The Greater Israel Project -Balfour - Endless Wars - 9-11 & Trump

The Dangers of The Greater Israel Project and A Strategy of Regional Dominance

A Strategy of Regional Dominance – The Greater Israel Project
The concept of the “Greater Israel project” represents a controversial framework for understanding Middle Eastern geopolitics, U.S.-Israeli foreign policy, and the resulting consequences of regional destabilization.

Proponents of this theory argue that it seeks to create a fragmented and weakened Middle East, ensuring Israeli security and regional dominance. For advocates of populism and peace, such a strategy is fraught with ethical dilemmas, long-term security risks, and profound human suffering.

This essay explores the historical context, patterns of intervention, and the dangers associated with this alleged strategy while emphasizing the need for a shift toward diplomacy and peaceful coexistence.

Historical Context and Strategic Goals

The “Greater Israel project” is attributed to ideas from influential Israeli thinkers in the 1980s, who posited that Israel’s long-term security could be achieved by destabilizing surrounding nations. The objective was to fragment these nations into smaller, weaker states incapable of posing collective threats. While this strategy is ostensibly about securing Israel, its implementation is said to rely heavily on U.S. military and geopolitical influence.

The project allegedly aligns with the U.S. strategy unveiled after 9/11 to target seven nations: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. These countries, each with strategic significance, were systematically destabilized under the guise of fighting terrorism, promoting democracy, or protecting global security. Iran, the final target, remains a focal point due to its resistance to U.S. and Israeli influence and its significant resources and strategic location.

Patterns of Intervention

The destabilization of these nations reveals a consistent pattern that mirrors the alleged goals of the Greater Israel project:

Iraq: The 2003 U.S. invasion resulted in the removal of Saddam Hussein, a leader antagonistic toward Israel. However, the aftermath plunged the nation into chaos, leaving a power vacuum filled by sectarian violence and extremist groups.

Libya: The NATO-led intervention that overthrew Muammar Gaddafi destabilized Libya, turning it into a fractured state dominated by warring factions, trafficking networks, and extremist elements.

Syria: The Syrian civil war has devastated the nation, fracturing it along ethnic and religious lines. Allegations of U.S. support for extremist groups as proxies against Bashar al-Assad align with the goal of balkanizing Syria.
Iran: As the final and most challenging target, Iran represents the culmination of this strategy. Its defiance of Western and Israeli hegemony, coupled with its significant resources, makes it a critical focus of destabilization efforts.
These interventions have not only destabilized the targeted nations but also resulted in untold human suffering, displacement, and the proliferation of extremist movements.

The Role of Extremist Groups

A troubling aspect of the alleged strategy is the use of extremist groups as proxies to achieve geopolitical goals. In Syria, U.S. alliances with al-Qaeda affiliates and other militant groups have been cited as efforts to weaken the Assad regime. These groups, ostensibly enemies of the West and Israel, have rarely targeted Israeli interests, raising questions about their roles in a broader geopolitical strategy.

The presence of extremist groups often serves as a justification for prolonged military interventions, perpetuating cycles of violence and instability. This tactic aligns with the goal of keeping neighboring states weak and divided, ensuring they cannot mount unified opposition to Israeli dominance.

Geopolitical Justifications and Public Narratives
The success of the alleged Greater Israel project relies heavily on the narratives used to justify interventions. Regime changes and military actions are framed as necessary for combating terrorism or promoting democracy, obscuring underlying motives. Leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu have openly supported U.S. military actions, often claiming they contribute to regional stability.

However, the aftermath of these interventions tells a different story. The removal of leaders like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, touted as stabilizing measures, instead created power vacuums and prolonged conflicts. These outcomes benefit geopolitical agendas that prioritize fragmentation over genuine stability.

Ethical Implications
The ethical implications of the alleged Greater Israel project are profound. The deliberate destabilization of nations has led to immense human suffering:

Displacement and Refugees: Millions have been displaced due to wars and conflicts, creating humanitarian crises and straining neighboring countries.

