s office outlining plans to attack and destroy the governments of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.

According to Clark, this plan was not about responding to direct threats or deterring conflict but was instead aimed at fundamentally reshaping the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East in a manner favorable to U.S. interests. “It was a pretty stunning thing,” Clark remarked. “You mean the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments, not to deter conflict?”

Implementing the Strategy: The Wars in Iraq and Beyond

The invasion of Iraq in 2003, justified by the Bush administration under the pretext of eliminating weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), marked the first step in this plan. Despite the lack of evidence connecting Iraq to the 9/11 attacks or the existence of WMDs, the U.S. pursued a regime change that resulted in the toppling of Saddam Hussein. The decision to invade Iraq was widely criticized both domestically and internationally, with many accusing the administration of misleading the public and the international community.

Following Iraq, the U.S. and its allies took a series of actions that, whether by direct military intervention, covert operations, or diplomatic pressure, aligned closely with the alleged memo’s objectives.

• Syria and Lebanon: The U.S. government provided support to various groups opposing the Assad regime in Syria, particularly during the Syrian Civil War, which began in 2011. This included financial, military, and logistical support to certain rebel factions. Meanwhile, Lebanon faced internal and external pressures, with tensions involving Hezbollah — a group with strong ties to Iran and Syria.

• Libya: In 2011, the U.S. and NATO launched a military intervention in Libya under the guise of protecting civilians during the Libyan Civil War. The operation led to the ousting and death of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. While the intervention was initially hailed as a success, Libya has since descended into chaos, with multiple factions vying for power and widespread instability persisting to this day.

• Somalia and Sudan: Both Somalia and Sudan have experienced U.S. involvement, often framed within counterterrorism efforts. In Somalia, the U.S. has supported various military actions against Al-Shabaab, an Islamist militant group, while Sudan has faced sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and limited military engagement from the U.S. over the years.

• Iran: Iran has remained a focal point of U.S. foreign policy, with efforts to isolate the country diplomatically, economically, and militarily. The U.S. has supported groups opposed to the Iranian regime and has accused Iran of sponsoring terrorism, while also engaging in cyber operations and sanctions that aim to destabilize its government.

Motives Behind the Plan: A Push for American Hegemony?

The PNAC’s vision for a “new American century” was predicated on the belief that the U.S. must maintain its unipolar status in a post-Cold War world. The group argued that American military strength, technological superiority, and economic power must be used to shape the global order. The proposed actions in the Middle East were seen as a way to remove regimes that were hostile to U.S. interests, particularly those supporting terrorism or opposing U.S. allies such as Israel.

Critics argue that this policy was less about spreading democracy or ensuring regional stability and more about ensuring access to vital resources, like oil, and securing strategic military positions across the globe. By establishing military bases, as mentioned in the PNAC document, and promoting regime change, the U.S. could assert itself as an unchallenged global constabulary, free from the constraints of the United Nations or world opinion.

The Role of 9/11: A Convenient Catalyst

The 9/11 attacks provided a catalyst for many of the PNAC’s goals. Suddenly, calls for military intervention and regime change in the Middle East gained widespread public and political support. Many of the key figures from the PNAC who had ascended to influential positions in the Bush administration were able to advance their agenda under the guise of the “War on Terror.”

Congress rapidly passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) in 2001, granting the president broad powers to use military force against any entity deemed responsible for 9/11. This authorization became a foundational legal basis for many of the subsequent military actions in the Middle East.

Historical and Political Consequences

The policy of regime change and aggressive intervention has had far-reaching consequences. While some argue that it has eliminated threats to U.S. national security, many believe it has instead created a power vacuum in the Middle East, leading to increased instability, the rise of extremist groups like ISIS, and a protracted state of conflict that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and displacement of millions.

Additionally, these actions have strained U.S. relations with allies and adversaries alike, raising questions about the long-term sustainability of a foreign policy based on military dominance and unilateral action.

Reflecting on the Costs of Ambition

The notion that a small group of policymakers could enact such far-reaching changes without a national debate or congressional oversight raises critical questions about the nature of American democracy and its foreign policy. While the full extent of the alleged memo’s influence remains a topic of debate, the outcomes of the past two decades suggest that the U.S. did indeed pursue a strategy aligned with the PNAC’s vision.

As we look back, it is essential to examine the costs — human, financial, and moral — of these policies and consider whether they have truly made the world safer or more just. Moving forward, a more transparent and accountable process for determining foreign policy objectives could help ensure that such decisions reflect the will of the people, not just a select few policymakers.

References

1. Project for the New American Century (2000). Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources for a New Century.

