1 Plan, 4 Presidents

04/03/2026 · Marcan

In 2007, General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO, revealed the existence of a classified Pentagon memo listing seven countries to be overthrown—Iran was the last one. Twenty-five years and four presidents later, the list is complete. A look back at a plan that no one voted for.

General Wesley Clark’s revelation in 2007

Former Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Europe, a four-star general decorated in Vietnam, and a Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, Wesley Clark is a man at the heart of the U.S. military establishment.

In 2007, during an interview on Democracy Now!, he revealed a series of conversations he had had at the Pentagon in the weeks following September 11, 2001.

About ten days after the attacks, Clark had gone to the Pentagon to greet former colleagues from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A general then took him aside and told him, “The decision has been made. We are going to go to war against Iraq.” Clark was stunned: at that time, there was no established link between Iraq and the September 11 attacks.

A few weeks later, as bombs were already falling on Afghanistan, Clark returned to see that same officer. The situation had worsened:

“He pulled a sheet of paper from his desk and said to me, ‘I just received this from the Secretary of Defense’s office. It’s a memo outlining how we’re going to overthrow the governments of seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finally Iran.”” — General Wesley Clark, Democracy Now!, March 2, 2007^[1]

Seven countries. Five years. A classified memo from Donald Rumsfeld’s office. None of these countries had any obvious connection to the September 11 attacks. The one that did—Saudi Arabia—wasn’t on the list.

The neoconservatives… and Netanyahu

The memo came from the office of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. But this list had not been drafted in the post-9/11 rush. It was the product of strategic thinking that had been circulating in Washington since the 1990s, driven by a specific ideological current: the neoconservatives.

A Clean Break (1996)

A group of neoconservative strategists—including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith—drafted a document intended for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The document proposed that Israel abandon the Oslo Accords and go on the offensive against its regional adversaries: weaken and push back Syria, overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and separate Shiite South Lebanon from Hezbollah and Iran^[2].

Rebuilding America’s Defenses (2000)

The PNAC (Project for the New American Century) think tank, whose key members included Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, published this document asserting that the United States must maintain “forward-deployed forces” in the Middle East to preserve military dominance in the region. The primary objective: to secure access to oil and prevent China from developing close ties with key oil-producing states such as Iran.

The 1991 Conversation

Clark also recounted a revealing conversation with Paul Wolfowitz just after the first Gulf War:

“What we’ve learned is that we can use our military in the region—in the Middle East—and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we have about 5 to 10 years to clean up these old Soviet regimes—Syria, Iran, Iraq—before the next major superpower comes along to challenge us.” — Paul Wolfowitz, as reported by Wesley Clark, 1991^[3].

September 11 did not create this plan. It provided the pretext to implement it.

7 countries, 4 presidents

Here is what became of each of the seven countries on the list, and under which presidency(s) decisive actions took place:

1. Iraq — Invasion (2003), fall of Saddam Hussein, civil war, rise of ISIS, lasting chaos. → Bush (R)

2. Libya — NATO intervention (2011), fall and death of Gaddafi, fragmented state, militia wars. → Obama (D)

3. Syria — Civil war since 2011, CIA/MI6 support for rebels, fall of the Assad regime in late 2025. → Obama (D), Trump 1 (R), Biden (D)

4. Lebanon — 2006 Israeli war, repeated bombings, ground incursion, and Israeli buffer zone (2026). → Bush (R), Biden (D), Trump 2 (R)

5. Somalia — U.S.-backed Ethiopian invasion (2007), ongoing civil war, continuous U.S. airstrikes. → Bush (R), Obama (D), Trump 1–2 (R)

6. Sudan — Split into two countries (2011), devastating civil wars in both states. → Obama (D)

7. Iran — U.S. strikes on nuclear facilities (June 2025), followed by a massive joint U.S.-Israel operation on February 28, 2026, assassination of Khamenei, ongoing attempt at regime change. → Trump 2 (R)^[4]

The “5-year” timeline was optimistic, but the goal is on track to be achieved in 25 years. And this plan has spanned five presidencies—three Republican, two Democratic—without ever being challenged. The American vote has never altered this trajectory.

