Iran and Iraq - Part 10 The Final Blow the U.S. Given the Boot

When did the United States Military Industrial Complex develop the concept of divide and conquer?
Bernard Lewis called for the division of the region in 1979.

Iran and Iraq - Part 10 The Final Blow the U.S. Given the Boot
It’s 2020. The US and Israel are infuriated. Over the past two decades, their plan for the region has been foiled. They conclude that with General Soleimani, they would never achieve their goals in the region. A smear campaign starts against the world champion of fighting terrorism. But it’s again useless. Out of weakness and despair, they decide to assassin General Soleimani. It happens on January 3, 2020. In retaliation, the IRGC target an American base in Iraq, something totally unprecedented after WWII. With the assassination of General Soleimani, the US and its ilk tried desperately to decapitate the resistance movement in the region. But General Soleimani was not just a leader of the resistance movement, he was a trainer of resistance forces – those determine to continue with the martyred general's ideals. Four years on, General Soleimani’s legacy still continues to haunt terrorists and their godfathers across the world.

Google AI Overview

The narrative provided is based on a specific, partisan Iranian perspective and does not represent a neutral account of the events surrounding the 2020 killing of Qassem Soleimani. A complete understanding requires a balanced view, which includes the perspectives of the United States, its allies, and other international actors.

The US justification for the airstrike
Response to attacks: The US Department of Defense confirmed the drone strike on January 3, 2020, stating it was a "decisive defensive action" ordered by then-President Donald Trump. The US claimed the strike was in response to escalating attacks by Iran and its proxy militias on American personnel and interests in the region. Specifically, the Pentagon cited the December 27, 2019, rocket attack on an Iraqi military base that killed an American contractor, and the subsequent storming of the US Embassy in Baghdad by pro-Iran militia members.

Imminent threat: US officials, including President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, maintained that Soleimani was actively planning imminent attacks against American diplomats and military personnel in the region. This claim of an "imminent threat" was used to justify the preemptive strike. However, the US failed to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim, according to a United Nations special rapporteur who deemed the killing unlawful.

Terrorist designation: The US had designated Soleimani and the IRGC Quds Force as terrorists years before the strike, accusing them of sponsoring and orchestrating terrorist acts.

Iran's retaliation
Missile attacks: In retaliation for Soleimani's death, the IRGC launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two Iraqi military bases housing US troops on January 8, 2020. While no US soldiers were killed, dozens suffered traumatic brain injuries from the explosions.

Vows of revenge: Iranian officials have repeatedly vowed revenge for Soleimani's killing, and state media and proxies have continued to frame him as a hero and martyr. In January 2023, the IRGC spokesman stated that retaliation for Soleimani's death was still a viable option. In 2022,
Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi declared that revenge would be sought unless Trump and Pompeo were brought to trial.

Contradictory claims: In December 2023, an IRGC spokesperson claimed that the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel was partly in retaliation for Soleimani's assassination. However, the claim was walked back by a senior IRGC commander the following day, who said Iran had not yet avenged Soleimani's death.

Differing views on Soleimani's legacy
"Champion of fighting terrorism": The claim that Soleimani was a "champion of fighting terrorism" is a pro-Iran narrative used by state-affiliated sources. While Soleimani did lead Iranian efforts against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, which aligned with US goals at the time, he also orchestrated attacks against American and coalition forces and oversaw a network of militant proxy groups that destabilized the region.
Symbol of resistance: Soleimani is revered in Iran and by its allies as a national hero and symbol of resistance against the US and Israel. For them, his assassination is seen as an act of "state terrorism".
Terrorist leader: The US and its allies view Soleimani as a terrorist leader who caused the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members. His elimination was justified by some as a blow against a sponsor of terrorism.

Continued legacy: Even after his death, Soleimani's legacy of cultivating and training proxy forces across the Middle East continues to shape regional dynamics. These groups, often referred to as the "Axis of Resistance," maintain their stance against the US and Israel.

Google AI Overview

The Military-Industrial Complex did not develop the concept of "divide and conquer," as this strategy predates the modern military-industrial complex by thousands of years. The tactic, known in Latin as divide et impera, was famously used by ancient empires such as the Romans to weaken their enemies and maintain control over conquered peoples.

Here's a breakdown of the origins of "divide and conquer" and its relationship to the Military-Industrial Complex:

Ancient origins
Philip II of Macedon (c. 4th century BCE): This ruler is often credited as the earliest figure associated with the strategic use of divide et impera.
The Roman Empire: The Romans mastered the practice, using it to conquer the Apennine Peninsula and expand their power. For example, they would forge separate treaties with different city-states, preventing them from uniting against a single, common enemy—Rome.

Julius Caesar: During the Gallic Wars (58–50 BCE), Caesar used the disunity of the Gallic tribes to defeat them individually, before they could effectively organize against him.

Colonial and modern applications
Colonialism: European colonial powers widely employed "divide and rule" strategies to maintain control over subjugated populations. By exacerbating ethnic, religious, or tribal divisions, they prevented indigenous groups from mounting a united resistance. The British in India, the Belgians in Rwanda, and the British in Ireland are all notable examples.

Niccolò Machiavelli: In his 16th-century treatise The Prince, Machiavelli recommended this approach to rulers to maintain power.

The Military-Industrial Complex

The Military-Industrial Complex is a modern concept coined by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell address. He described it as a powerful, permanent combination of the military establishment and defense contractors.

While the complex benefits from and uses division to justify its influence and spending, it did not invent the tactic itself.

Exploiting existing conflicts: Like earlier empires, the complex can exploit existing international and domestic divisions to argue for increased military spending and intervention. For instance, Eisenhower warned that the complex has a vested interest in a permanent arms industry, which could be maintained by perceived or inflated threats.

Not a new invention, but a new context: The Military-Industrial Complex simply applies this ancient strategy within a modern context, leveraging political influence and economic power to advance its interests.

Google AI Overview

No, Bernard Lewis did not publicly call for the division of the Middle East in 1979. The claim that Lewis created a plan or map in 1979 to divide the region is a persistent and discredited conspiracy theory that circulated online and in some political circles long after that year.

While the "Lewis Plan" or "Redrawing the Middle East Map" is a fabrication, it likely originates from a conflation of Lewis's actual work with other concepts:

The Iran Revolution of 1979: This was a major event Lewis studied, and he wrote extensively about the rise of Islamic political movements following it, notably in his 1976 article "The Return of Islam" for Commentary magazine. This focus on the shifting landscape of the Middle East may have been misconstrued as promoting a "division."
His work on Ottoman history: Lewis was a respected historian of the Ottoman Empire and wrote about the region's geopolitical history, including the creation of modern borders by European powers after World War I. This academic work, which described how the region was divided, is often confused with a call for new divisions.

Conspiracy theories and his later career: Later in his career, as a public intellectual, Lewis was sometimes criticized for his influence on U.S. foreign policy. This criticism fueled more extreme and often unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about his supposed plans for the Middle East.

Misinterpreted ideas of "Lebanonization": Lewis did use the term "Lebanonization" in later writings to refer to the fragmentation of the Middle East, a theme that may have been twisted to suggest he was advocating for such a thing.

In essence, Lewis's scholarship was about analyzing existing political and historical trends in the Middle East, not prescribing new partitions. The notion of a 1979 "Lewis Plan" is an online conspiracy theory with no basis in his actual published work.

Join the Weekly Video Call
constitutionhelp.com