The plan for the Iraq war, which has erupted in the face of opposition from the entire world, was drawn up at least decades ago, by Israeli strategists. In its attempt to realize its strategy of destablizing or dividing the Middle Eastern Arab states, Israel has Egypt, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia on its list of subsequent targets.
As these lines are being written, the United States of America has begun striking at Iraq. Despite the fact that most countries of the world, and even the majority of the USA’s allies, opposed it, the US administration was determined for the strike to go ahead. When we look behind the scenes of this insistence, it is Israel, solely responsible for the bloodshed and suffering in the Middle East since the beginning of the twentieth century, which emerges. The state of Israel’s policy aimed at the fragmentation of Iraq has lengthy historical rootsé
Israel’s Plans to Divide Iraq
The report titled “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties,” by the Department of Information’s Hebrew-language magazine Kivunim (Directions), aimed at making the whole of the Middle East a living space for Israel. The report, drawn up by Oded Yinon , an Israeli journalist and formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry of Israel, set out the scenario of the “division of Iraq” in these terms:
Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syriaé Iraq is, once again, no different in essence from its neighbors, although its majority is Shi’ite and the ruling minority Sunni. Sixty-five percent of the population has no say in politics, in which an elite of 20 percent holds the power. In addition there is a large Kurdish minority in the north, and if it weren’t for the strength of the ruling regime, the army and the oil revenues, Iraq’s future state would be no different than that of Lebanon in the pasté In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. 
We believe there is little need to recall how this scenario was partially implemented after the 1991 Gulf War, with Iraq being effectively, if not officially, divided into three parts. The fact that the US plan for the occupation of Iraq, which is on the agenda at the time of writing, could again spark off such a division, is a concrete threat.
Israel’s Role in the Gulf War
The implementation of the Israeli strategy goes back to 1990. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in a sudden attack on August 1, 1990, giving rise to an international crisis. Israel headed the list of those forces which encouraged that crisis. Israel was the fiercest supporter of the attitude adopted by the United States in the wake of the invasion of Kuwait. The Israelis even regarded the United States as moderate, and wanted a harsher policy. To such an extent in fact that the President of Israel Chaim Herzog recommended that the American use nuclear weapons. On the other hand, the Israeli lobby in the United States was working to bring about a wide-ranging attack on Iraq.
This whole situation encouraged the idea in the United States that the attack against Iraq under consideration was actually planned in Israel’s interests. The well-known commentator Pat Buchanan summarised this idea in the words “There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East é the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United State.”
Israel had also initiated a serious propaganda campaign on the issue. Since this campaign was largely waged in secret, Mossad also entered the equation. Former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky provides important information on this subject. According to Ostrovsky, Israel had wanted to wage war with the United States against Saddam long before the Gulf crisis. So much so in fact, that Israel began to implement the plan immediately after the Iran-Iraq war. Ostrovsky reports that Mossad’s Psychological Warfare department (LAP é LohAma Psicologit) set about an effective campaign using disinformation techniques. This campaign was aimed at representing Saddam as a bloody dictator and a threat to world peace. (Victor Ostrovsky, “The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad’s Secret Agenda”, pp. 252-254).
A Mossad Agent Describes the Gulf War
Ostrovsky describes how Mossad used agents or sympathisers in various parts of the world in this campaign and how, for example, Amnesty International or “volunteer Jewish helpers (sayanim)” in the US Congress were brought in. Among the tools employed in the campaign were the missiles launched against civilian targets in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. As Ostrovsky makes clear, Mossad’s later use of these missiles as a propaganda tool was quite peculiar, since those missiles had actually been directed towards their targets by Mossad, with the help of information from US satellites. Having supported Saddam throughout his war with Iran, Israel was now trying to portray him as a monster. Ostrovsky writes:
The Mossad leaders know that if they could make Saddam appear bad enough and a threat to the Gulf oil supply, of which he’d been the protector up to that point, then the United States and its allies would not let him get away with anything, but would take measures that would all but eliminate his army and his weapons potential, especially if they were led to believe that this might just be their last chance before he went nuclear. (Victor Ostrovsky, “The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad’s Secret Agenda”, p. 254) 
The Israelis were so determined on this matter, and with regard to the United States, that on August 4, 1990, Israeli Foreign Minister David Levy issued a diplomatically worded threat to William Brown, the American ambassador to Israel, stating that Israel “expects the U.S. will fulfill all of the goals it set for itself at the beginning of the gulf crisis,” in other words that it attack Iraq. According to Levy, if the United States failed to do so, Israel would act unilaterally. 