2. Clark, Wesley (2007). Interview on Democracy Now! Available at: Democracy Now.

3. Mann, James (2004). Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet. New York: Viking.

4. Jervis, Robert (2003). “Understanding the Bush Doctrine.” Political Science Quarterly, 118(3): 365–388.

5. Gaddis, John Lewis (2005). Surprise, Security, and the American Experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Correlation with Arab Spring

The plan referenced — the idea that the U.S. intended to overthrow governments in seven Middle Eastern and North African countries in five years — did not directly cause the Arab Spring. However, there is a complex and indirect connection between U.S. foreign policy actions, regional dynamics, and the events of the Arab Spring. Let’s break down the nuanced relationship between these factors:

1. U.S. Foreign Policy and Preceding Instability

The U.S. plan mentioned in the transcript — allegedly to destabilize and change regimes in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran — reflects a broader neoconservative agenda that aimed to reshape the Middle East to align with U.S. strategic interests. This plan was reportedly motivated by a desire to maintain U.S. global dominance, ensure access to resources like oil, and secure the safety of allies, such as Israel.

While this plan itself did not give birth to the Arab Spring, the aggressive foreign policies of the U.S. and its allies contributed to a context of instability and dissatisfaction in the region:

• Iraq (2003): The U.S. invasion of Iraq, which was part of the broader goal of regime change, resulted in significant chaos and sectarian conflict. The removal of Saddam Hussein created a power vacuum and set off a series of destabilizing events that had ripple effects throughout the region.

• Libya (2011): The NATO intervention in Libya, following the start of the Arab Spring protests, was partly shaped by the mindset of regime change that the U.S. had promoted. The overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi led to ongoing civil conflict and instability that persists today.

• Pressure on Syria and Iran: U.S. sanctions and diplomatic pressures on countries like Syria and Iran were part of a broader strategy to weaken these regimes. While these pressures didn’t directly cause the Arab Spring, they added to the existing economic and social stresses in the region.

2. Regional Discontent and Underlying Causes of the Arab Spring

The Arab Spring was primarily driven by deep-rooted social, political, and economic grievances that had been building for decades within the countries affected. Factors that triggered the uprisings included:

• Authoritarian Governance: Many Arab Spring countries were ruled by autocratic leaders who suppressed political dissent, controlled the media, and curtailed civil liberties. Citizens in countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, and Libya faced systematic repression, corruption, and a lack of political freedoms.

• Economic Hardships: High levels of unemployment, especially among youth, poor economic conditions, and lack of opportunities contributed significantly to public discontent. Rising food prices, inadequate public services, and economic mismanagement exacerbated these frustrations.

• Social Media and Mobilization: The advent of social media allowed citizens to organize protests, share grievances, and bypass state-controlled media. This technology empowered people to mobilize quickly and communicate with a global audience, gaining international support for their movements.

3. The Indirect Connection: U.S. Influence on Regional Dynamics

While the U.S. plan to destabilize certain regimes was not a direct cause of the Arab Spring, the broader impact of U.S. foreign policy in the region did shape the environment in which these uprisings occurred:

• Perception of U.S. Involvement: Many people in the Middle East perceived U.S. interventions, such as in Iraq and Libya, as contributing to regional instability. This perception fed into anti-Western sentiments and a general sense of disenfranchisement with both local regimes and foreign interference.

• Power Vacuums and Conflict Zones: The U.S. intervention in Iraq and the subsequent chaos created a regional power vacuum that emboldened non-state actors and radical groups. This instability made it easier for protests to gain momentum in neighboring countries.

• Support for Authoritarian Allies: The U.S. historically supported many authoritarian regimes in the region, such as Egypt under Hosni Mubarak, which were seen as compliant with U.S. strategic goals. This support undermined U.S. credibility among those advocating for democracy and reform during the Arab Spring.

4. How U.S. Actions Shaped Regional Reactions

The U.S.’s aggressive posture towards regime change (real or perceived) contributed to a climate of mistrust, conspiracy theories, and fear among regional governments. This, in turn, influenced how these governments responded to the Arab Spring:

• Crackdowns on Protests: Fearing that they might be targeted next, some regimes — like Syria and Bahrain — responded with severe crackdowns on protests, contributing to prolonged conflicts and civil wars.

• Proxy Conflicts and Foreign Interventions: The Arab Spring and the fall of certain regimes (like Libya’s Gaddafi) opened the door for regional and international powers to engage in proxy conflicts. Countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Russia became heavily involved in various conflicts, influenced by both local dynamics and broader geopolitical rivalries, often involving the U.S.

5. Conclusion: No Direct Causation, But Significant Influence

In summary, while the alleged U.S. plan to overthrow seven governments did not directly cause the Arab Spring, it did contribute to an environment of instability, mistrust, and political manipulation in the region. The Arab Spring was primarily a grassroots movement driven by internal socio-political factors, but the broader backdrop of U.S. foreign policy — characterized by interventionism and support for regime change — certainly influenced how events unfolded.

The events of the Arab Spring and the continued turmoil in the Middle East illustrate how foreign policy decisions, geopolitical strategies, and local socio-political dynamics are deeply intertwined. While the U.S. did not directly “give birth” to the Arab Spring, its actions and policies contributed to a regional environment ripe for upheaval.