Civilian Casualties: Airstrikes, bombings, and proxy wars have resulted in significant loss of life, often among civilians.

Destruction of Infrastructure: Decades of conflict have decimated healthcare systems, schools, and basic services in targeted nations.

These actions prioritize strategic goals over the well-being of people, raising questions about the moral justification for such policies.

Long-Term Security Risks
While the strategy aims to ensure Israeli security, it paradoxically creates long-term security risks for the region and beyond:

Rise of Extremism: The power vacuums created by destabilization often allow extremist groups to thrive, posing a threat to global security.

Anti-American Sentiment: U.S. involvement in these strategies has fueled anti-American sentiment, undermining its reputation and influence worldwide.

Regional Instability: Fragmented states are more prone to prolonged conflicts, making the Middle East a perpetual zone of crisis.
Blowback: The use of extremist proxies can backfire, as these groups often pursue their own agendas once empowered.

These risks highlight the shortsightedness of a strategy that prioritizes immediate geopolitical gains over sustainable peace.

Economic and Social Costs
The economic and social costs of this alleged strategy are staggering:

Trillions in Military Spending: U.S. taxpayers have borne the financial burden of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other regions, with little to show for it.

Impact on American Society: Resources diverted to endless wars could have been invested in healthcare, education, and infrastructure at home.

Global Inequality: The focus on militarization exacerbates global inequality, as resources are channeled into arms production rather than humanitarian aid.

A Populist and Peace-Oriented Perspective

From a populist and peace-oriented perspective, the Greater Israel project and its associated strategies represent a betrayal of democratic values and the principles of self-determination. Instead of promoting peace and stability, these actions perpetuate violence and serve the interests of elites at the expense of ordinary people.

1. Diplomacy Over Militarization
A populist approach prioritizes diplomacy and mutual respect over militarization. Engaging with nations as equals, rather than attempting to control them, fosters genuine partnerships and sustainable peace.

2. Accountability for Elites
The pursuit of these strategies benefits a narrow elite of arms manufacturers, lobbyists, and political figures. Holding these actors accountable is essential for redirecting resources toward the common good.

3. Focus on Domestic Needs
A peace-oriented foreign policy redirects resources from endless wars to addressing pressing domestic issues, such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

4. Respect for Sovereignty
A populist perspective emphasizes the importance of respecting the sovereignty of nations and their right to self-determination, rejecting the imposition of external agendas.

Conclusion
The alleged Greater Israel project and its strategy of regional dominance represent a dangerous approach to Middle Eastern geopolitics. By prioritizing fragmentation and control over stability and peace, this strategy has caused immense suffering, destabilized entire regions, and created long-term security risks. From a populist and peace-oriented perspective, it is imperative to reject such strategies and advocate for a foreign policy rooted in diplomacy, accountability, and respect for sovereignty. Only by abandoning these cycles of intervention and domination can the Middle East and the world move toward a future of genuine peace and cooperation.

A detailed political map of the Middle East illustrating the concept of the Greater Israel Project.

The map highlights Israel and -- Populism & Alan Nafzger
1 A detailed political map of the Middle East illustrating the concept of the Greater Israel Project.
The map highlights Israel Elites Want 365 Days a Year War: The Seven-Nation Strategy

The notion of endless war has long been a hallmark of global geopolitics, and recent events—such as the sighting of mysterious drones over New Jersey—highlight the persistence of such strategies. These drones are seen by some as part of a broader narrative, one that connects directly to General Wesley Clark’s revelation of a post-9/11 “seven-country strategy.” This plan, which allegedly sought to destabilize and reshape the Middle East, underscores the lengths to which elites might go to sustain perpetual conflict.

The Seven-Nation Blueprint

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, General Wesley Clark disclosed an unsettling military strategy devised within the U.S. government. According to Clark, this plan aimed to destabilize seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. The ultimate goal? To reshape the Middle East and secure dominance through destabilization. Though the timeline proved overly ambitious, the pattern of intervention remains strikingly clear.