It would be of enormous benefit to Israel to have the United States engage in the war and for Israel to remain entirely uninvolved: and that is indeed what happened.
Israel Forces the USA to War
However, the Israelis were actively involved in the United States’ war plans. Some US staff officers involved in planning Operation Desert Storm received fine tactical advice from the Israelis that “the best way of wounding Saddam was to strike at his family.”
The Mossad-inspired propaganda campaign reported by Ostrovsky set up the necessary public backing for the Gulf War. It was again Mossad local assistants who lit the touchpaper for the war. The Hill and Knowlton lobbying firm, run by Tom Lantos of the Israeli lobby, prepared a dramatic scenario to convince members of Congress on the subject of war against Saddam. Turan Yavuz, a noted Turkish journalist, describes the incident:
October 9, 1990. The Hill and Knowlton lobbying firm organises a sitting in Congress on the subject of “Iraq’s Barbarities.” A number of “eye witnesses” brought to the session by the lobbying firm maintain that Iraqi troops killed new-born babies in the hospital wards. One “eye witness” describes the savagery in enormous detail, saying that Iraqi soldiers killed 300 new-born babies in one hospital alone. This information deeply disturbs the members of Congress. This works to President Bush’s advantage. However, it later emerges that the eye witness brought by Hill and Knowlton to Congress is in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington. Nevertheless, the daughter’s account is sufficient for members of Congress to give Saddam the nickname “Hitler”. (Turan Yavuz, ABD’nin Kért Kartı (The US’ Kurdish Card), p. 307)
This leads to just one conclusion: that Israel played an important role in the United States’ to wage its first war on Iraq. The second one is not much different.
The Pretext of “War Against Terrorism”
Contrary to popular belief, the plan to attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime by force was prepared and placed on Washington’s agenda long before the environment of the “fight against terror,” which emerged in the wake of September 11. The first indication of this plan emerged in 1997. A group of pro-Israeli strategists in Washington began to put forward the scenario of the invasion of Iraq by manipulating the “neo-con” think-tank, called PNAC (Project for The New American Century). The most notable names in the PNAC were those of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, who as defense secretary and vice-president would be the most influential figures in the George W. Bush administration.
An article titled “Invading Iraq Not a New Idea for Bush Clique: 4 Years Before 9/11 Plan Was Set”  written by William Brunch and published in the Philadelphia Daily News, sets out the following facts:
But in reality, Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, and a small band of conservative ideologues had begun making the case for an American invasion of Iraq as early as 1997 é nearly four years before the Sept. 11 attacks and three years before President Bush took office.
An obscure, ominous-sounding right-wing policy group called Project for the New American Century, or PNAC é affiliated with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld’s top deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Bush’s brother Jeb é even urged then-President Clinton to invade Iraq back in January 1998. (William Bunch, Philadelphia Daily News, Jan. 27, 2003) 
Is Oil the Real Objective?
Why were the PNAC members so determined to overthrow Saddam? The same article continues:
While oil is a backdrop to PNAC’s policy pronouncements on Iraq, it doesn’t seem to be the driving force. [Ian] Lustick, [a University of Pennsylvania political science professor and Middle East expert,] while a critic of the Bush policy, says oil is viewed by the war’s proponents primarily as a way to pay for the costly military operation.
“I’m from Texas, and every oil man that I know is against military action in Iraq,” said PNAC’s Schmitt. “The oil market doesn’t need disruption.”
Lustick believes that a more powerful hidden motivator may be Israel. He said Bush administration hawks believe that a show of force in Iraq would somehow convince Palestinians to accept a peace plan on terms favorable to Israelé (William Bunch, “Invading Iraq not a new idea for Bush clique” Philadelphia Daily News, Jan. 27, 2003) 
This, therefore, is the principal motivation behind the plan to attack Iraq: to serve Israel’s Middle East strategy.
This fact has also been identified by other Middle East experts. Cengiz éandar, a Turkish Middle East expert, for instance, describes the real power behind the plan to attack Iraq thus:
…..Who is directing the attack on Iraq? Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice. These are the “senior level” backers of the attack. Yet the rest of the iceberg is even richer and more interesting. There are a number of “lobbies.”
Heading these lobbies are the Jewish Institute for Security Affairs team, pro-Likud and Israeli-right and known for their close relations with US arms manufacturers. These have close relations with the “arms lobby,” Lockheed, Northrop, General Dynamics and Israeli military industries … JINSA’s fundamental principle is this: America’s and Israel’s security are inseparable. In other words, they are the same thing.