The Trump Case

If any single case were to demonstrate that U.S. foreign policy is beyond democratic control, it is that of Donald Trump. For no president has denounced interventionist policy in the Middle East as much, for as long, or as explicitly.

Here, in chronological order, are his own statements:

2011 — On Obama: “Our president is going to attack Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate.”

2013 — “I predict that Obama will start a war with Iran just to save face.”

July 2016 (Republican Convention) — “We must abandon the failed policy of nation-building and regime change that Hillary Clinton pushed in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and Syria.”^[5]

August 2016 — “Our current strategy of nation-building and regime change is a proven failure, an absolute failure.”^[6]

2019 — “The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing the Middle East. Thousands of our great soldiers have died or been seriously wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side. GOING TO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE.”^[7]

2019 — “Our policy of endless war, regime change, and nation-building is being replaced by the clear-eyed pursuit of American interests. The role of our military is to protect our security, not to be the world’s policeman.”

2023 — “We will tear down the deep state. We will expel the warmongers from our government—those horrible, stupid people. They love to see people die. We will drive out the globalists.”^[8]

2024 — Tulsi Gabbard, his future Director of National Intelligence: “A vote for Kamala Harris is a vote for Dick Cheney and for war. A vote for Trump is a vote to end wars, not to start them.”

2024 — Stephen Miller, Trump’s advisor: “Liz Cheney is Kamala’s top advisor. Liz wants to invade the entire Middle East. Kamala = World War III. Trump = Peace. KAMALA WILL SEND YOUR SONS TO WAR.”^[9]

How do we go from “Going to the Middle East is the worst decision ever made” to the largest U.S. military operation since the invasion of Iraq? Several factors seem to have converged.

A Window of Opportunity

Since October 7, 2023, and the Hamas attack, Israel has methodically dismantled Iran’s network of proxies in the Middle East: Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the fall of Assad in Syria. Iran found itself more isolated than ever. For Tel Aviv, the window of opportunity was historic.

And it was indeed Israel that set the pace. According to the Washington Post, Trump launched the operation after weeks of joint lobbying by Israel and Saudi Arabia, even though U.S. intelligence agencies saw no imminent threat^[10]. During a classified briefing in Congress on March 3, Secretary of State Marco Rubio himself provided the justification: Israel was going to strike Iran with or without the United States, which would have triggered Iranian retaliation against U.S. troops in the region. Washington therefore chose to strike first—not to respond to an Iranian threat, but to support an Israeli decision. Senator Mark Warner summed it up: it is “a war of choice, dictated by Israel’s objectives and timeline.” Even Republican Speaker Mike Johnson acknowledged that Israel “was determined to act, with or without U.S. support.”^[11] CAIR called it a “stunning admission”: “The United States did not attack Iran because Iran posed an imminent threat. We attacked under pressure from Israel, for the benefit of Israel.”^[12]

A Distraction?

At the time of the strikes, Trump is facing a difficult domestic situation: his “Liberation Day” tariffs are blocked by the courts, his attempts to deploy federal troops on U.S. soil are being challenged, the economy—his central promise—is stalling, and the declassified files from the Epstein case, whose publication has been revived, threaten to tarnish the administration right up to its highest levels. War has always been a diversionary tool for presidents in trouble. That is, in fact, exactly what Trump accused Obama of in 2013: “I predict that Obama is going to start a war with Iran just to save face.”

The Fabrication of a Pretext

The administration cited the Iranian nuclear threat. Yet indirect negotiations with Iran, mediated by Oman, had resulted in a breakthrough on February 25, 2026: Tehran had agreed never to stockpile enriched uranium and to submit to full IAEA verification. Three days later, the bombs were falling. U.S. intelligence agencies themselves also estimated that Iran would not be capable of developing long-range ballistic missiles before 2035. As in Iraq in 2003 with the weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, the facts did not matter.

A risky gamble

Trump risks paying a heavy price for this war. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted on March 1 and 2, only 27% of Americans approve of the strikes, compared to 43% who disapprove^[13].Even among Republicans, support stands at just 55%, and 42% of them say they would be less inclined to support the operation if it resulted in American deaths^[14] —which is already the case, with six soldiers killed in three days. 56% of Americans believe Trump is too quick to use military force—a quarter of Republicans share this view. The strikes began three days before the first primaries of the midterm elections, which will determine whether Republicans retain their majority in Congress.

And this time, the betrayal is being felt even within the Trump camp. Tucker Carlson, one of the most influential voices on the American right, called the attack “absolutely disgusting and diabolical.” Republican Representative Thomas Massie wrote: “I oppose this war. This is not ‘America First.’”^[15].On social media, MAGA supporters are still fuming: “It’s always a lie, and it’s always America Last.” But this time, it’s the worst betrayal of all, because it comes from the very man and administration we thought were different, and who said ‘never again.’” Yet Pete Hegseth, Trump’s Secretary of Defense, had promised in December that his department “would not be distracted by interventionism, indefinite wars, or regime change.” Four months later, that is exactly what he is overseeing.

It is also a risky gamble for Netanyahu. By dragging the United States into this war, he is going all in and risks losing on both sides of the American political spectrum. According to Gallup, American public opinion has already shifted overwhelmingly in favor of the Palestinians over the past two years, a shift driven primarily by Democrats. But now, a portion of Republicans and the MAGA base are also openly denouncing support for Israel. As Ofer Shelah, a researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, put it: “A large portion of American public opinion will see this as the Israeli tail wagging the American dog.” “The resulting loss of support” will be very harmful to Israel in the medium and long term." He added: “But Netanyahu is not interested in either the medium or the long term”^[16].

Who decides?

Wesley Clark asked the right question as early as 2007: if this plan existed before 9/11, if it has survived five presidencies, if it has unfolded independently of the popular vote and campaign promises—then where does the real decision-making power lie?

In addition to internal forces such as the military-industrial complex, other interests are at play—and they are well-documented. The seven countries on the Pentagon’s list share a commonality that is no coincidence: they are all regional adversaries of Israel—and, to a lesser extent, of Saudi Arabia. The two main U.S. allies in the Middle East. The plan devised in A Clean Break with Netanyahu to serve Israeli security interests was adopted as U.S. foreign policy, funded by the American taxpayer, executed by the U.S. military—and culminated in 2026 with a joint operation.

Americans voted for Obama in 2008 because he was against the war. They voted for Trump in 2016 and 2024 because he promised to “break the cycle.” However, each time, the plan continued.

And it’s not just American voters who have been ignored. The populations of the seven countries on the list were obviously never consulted either. Yet the record of externally imposed regime changes speaks for itself: Iraq has become a failed state, ravaged by sectarianism, Libya, a battleground for militias; Syria, a country in ruins; Lebanon, a country suffocating under Israeli military occupation; Sudan, split in two and in the throes of civil war; Somalia, a ghost state in a state of perpetual war. In none of these cases did the interventions lead to greater freedom or stability for the people. The “nation-builders” destroyed nations without building anything—exactly what Trump himself denounced in 2016.

The 2001 plan is nearing its final objective. Six of the seven countries have been destroyed or fragmented. The seventh, Iran, is under bombardment. Its Supreme Leader has been eliminated, its military infrastructure struck, its economy strangled. No one knows today whether these strikes will lead to regime change, or, more importantly, whether such a change, if it occurs, will benefit the Iranian people. The history of the six previous countries offers little reason for optimism.

Marcan for BAM!

[1] Gen. Wesley Clark Weighs Presidential Bid: “I Think About It Every Day” | Democracy Now!

[2] A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

[3] Wes Clark and the neocon dream - Salon.com

[4] 2026 Iran conflict - Wikipedia

[5] FACT CHECK: Donald Trump’s Republican Convention Speech, Annotated

[6] User Clip: Our Current Strategy of Nation Building and Regime Change is a Proven, Absolute FAILURE - DJT 2016

[7] The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East. Thousands of our great soldiers have died or been seriously wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE…..

[8] Trump promised to end ‘regime change.’ Now he’s urging Iranians to topple their government.

[9] Trump launches the regime-change effort in Iran that he pledged to avoid | CNN Politics

[10] Pressure from Saudi Arabia and Israel helped push Trump to attack Iran - The Washington Post

[11] Lawmakers: Israeli plan to attack Iran dictated Trump’s decision on strikes