Iraq and Libya have already experienced the devastating consequences of U.S. intervention. Syria has been torn apart by civil war, with American involvement exacerbating the conflict under the guise of supporting freedom fighters. Lebanon remains precariously positioned, while Sudan and Somalia have endured prolonged instability, often linked to foreign interference. Iran, the final nation on the list, continues to resist these strategies, but its position as a target appears increasingly clear.

The Drones and War with Iran
Recent sightings of drones over New Jersey have sparked speculation about their origins and purpose. Some see these drones as part of a pretext to justify further military action—potentially against Iran. Former President Trump’s assertion that the government knows exactly where these drones originate adds fuel to this theory. If true, such drones could be another step in a decades-long campaign to justify intervention in Iran, the last remaining piece of the seven-country puzzle.

Military bases have reported sightings of these drones, yet the government denies their existence in these sensitive areas. This contradiction raises questions about the motives behind these sightings. Are they a genuine mystery, or are they being used to test public reactions and prepare narratives for future conflicts? Either way, the lack of transparency underscores the possibility of ulterior motives.

The Role of Perpetual War
For the elites who thrive on defense contracts and geopolitical dominance, war is not just a tool—it is a necessity. Perpetual war guarantees a continuous flow of profits, power, and control. The seven-country strategy exemplifies this ethos, as it prioritizes instability over peace. Each intervention has created ripple effects, often leading to prolonged conflicts that justify further military engagement.

Iran represents the final frontier of this strategy. Its vast resources, strategic location, and resistance to U.S. hegemony make it an appealing target. However, unlike other nations on the list, Iran has proven more difficult to destabilize. This difficulty only increases the need for pretexts, whether through alleged drone threats or other manufactured crises.

Contradictions and Distrust
The government’s denial of drone activity near military bases adds to the growing distrust among the public. If these drones are real, why not acknowledge their presence and take action? If they are not, why do military bases report them? Such contradictions feed into broader concerns about transparency and honesty in governance. They also raise questions about the relationship between these drones and the broader strategies at play.

For a nation that claims to prioritize national security, allowing unidentified drones to hover near military bases seems implausible. The inaction either reflects incompetence or a deliberate effort to conceal their true purpose. Both possibilities are troubling, and both point to a deeper agenda—one that aligns with the seven-country strategy’s emphasis on creating conflict.

The Costs of Endless War
The human, economic, and social costs of perpetual war are staggering. In Iraq, Libya, and Syria, millions of lives have been lost or uprooted. Entire generations have grown up in conflict zones, with little hope for stability. Economically, the U.S. spends trillions of dollars on wars that yield few tangible benefits for its citizens. Socially, endless war fosters a culture of fear and division, as people become desensitized to violence and distrustful of institutions.

The seven-country strategy exemplifies how elites prioritize their interests over the well-being of nations and peoples. By creating chaos, they secure opportunities for profit and control, all while framing their actions as necessary for global security.

Resisting the Cycle
The sightings of drones over New Jersey, combined with the historical context of the seven-country strategy, highlight the enduring pursuit of perpetual war. These drones, whether genuine threats or manufactured pretexts, reflect a broader narrative of deception and manipulation. As the final nation on the list, Iran stands as a reminder of how far the elites are willing to go to sustain their agenda.

Breaking the cycle of endless war requires transparency, accountability, and a rejection of the strategies that prioritize instability. Until then, the specter of perpetual conflict will continue to loom, fueled by drones, denials, and the relentless drive for 365 days a year war.

What are the Drones?
The recent sightings of “mystery drones” over numerous locations have sparked a wave of skepticism and concern. Official explanations remain elusive, with contradictory statements from government agencies fueling suspicions of obfuscation. These drones, described as large enough to defy civilian ownership, hover at the intersection of technological intrigue, geopolitical speculation, and institutional mistrust. What exactly are these drones, and what do their sightings signify about government transparency, potential ulterior motives, and the broader political landscape?

The Drones: A Skeptical Introduction
The lack of clarity surrounding the drones has led many to question the government’s narrative—or lack thereof. Public concerns have grown as officials provide vague or inconsistent answers. This vacuum of information allows conspiracy theories and speculation to flourish. Some believe the government knows more than it lets on, while others suspect incompetence. Regardless, the drones’ unusual size and persistence make it difficult to accept these are mere hobbyist toys.

Conflicting Narratives and Official Evasiveness
The former president claimed that the government not only knows about the drones but is also aware of their precise origins, even describing them as originating from a specific “garage.” Yet, government agencies have maintained a stance of ignorance. Officials’ inability—or unwillingness—to answer questions has left local leaders increasingly frustrated. For instance, one mayor described seeing a drone the size of a car, yet the public is expected to believe these are harmless civilian-operated devices. Such conflicting narratives undermine the credibility of official statements and raise more questions than they answer.

The most glaring inconsistency lies in the government’s inaction. If these drones pose no threat, why not provide transparency? If they do, why hasn’t decisive action—like shooting them down or identifying their source—been taken? This passive approach contrasts starkly with a post-9/11 national security ethos, where unidentified flying objects in U.S. airspace would typically demand immediate investigation.

Geopolitical Undertones: From Drones to War
Speculation about the drones’ purpose has led some to connect them to broader geopolitical strategies. A theory gaining traction is that these drones could be linked to escalating tensions with Iran. The reference to General Wesley Clark’s “seven-country strategy,” which purportedly includes Iran as a final target, adds a historical dimension to this hypothesis. Are these drones a pretext for justifying further Middle Eastern conflict? If so, they would fit within a pattern of framing ambiguous threats to rally public and political support for military intervention.

Military bases have also reported sightings of these drones, though the government has denied such incidents. The inconsistency between military accounts and government statements only deepens suspicions. Could these drones be testing U.S. defenses or signaling a covert operation? Alternatively, are they being used as a convenient distraction from other pressing issues?

The Bigger Picture: Middle Eastern Policies
The drone phenomenon dovetails with the U.S.’s long standing interventionist policies in the Middle East. Historical context, such as the “Project for a New American Century,” reveals a strategy aimed at destabilizing specific nations to maintain U.S. dominance. Countries like Iraq, Libya, and Syria have already experienced the consequences of such strategies, with devastating results.

Iran remains a key focus in this geopolitical chess game. U.S. alliances with extremist groups for tactical purposes—though controversial—have been part of this broader strategy. By sowing chaos, these alliances aim to weaken adversaries and reshape the region in ways favorable to U.S. interests. However, these actions come at a significant ethical cost and often backfire, creating new threats and instabilities.

Domestic Ironies: Climate Hypocrisy and Public Distrust
Amid discussions of drones and war, domestic policies also face scrutiny, particularly regarding climate change. Advocates of stringent climate measures often fail to practice what they preach, exposing a glaring hypocrisy. High-profile figures like John Kerry and Bill Gates promote environmental austerity while enjoying lifestyles that contradict their rhetoric—flying private jets, owning beachfront mansions, and commissioning mega-yachts. These contradictions undermine their credibility and make their calls for sacrifice seem less about saving the planet and more about controlling the populace.

Proposals like “15-minute cities” and restrictions on gas-powered lawn mowers may aim to address climate concerns, but they often feel disconnected from the realities faced by ordinary people. When the elites pushing these policies demonstrate no intention of limiting their own carbon footprints, their messaging becomes difficult to trust. The public’s growing frustration mirrors the broader skepticism toward institutions that claim to work in the public’s interest while appearing to prioritize their own.

Searching for the Truth
The mystery drones hovering over New Jersey represent more than an enigma in the sky; they reflect deeper issues of mistrust, conflicting narratives, and potential ulterior motives.

Whether linked to foreign policy strategies, covert operations, or simply government incompetence, the drones symbolize a crisis of transparency. As speculation grows, so does the demand for accountability.

Yet, as long as official explanations remain inconsistent, the public will continue to question: What are drones, and what else might they signify?

Until answers are provided, skepticism remains not just justified but essential.