JINSA’s objective is not solely the overthrow of the Saddam regime in Iraq: it also supports the overthrow of the Saudi Arabian, Syrian, Egyptian and Iranian regimes with a logic of “total war,” and the subsequent importation of “democracy.” … In other words, a number of American Jews on the same wavelength as the most extreme factions in Israel at the moment comprise the hawks in Washington. (Cengiz éandar, “Iraq and the ‘Friends of Turkey’ American Hawks”, Yeni Şafak, September 3, 2002.)
Israel’s Project of “Secret World Domination”
In short, there are those in Washington who are encouraging a war aimed first at Iraq and then at Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Egypt. The most distinguishing feature of these is that they are lined up alongside, and even equivalent to, the “Israeli lobby.”
No matter how much they speak of “American interests,” these people are actually supporting Israeli interests. A strategy of waging war against the whole of the Middle East and turning all the peoples of the region against it cannot be to the United States’ advantage. The adoption of such a strategy can only be possible if the United States is bound to Israel, by means of the Israeli lobby, which is unbelievably influential in the country’s foreign policy.
It is for these reasons that behind the strategy which began to be set in motion after September 11 and is aimed at re-arranging the entire Islamic world, lies Israel’s secret plan for “world domination.” Ever since its foundation, Israel has aimed at restructuring the Middle East, making it manageable and no threat to itself. It has been using its influence in the United States for that purpose in recent years, and to a large extent directs Washington’s Middle East policy. The post-September 11 climate gave Israel the opportunity it had been seeking. Pro-Israeli ideologues who for years had been propounding the falsehood that Islam itself – not some militant radicals who use Islam as a shelter – posed a threat to the West and the United States, and who encouraged the mistaken concept of a “clash of civilisations,” have been trying to incite the United States against the Islamic world in the wake of September 11. As early as 1995, Israel Shahak of the Jerusalem Hebrew University wrote former Israeli Prime Minister Rabin’s obsession with “the idea of an Israeli-led anti-Islamic crusade”. Nahum Barnea, a commentator from the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, stated that same year that Israel was making progress “[to] become the Western vanguard in the war against the Islamic enemy.” (Israel Shahak, “Downturn in Rabin’s Popularity Has Several Causes”, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 1995.) 
All that has happened in the years which have followed is that Israel has made its intentions even clearer. The political climate in the wake of September 11 prepared the ground for this intention to be made a reality. The world is now witnessing the step by step implementation of Israel’s policy of the fragmentation of Iraq, planned decades ago.
The Only Way to World Peace: An Islamic Union
The situation may be summarised as follows: Israel’s aim is to restructure the Middle East in line with its own strategic interests. In order to do this, in order to rule the Middle East, one of the most sensitive regions in the world, it needs a “world power.” That power is the United States; and Israel, thanks to its influence there, is trying to place a mortgage on that country’s Middle East policy. Although Israel is a small state with a population of only 4.5 million, the plans drawn up by Israel and its backers in the West are directing the whole world.
What needs to be done in the face of this?
“Counter lobby activities” need to be adopted in the face of the Israeli lobby’s influence in the United States in order to develop dialogue between the United States and the Islamic world and to invite it to seek peaceful solutions to Iraq and similar problems. A wide section of the United States wish to see their country adopt a fairer Middle East policy. Many statesmen, strategists, journalists and intellectuals have expressed this, and a “peace between civilisations” movement must be carried forward in cooperation with them.
The approach inviting the US administration to peaceful solutions must be carried forward at governmental and civil society organisation level.
Alongside all this, a deeper rooted solution lies in a project which can resolve all the problems between the Islamic world and the West and deal with the fragmentation, suffering and poverty in the Islamic world and totally alter it: An Islamic Union. 
Recent developments have shown that the whole world, not just Islamic regions, stands in need of an “Islamic Union.” This Union should heal the radical elements in the Islamic World, and establish good relations between Muslim countries and the West, especially the United States. It should also help to find a solution to the mother of all problems: The Arab-Israeli conflict. With Israel retreating to its pre-67 borders and Arabs recognizing its right to exist, there can be real peace in the Middle East. And Jews and Muslims – both Children of Abraham and believers in one true God – may peacefully co-exist in the Holy Land, as they have done during the past centuries. Then, Israel would need no strategy to destabilize or divide the Arab States. And it will not have to face the results of occupation in forms of terrorism and constant fear of annihilation. Then, both the Israeli and Iraqi (and Palestinian) children may grow up in peace and security. That is a Middle East that any sane person should work to see.
Harun Yahya is a prominent Turkish intellectual.
Buy the relevant / Harun Yahya’s book (s) now: