OBLONG MEDIA GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE
A Global Intelligence Analysis
Few statements about American foreign policy in the twenty first century have generated as much debate as the remarks made by retired U.S. Army General Wesley Clark.
Speaking publicly years after leaving military service, Clark recalled visiting the Pentagon shortly after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, where he claimed he was informed of a strategic memorandum describing plans to remove the governments of several Middle Eastern and African states over a number of years.
According to Clark’s account, the countries allegedly identified were Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.
Whether interpreted as a formal policy blueprint, an internal planning exercise or one officer’s recollection of conversations within the Pentagon, Clark’s statement has remained one of the most discussed claims regarding American post 9/11 strategic thinking.
More than two decades later, the remarkable reality is that most of these countries have experienced war, foreign military intervention, sanctions, proxy conflict or prolonged political instability.
Coincidence?
Strategic planning?
Or the predictable outcome of deeper geopolitical competition?
These questions remain central to understanding modern international relations.
The Middle East After 9/11
The attacks of September 11 fundamentally altered American foreign policy.
Washington adopted a doctrine centred on pre emptive action against perceived security threats, particularly terrorism and the alleged proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was followed by Iraq in 2003.
Subsequent years witnessed military intervention, intelligence operations, sanctions, drone campaigns and proxy conflicts across much of West Asia and North Africa.
While each conflict had its own unique causes, critics argue that together they reflected a broader strategy aimed at reshaping the regional balance of power.
Supporters of these interventions maintained they were necessary to combat terrorism, prevent nuclear proliferation, protect allies and promote regional stability.
The historical record suggests that outcomes have often been far more complex than the original objectives.
The Countries That Changed Forever
Iraq lost much of its state infrastructure following the 2003 invasion and experienced years of sectarian violence.
Libya descended into prolonged instability following the 2011 NATO intervention that removed Muammar Gaddafi.
Syria became the centre of one of the bloodiest proxy wars of the modern era, drawing in Russia, Iran, Turkey, the United States and numerous non state actors.
Somalia continued to face insurgency and state fragility.
Sudan experienced renewed internal conflict following years of political transition.
Lebanon has struggled through severe economic collapse, political paralysis and repeated security crises.
Only Iran has avoided direct invasion, although it has faced decades of sanctions, covert operations, cyber attacks, assassinations of senior military and nuclear figures, and persistent military confrontation with both Israel and the United States.
Why Does Iran Matter?
Iran occupies one of the world’s most strategically important geographical positions.
It borders the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant share of global oil exports passes.
It possesses some of the world’s largest proven reserves of oil and natural gas.
It maintains influence through regional partners and allied movements across Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.
For successive American administrations, Iran’s nuclear programme, ballistic missile capabilities and regional influence have represented major strategic concerns.
For Israel, Iran is widely regarded as its most significant long term security challenge.
For Iran, however, its policies are framed as deterrence against external threats and preservation of national sovereignty.
This fundamental security dilemma has fuelled decades of confrontation.
Regime Change as a Foreign Policy Tool
Since the Cold War, regime change has frequently appeared as an instrument of major power competition.
Examples include:
Iran (1953)
Guatemala (1954)
Congo (1961)
Chile (1973)
Afghanistan
Iraq
Libya
Methods have varied from covert intelligence operations to sanctions, diplomatic isolation, military intervention and support for opposition groups.
Critics argue that such policies often generate prolonged instability, while supporters contend they have removed dangerous regimes and protected international security.
History offers examples supporting both perspectives.
Who Really Benefits From War?
Perhaps the most important question is not simply who starts wars, but who consistently benefits from them.
Historically, major conflicts have generated enormous profits for sectors including:
Defence manufacturers
Energy companies
Reconstruction contractors
Cybersecurity firms
Intelligence contractors
Logistics providers
Financial institutions involved in sovereign lending
This observation does not imply that wars are orchestrated by a single hidden group. Rather, it reflects the reality that complex networks of governments, corporations, investors and strategic actors often have differing incentives that can prolong or shape conflicts.
Scholars have long debated the influence of what U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously called the “military-industrial complex”, the close relationship between defence industries, political decision making and military procurement.
Separating Evidence from Speculation
Discussions of global power frequently extend into claims about secret networks or hidden elites directing world events.
While economic concentration, lobbying, corporate influence and geopolitical competition are well documented subjects of academic study, claims that any single family or organisation secretly controls governments, central banks or world events require extraordinary evidence and remain unsubstantiated.
Serious geopolitical analysis is strongest when it distinguishes between documented evidence, informed interpretation and speculative assertions.
Failing to make these distinctions risks weakening otherwise legitimate critiques of foreign policy.
The Human Cost
Whatever strategic calculations motivate states, the greatest burden is almost always borne by civilians.
Across Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan and other conflict zones, millions have been displaced, hundreds of thousands have been killed, infrastructure has been devastated and entire generations have grown up amid instability.
The long-term consequences include:
refugee crises;
economic collapse;
weakened state institutions;
expanded extremist movements;
regional insecurity; and
lasting humanitarian suffering.
These outcomes serve as a reminder that military victories do not necessarily translate into sustainable peace.
The Emerging Multipolar World
The geopolitical environment of 2026 differs significantly from that of 2001.
Russia has reasserted itself militarily.
China has become a global economic and technological superpower.
India, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and other middle powers increasingly pursue independent foreign policies.
BRICS expansion and the growing use of non dollar trade mechanisms illustrate a broader shift towards a more multipolar international order.
In such an environment, attempts to reshape regions through unilateral military intervention face greater diplomatic, economic and strategic constraints than they did two decades ago.
Oblong Media Global Intelligence Assessment
General Wesley Clark’s account continues to provoke important questions about long term strategic planning within major powers. While elements of his recollection align with subsequent geopolitical developments, it should not be treated as definitive proof of a single master plan governing every conflict that followed.
The Middle East’s turmoil has instead been shaped by a complex interaction of national interests, regional rivalries, ideological movements, terrorism, resource competition, domestic political dynamics and interventions by multiple external powers.
Understanding these conflicts requires rigorous examination of evidence, careful separation of fact from conjecture, and recognition that international politics is rarely driven by a single actor or simple narrative.
As global power becomes increasingly distributed among competing states and alliances, future conflicts are likely to emerge from this evolving balance rather than from any single overarching strategy. For policymakers and citizens alike, the enduring lesson is that lasting stability depends not only on military power, but on diplomacy, accountable governance, economic resilience and respect for international law.
By Duruebube Chimazuru Nnadi-Oforgu
For Oblong Media Global Intelligence
Leave a Reply