I'm unable to view videos over the Internet due to using only dial-up connection and having no audio, speakers, so I rely on informative articles, text.
"America's 'Long War': The Legacy of the Iraq-Iran and Soviet-Afghan Wars", by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Sep 16 2007, originally July 5th,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=6687
I'm excerpting and while it's not the whole article, most of it is excerpted. The maps aren't being reproduced for this post, and while GR's copyright says to not modify the text of GR-copyrighted articles, which this one is, I figure that I'm not modifying the text in terms of actual content; except in omitting some, and by adding bold typeface for highlighting some parts. The subheaders are in bold type in the original GR copy though; but the text that's excerpted is at it appears at GR.
Besides, what's copied of the article is not for commercial, profit purpose, but to help spread educational information that everyone should carefully make themselves informed about.
Perhaps one thing I should cease saying is that Big Oil is part of the push league for all of this warring of or by the U.S. and U.K., but Nazemroaya well illustrates that if oil industry corporate elites are not part of the push league (pushing for these wars), then oil resources nonetheless are a major objective. I believe Big Oil industry corporations, certainly some of them, are involved, but if ever I was mistaken about this, then oil remains a central motive for other parties working as directors, behind the scenes, pushing for this warring. And like many boards of directors, these people are not all from the same industry.
Anyway, Nazemroaya mostly refers to the warring being geo-political and for geo-economic domination, very much with oil resources as a or the central motive; while he also mentions that all of this also involves or includes Israel as a partner. Israel is shown to not be [the] boss, but a partner, which is something I definitely agree with. Israel's involvement is of the Middle East scope, while the Anglo-American team, as well as European, France and Germany anyway, but then rather all (most anyway) NATO countries, too; well, their scoping is the Middle East and much more, potentially, if not actually including Russia and China, so more than Central and Western Asia, plus African countries.
Nazemroaya may not refer to Africa, but if not, then other articles I'm providing links to and which are complementary to Nazemroaya's piece do include mention of Africa.
Yesterday"s events influence the direction of tomorrow. The question is: are future developments, as a result of past events, foreseen or unforeseen?
... In the case of geo-politics and geo-strategy it may be argued that yes there has been a series of calculated steps taken to establish intended developments. Given this case, how far does this drive to achieve expected outcomes go back? It can be argued that, since the dawn of civilization, humanity has always strived to control its prospects.
Return to the Cold War?
On the eve of the 2007 anniversary of the defeat of Germany in the Second World War, President Vladimir Putin stated that the foreign policy of the U.S. government resembled that of the war march of the German Third Reich that sparked the Second World War. The Russian President warned Russians that the threat of another global war was very much alive in reference to increasing U.S. antagonism across the globe.  Just months before, in February of 2007, the Russian President told a gathering of international leaders in Bavaria that the U.S. was dangerously trying to impose itself as the centre of global power and decision making.  He bluntly said that Russia was determined to stay an independent nation and when answering a question he confidentially said that he was certain "the historians of the future will not describe our conference [at Munich] as one in which the Second Cold War was declared." 
The statements of Russia, China, and various other nation-states are an alarming indicator of the deteriorating situation in international relations, but this is a direction that American policy makers have been directing the United States towards for decades. ...
On close inspection, a series of unfolding international events have been anticipated and systematically engineered since the end of the Cold War. The "long war" that is absorbing the globe did not start in 2001, but at the end of the Cold War through a continuum of wars and international events. ...
Continuous Reagan-Bush Sr.-Clinton-Bush Jr. War Strategy: Laying the Groundwork for the "Long War"
"As in chess, American global planners must think several moves ahead, anticipating possible countermoves. A sustainable geostrategy must therefore distinguish between the short-run perspective (the next five years), the middle term (up to twenty or so years), and the long run (beyond twenty years). Moreover these phases must be viewed not as watertight compartments but as part of a continuum. The first phase must gradually and consistently lead into the second " indeed, be deliberately pointed toward it " and the second must then lead subsequently into the third."
- Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)
U.S. foreign policy and the wars in the Middle East cut across U.S. political party lines and presidential administrations. The pinnacles of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have historically worked hand-in-hand in regards to U.S. foreign policy objectives.
... Upon careful examination, it is apparent one presidential administration after another has laid the foundations for the foreign wars of their beneficiaries in the White House.
George H. Bush Sr. went to war with Baghdad, arranged the groundwork to dismantle Yugoslavia, and produced the economic sanctions regime that weakened Iraq. William (Bill) J. Clinton weakened Iraq further through a bombing regime, expanded NATO, pressed U.S. bases eastward, helped dismantle Yugoslavia, and laid the footing for invading Afghanistan and lunching the "Global War on Terror." Finally George W. Bush Jr. invaded Iraq and publicly resurrected the Cold War projects of America. Under the Bush Jr. Administration a vital NATO military presence was also established in Afghanistan. Afghanistan can serve as a bridgehead in the Eurasian landmass and is amidst the borders of China, Iran, the former Soviet Union, and the Indian sub-continent.
The Carter Doctrine: The Link between the Soviet-Afghan and Iraq-Iran Wars
Looking back, in retrospect the grounds for weakening Iraq and Iran simultaneously were established under both the presidential administrations of James (Jimmy) E. Carter, and Ronald W. Reagan. United States Central Command (CENTCOM) was also established in 1983, during the Iraq-Iran War. The establishment of CENTCOM is an important step in the continuous projection of American power into the Middle East and Eurasia.
The U.S. Rapid Deployment Force was the antecedent of CENTCOM, which was designed to challenge Soviet intervention in Iraq, Iran, and the Persian Gulf. U.S. Rapid Deployment Force was a large-scale contingent of the U.S. military that was constantly on standby for massive theatre-level war anywhere on the globe. The force also gave special priority to the Persian Gulf and Middle East. The force was essentially the largest standby military contingent of the U.S. and had a special mandate in regards to the geo-strategically important Persian Gulf, an energy breadbasket.
The Carter Doctrine was consequently declared after the U.S.S.R. intervened militarily in Afghanistan. On January 23, 1980, Jimmy Carter stated that the U.S. government would use military force within the Persian Gulf region to defend U.S. economic interests.  The doctrine was deliberately portrayed as a response to Soviet actions, but nothing could be further from the truth. Eight months later, in September of 1980, the Iraq-Iran War broke out. The Carter Doctrine was a clear message that the Soviet Union should not get involved in the Iraq-Iran War. Afghanistan was also conveniently keeping the Soviets busy while America had an open hand in the Persian Gulf. This was deliberately arranged as part of a cunning American project.
According to Zbigniew Brzezinski in a 1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur, the Soviet Union was baited into invading Afghanistan in 1979 by the Carter Administration and the CIA.  High ranking officials within the Carter Administration also contributed to triggering the Iraq-Iran War, after failing to manipulate the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The involvement of the Soviets in Afghanistan prevented them from intervening in a significant way in Iran. With the Soviets busy in Afghanistan, the Reagan Administration was free to fully push Iraq and Iran, the major military powers of the Middle East, against one another.
Machiavellian Geo-Strategy: Playing Iraq against Iran in the "Northern Tier"
Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan were in an area called the "Northern Tier" by American strategists. This area was believed to be the region from which the Soviet Union could breakout of Eurasia by reaching the Persian Gulf. It was also considered to be the area bordering the Soviet Union"s most sensitive area. It was from here that a game of expansion, containment, and penetration was being carried out. A balance of power was very important in this regard.
One country above all others was vital for the balance of power and that was Iran. If the Soviets overran Iran, they would have direct access to the Persian Gulf and if American or British troops were in Iran they would be directly on the southern and sensitive borders of the Soviet Union. The status quo had been, since the time of the so-called "Great Game" between Britain and Czarist Russia, that Iran would be a military buffer zone. While Iran was an ally of the U.S. and NATO before 1979, there were also restrictions on it in the context of a longstanding bilateral relationship with the Soviet Union.
Iran severed its military alliance with the United States after the 1979 Iranian Revolution. This was seen as a geo-strategic victory by the Soviet Union. Although the Soviets were concerned about the ideology of the new government in Iran, they were relieved that Iran was no longer colluding with the U.S. and its partners. Nonetheless, there was still a state of mistrust between Moscow and Tehran. The Americans could not intervene militarily in Iran with a view to gaining control over Iran"s oil fields. A bilateral treaty between Iran and the Soviets had allowed the Soviet Union to intervene in Iran if forces of a third party operating within Iran were perceived as a menace to Soviet security. Naturally, Moscow would perceive any American invasion of Iran, on the direct borders of the U.S.S.R., as a threat and invoke the bilateral treaty.
This is where Iraq, a Soviet ally, became useful against Iran. Before the Iraq-Iran War there existed no diplomatic relations between the Iraqi and U.S. governments. Iraq had gravitated outside of the Anglo-American orbit in 1958, .... In 1972 the Soviets and Iraqis had also signed a Friendship Treaty that resulted in large Soviet weapon deliveries to the most independent-minded Arab country in the Arab World, which became a real threat to U.S. and Israeli interests. 
A real match of geo-strategic chess was being played. According to Henry Kissinger, Iraq was the single most radical Arab country that posed the greatest danger to U.S. interests during the Nixon era. Furthermore, the U.S. was afraid that if Iraq was not neutralized that the Soviets would take the geo-strategic initiative of penetrating into the Middle East and overwhelming Iran. If one remembers Afghanistan also had a pro-Soviet government too. In Henry Kissinger"s words, "The Soviet Union would try to squeeze Iran between [a pro-Soviet] Afghanistan and its Iraqi client." 
Under these circumstances, it was to keep their socialist allies in power in Kabul and to prevent the destabilization of Soviet Central Asia via Afghanistan that Soviet troops entered Afghanistan, in context with the 1978 Soviet-Afghan Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Good Neighbourliness.
Henry Kissinger has written in regards to the danger from Iraq, "Though not strictly speaking a Soviet satellite, once fully armed with Soviet weapons Iraq would serve Soviet purposes by intimating pro-Western government, such as Saudi Arabia; simultaneously, it would exert pressure on Jordon and even Syria, which while leaning to the radical side was far from being a Soviet puppet."  The Americans and their British allies were intent on neutralizing an independent Iraq and an Iran steaming with revolutionary fervor. Also, the other goal of the U.S. and Britain was to regain the lost oil fields of both Middle Eastern countries. The Iraq-Iran War was America"s chance to recover the lost oil fields of Iraq and Iran.
The Red Factor in Iran: The Soviet Union"s Treaty Right to Intervene
Geo-Strategic Chess: Destabilizing Areas of Concern for Future Operations
"The southern rim of Asia " Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan " is a region of the world that may seem remote and strange to Americans, and yet it is a pivot of the world"s security. Within a few years of my 1973 journey, it became an area of upheaval. From the Iranian revolution to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to the Iran-Iraq war, events dramatized the vulnerability of the Persian Gulf " the lifeline of the West"s oil supply. The vital importance of that region had been one of the themes of the shrewd strategic analysts I was to visit next: Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai."
- Henry Kissinger (Years of Upheaval, 1982)
The Soviet Union, Iraq, Afghanistan, and, lastly in 1979, Iran were independent-minded states in regards to America. By 1980 America had systematically created an arc of volatility and instability from the borders of Soviet Central Asia and Afghanistan running through Iran and Iraq to the Persian Gulf; in the process four nations (the Soviet Union, Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq) on the doorstep or gateway into the core of Eurasia were weakened. America was also using all four nations to destabilize one another. In retrospect it can be argued that the ground was being prepared for future operations in these areas.
During the bloody Iraq-Iran War, both sides were used to weaken one another. The intention was, quoting Henry Kissinger, to "let them [meaning Iraq and Iran] kill each other." Thus, the U.S. tried to keep either side from winning and always in a military deadlock. According to a May 20, 1984 issue of Newsday, an American newspaper, the U.S. feared an Iranian victory and developed a contingency plan to militarily intervene on the side of Iraq by using the U.S. Air Force against Iran in a bombing campaign if the Iranians should advance towards Baghdad. 
The Iraq-Iran War and Market Manipulation: Destabilizing Eurasian Economies
The U.S. had realized from the time of the 1968 Arab Oil Embargo that it had a powerful economic weapon on its hands. Even during the 1968 Arab Oil Embargo the Saudi government was sustaining the U.S. by reinvesting large amounts of capital into the American economy. Henry Kissinger confirmed in his 1982 memoirs that the U.S. was able to strengthen its economic influence over the European and Japanese economies because of the price increase in the oil market, which was linked to the U.S. dollar.  The rise in petroleum prices was also used to weaken (or more properly to globally integrate) the economies of the Eastern Bloc and the Communist World. The Iraq-Iran War further tightened the American grip on the global economy.
The work of the American sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein puts forward the notion that there is essentially only a singular, but fragmented, "world-system" that is connected and interrelated through a network of economic relationships. This thesis is useful in part for explaining the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc.
One could argue that the Iraq-Iran War was a key aspect in the collapse of the Soviet Union, because of the position of the U.S.S.R. within the singularity of the "world-system." The Soviet Union was a true "energy superpower" in all aspects of the term. It should be noted that Soviet hydrocarbon resources were the sum of all the energy resources of Russia, Central Asia, and the Republic of Azerbaijan. So why didn"t the Soviet Union with the combined energy resources of Russia, Central Asia, and the Caucasus profit from the Iraq-Iran War?
The price of Soviet petroleum also increased because of the Iraq-Iran War, but to no real benefit to the Soviets. The Soviet economy was affected largely because of the war in Afghanistan, a U.S. snare that ensured that the Soviet economy would not benefit from the rise in petroleum prices. The rise in petroleum prices during the Iraq-Iran War also created a state of economic shock in Eastern Europe. The economic disturbances in Eastern Europe also had a negative toll on the Soviet economy. The Eastern Bloc also opened the door to Western Banks for financial aid to cope with the economic shock that was created by the rise in petroleum prices. This would be a lethal mistake. Moreover, while the manipulation of oil prices benefited France and West Germany to some extent; it also benefited the Anglo-American alliance by spoiling any economic rapprochement between Paris, Bonn, and Moscow.
It should be noted that the Soviet Union disengaged itself from Afghanistan in 1988, the same year that the Iraq-Iran War ended. In 1988, the Soviet effort to stabilize the Soviet economy was also underway. After the Iraq-Iran War ended in 1988, the U.S. tried to sabotage and to further destroy the devastated economies of Iraq, Iran, and the Soviet Union by deliberately getting Saudi Arabia and the Arab Sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf to lower the price of oil. The Soviets, the Iraqis, and the Iranians were planning on making the most of their vast energy resources, but their programs were stopped or obstructed in their tracks by the deliberate manipulation of petroleum markets. Washington D.C. was cleverly "killing several birds with one stone," so to speak.
Military Upsurge in the Persian Gulf and the Wars against Iraq
In one of his books, Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the 21st Century, Zbigniew Brzezenski writes, "For the world at large, one of the most impressive aspects of the U.S. military performance in the Gulf War of 1991 was the manner in which the United States was able to deploy, and logistically sustain, a force of several hundred thousand men in the distant Arabian peninsula [sic]."  The truth is that President George H. Bush Sr. would never have been able to deploy forces to the Middle East with such ease without the work of his presidential predecessors. The groundwork was prepared for him by the Reagan, the Carter, and the Ford Administrations.
The existence of the U.S. Rapid Deployment Force, which later became CENTCOM, was an extremely important step for U.S. operations in the Middle East. The deployment of U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia in 1991 was part of an operational continuum. It should be noted that U.S. Rapid Deployment Force was created by the Carter Administration on August 24, 1977 through a presidential directive based on the work of President Gerald Ford and Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller. With the collapse of the Soviet Union the U.S. was able to bolster its plans to dominate the Persian Gulf.
The Persian Gulf was militarized over a long period of time through three successive wars: the Iraq-Iran War (1980-1988), the Persian Gulf War (1991), and the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq (2003). After the British left the Persian Gulf, the area was militarized by the U.S. through the arguable necessitation of foreign ships being present to protect oil shipments and maritime traffic. This position was further endorsed during the Iraq-Iran War when the U.S. Navy flagged Kuwait oil tankers and fought against the Iranian Navy.
The invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent American-led war with Iraq allowed the U.S. to establish bases in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf in a second phase of militarization. A third phase of militarization started in 2003. This third phase involved the transfer of American and British assets into Iraq and the establishment of permanent super-bases starting in 2003/2004. NATO has also signed agreements with Arab states in the Persian Gulf littoral as the Franco-German entente becomes more involved in the management of the Middle East.
The U.S. Wants to Stay "Permanently" in the Persian Gulf: Baghdad"s 1990 Warnings
"The country that exerts the greatest amount of influence on the region, on the [Persian] Gulf and its oil, will consolidate its superiority as an unrivaled superpower. This proves that if the population of the [Persian] Gulf " and of the entire Arab World " is not vigilant, this area will be ruled according to the wishes of the United States."
- Saddam Hussein, 5th President of Iraq: Speech to the Arab Cooperation Council in Amman (February 24, 1990)
The British attempted to control the Persian Gulf in the past and the U.S. government has inherited this task. The interests of the same Anglo-American elites are still at play, but America is the new vessel or agent of execution. American foreign policy in the Middle East is a continuation of British foreign policy in the area.
After the Iraq-Iran War the understanding between Iraq and Washington D.C. faded. Iraq was no longer needed; Iraq had crippled its own economy in the process of confronting Iran militarily. In February 1990, Saddam Hussein warned the Arab World that the U.S. was seeking to establish itself permanently in the Middle East and to take control of the region and its resources. Little did Saddam Hussein know that he would be baited into a disastrous war about a year later, a war which provided the U.S. with the pretext for the permanent U.S. deployment in the Middle East that he forewarned against. Iraq would become a victim of the Carter Doctrine.
In 2007, the White House and the Pentagon clarified that U.S. troops would be deployed in permanent bases in Iraq, described as the "post-occupation" phase of the U.S. deployment in Iraq.  The American presence in Iraq was contrasted with that of the American presence in the Korean Peninsula since the end of the bloody Korean War. U.S. officials, including Vice-President Cheney, have also threatened both allies and foes alike; cautioning that the U.S. does not intend on leaving the Persian Gulf. 
In the later half of the 1990s, Iraq, which needed heavy financial help to fight Iran, was headed towards even greater levels of external debt because of the deliberate economic manipulation of oil prices. Oil prices were pushed downwards through excess production. At the time, Iraqi debts to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait were in the tens of billions of dollars. The late Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government were angry and at odds with the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.A.E., Bahrain, and Qatar for what they saw as a betrayal. Iraq accused their governments, especially Kuwait, the U.A.E., and Saudi Arabia, of conspiring to destabilize the Iraqi economy and impoverishing its people. The manipulation of oil prices by the U.S. and the Arab Sheikdoms was seen by Baghdad as economic warfare. This was all after Iraq, once liberally termed "the superpower of the Arab World," had shattered its economy, military strength, and resources fighting Iran and all for naught.
The Arab Conspiracy against Iraq
"The year 1991 saw the definitive end of the Cold War and the bipolar era."
- U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, (Forward of the 1991 Yearbook of the United Nations)
When Lebanon was attacked by Israel in July of 2006 the Lebanese stated that there was an "Arab conspiracy" against Lebanon. The Arab dictators and regimes had been co-opted to support Israel against them they said, but before there was an Arab conspiracy against Lebanon in 2006 there was one against the Iraqi people dating back to the end of the Iraq-Iran War. Although it should be noted that Palestine suffered betrayal from Arab leaders before both Lebanon and Iraq.
Tariq Aziz is quoted as saying during an Arab summit, in Tunisia in 1990, "We [meaning Iraq] are sure some Arab states are involved in a conspiracy against us. We want you to know that our country [Iraq] will not kneel, our women will not become prostitutes, our children will not be deprived of food."  A conspiracy against Iraq by fellow Arab governments was economical and Iraq had caught on. Baghdad perceived the U.S. to be the main architect of the scheme. In fact Iraq would also catch on and try to fight back economically, almost ten years later, by selling its oil in other foreign currencies besides the American dollar in November of 2000.
In February 1990, Saddam Hussein asked Saudi Arabia to honour the limits on oil production rates or quotas set by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Arab countries like Kuwait and the U.A.E. were deliberately breaching the quotas set by OPEC in coordination with the White House. The Iranians also sided with Iraq and in addition blamed the Arab Sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf of conspiring with the U.S. against Iran too. Oddly, the U.S.S.R. appears to have kept silent. In May of 1990, Saddam Hussein finally gave a summit of Arab leaders in Baghdad a warning that the continued violation of OPEC production rates by fellow Arab nations represented a de facto declaration of war against Iraq, but Kuwait and the U.A.E., encouraged by the U.S., continued to violate their OPEC quotas. 
Choreographing Iraq into invading Kuwait: Planting the Seeds of 2003
"[The Gulf War] is an historic moment. We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a "New World Order"""
- George H. Bush Sr., 41st President of the United States (January 16, 1991)
Finally Iraq was entrapped into invading Kuwait in August of 1990 with what Baghdad believed was an okay from President George H. Bush Sr. and the White House through April Glaspie, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq.  The transcripts of the discussion between Ambassador Glaspie and Saddam Hussein confirm that Iraq was ensnared by the Bush Sr. Administration.  U.S. officials in Washington D.C. also made it appear that the U.S. believed that the invasion of Kuwait was an "Arab-Arab issue." The Iraqis also claimed that they invaded Kuwait to stop Kuwait from permanently damaging the Iraqi economy by flooding the global market with more oil.
John Kelly, The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, testified to the U.S. Congress that the "United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the U.S. has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq," on July 31, 1990, two days before the Iraqi Army marched into Kuwait.  Margaret Tutweiler, the U.S. State Department spokeswoman, also told the international press on July 26, 1990 that the U.S. government had no objections or diplomatic message to Iraq about the mobilization of 30, 000 Iraqi troops that appeared to be planning an invasion of Kuwait.  The U.S. was aware that the Iraqis would be monitoring Washington D.C."s responses to Iraqi mobilization and Baghdad"s plans to invade Kuwait. Iraq was clearly led on by the U.S. government.
Aside from Iraq"s global importance as an energy supplier, Iraq"s geographic location is also central to the whole Middle East. With a central footing in Iraq the U.S. could spread out or control the rest of the Middle East and the head of the Persian Gulf. The Middle East, in addition to the Indian sub-continent, is also sandwiched between America"s Eurasian bridgeheads, Europe, and the Far East. Additionally, Iraq serves as a gateway of entry into Iran and as a natural barrier between Iran and the rest of the Arab World and debatably even the Persian Gulf. On the other hand, Iran serves as a geographic gateway into the Caucasus, the Caspian Sea, and Central Asia. Establishing a footing in Iraq is a logical step in containing the spread of Iranian influence in the Arab World and pushing inwards into Central Asia. Therefore the invasion of Iraq would be vital in a drive towards Central Asia, through securing Iran, and ultimately encircling Russia and China.
1997-1999: The Preparation Years for the "Long War"
"Eurasia is the world"s axial supercontinent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world"s three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another for Asia. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America"s global primacy and historical legacy."
- Zbigniew Brzezinski, (A Geostrategy for Eurasia, Foreign Affairs, September/October 1997)
A lot of work and planning goes into preparing military campaigns, especially ones of great magnitude such as the "Global War on Terror." In 1997 the Clinton Administration began taking the necessary steps and planning for NATO expansion into Eastern Europe and the post-Soviet vacuum. This was not done under the Clinton Administration"s individual initiative, but as part of a long-term American agenda. By this time, the Soviet Union, the dinosaur of Eurasia, had finally collapsed. Containment had just redefined itself as penetration. On October 9, 1997 Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of America"s most prominent geo-strategists, told the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that NATO"s enlargement was crucial to the future of the U.S. and American foreign objectives on a global scale.
The European Union, under France and Germany, and America were also portrayed as partners, working through NATO, in leading the global post-Cold World order. Brzezinski testified that NATO enlargement and expansion was "central to the step-by-step construction of a secure international system in which the Euro-Atlantic alliance [meaning NATO] plays the major role in ensuring that a peaceful and democratic Europe is America"s principle partner." 
On October 10, 1997, one day after Zbigniew Brzezinski"s testimony, the U.S. helped create an alliance of ex-Soviet republics that were predisposed towards entering the orbit of NATO. The Organization for Democracy and Economic Development, better known as the GUAM Group was created as a political, economic and strategic alliance between Georgia, Ukraine, the Republic of Azerbaijan (Azarbaijan), and Moldavia. GUAM, the organization"s alternative name was an acronym for the names of these countries. The leaders of all four were vying for greater independence from the orbit of Moscow. NATO was critical for offering support to the four ex-Soviet republics. GUAM was designed to be NATO"s stepping stone into the former Soviet Union. All four nations were slatted by Washington D.C. and Brussels to ultimately join NATO.
Two years later, in 1999, NATO expanded into Eastern Europe and Uzbekistan left the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) to join the GUAM Group, which became renamed as the GUUAM Group. In 1998, NATO troops were already holding joint exercises in Uzbekistan with Uzbek troops and Uzbekistan was getting large amounts of aid from the U.S. and NATO. In the same year that Uzbekistan left CSTO and NATO expanded, 1999, the groundwork on establishing a joint missile shield with Japan also began in Asia. This was in line with Zbigniew Brzezinski"s demands that a single policy be developed for Europe and Asia.
America was starting to take a Eurasian approach to its policies in Europe and Asia. 1999 was also the year that NATO declared war on Yugoslavia under the ironic pretext of a "humanitarian mission" in Kosovo. NATO and U.S. bases were also pushed eastwards in Europe.
None of these events are coincidental; they are all carefully planned steps of a "military roadmap." It was the subsequent bases that were established in the Balkans after the 1999 NATO war on Yugoslavia that allowed the logistical groundwork for an invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 to take place. These are different battles of the same war.
Additionally, a month before speaking to the U.S. Senate Foreign Affairs Committee on NATO expansion, in September of 1997, Brzezinski had also indicated to the Council on Foreign Relations that the U.S. must control Eurasia through a presentation on U.S. geo-strategy that appeared in Foreign Affairs, an influential international relations journal run by the Council on Foreign Relations.  The Council on Foreign Relations was also told that the U.S. must harmonize its European and Asian polices. This explains the push to drive Asia and Europe towards a single military alliance and the coordination between the missile shield projects in Asia and Europe. It is clear America had started the process of encircling Russia, China, and their allies. Zbigniew Brzezinski even put forward the scheme that Russia should be portioned into a loose confederation consisting of a "European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic." 
Breaking Yugoslavia: Eastward Prerequisite for Targeting Russia and the Middle East?
"Yugoslavia, consisting of Serbia and Montenegro, fits into the geopolitical plans of the U.S., and to a lesser degree NATO countries, because it"s there, strategically located, and this has to be addressed."
- Ramsey Clark, 66th United States Attorney-General (October 6, 2000)
Bill Clinton said "If we"re going to have a strong economic relationship that includes our ability to sell around the world, Europe has got to be a key"That"s what this Kosovo thing [meaning the war with Yugoslavia] is all about," during the NATO bombing campaign over Serbia and Montenegro. The wars in Yugoslavia were a case where the Franco-German entente, France and Germany, and the Anglo-American alliance, the U.S. and Britain, were working hand-in-hand to extend their spheres of influences. Future developments were being foreshadowed from the Franco-German and Anglo-American collusion.
In the wake of the Dayton agreement of 1995 and the NATO invasion of Kosovo in 1999, U.S. and NATO military bases, formally and informally, mushroomed in the Balkans with no treaty limitations. One of the largest U.S. military facilities in the Balkans is the Bondsteel military base. Bondsteel is situated in the Serbian province of Kosovo, inhabited predominately by ethnic Albanians. From Kosovo, the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) was also destabilized and engaged into the orbit of NATO powers.
The 1991 Gulf War, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq are functionally related to the wars in the Balkans and the dismantling of Yugoslavia. These series of wars are part of a broader post-Cold War military roadmap in Eurasia. The destabilization and subsequent bombardment of Yugoslavia should be considered as a distinct stage in the "Eurasian roadmap," which was beneficial to the establishment of U.S. bases and an extended U.S. sphere of military influence in Southeastern Europe. Britain, France, and Germany were America"s partners in this endeavour.
The stage was being set for the long march east towards the heart of Eurasia. These bases in the Balkans subsequently also had no limitations stipulated by international treaty with Russia and its allies on the number of forces the U.S. is allowed to post in Europe. The bases set up in the Balkans were also not under the scrutiny of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE-1989) or the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE-1999).
Preparing for the "Long War:" Drafting the "Bush Doctrine" and the "Global War on Terror"
"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America"s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor."
- Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)
The Washington Post reported in 2002 that the Bush Jr. Administration inherited its counter-terrorism strategies used in the "Global War on Terror" from the Clinton Administration.  The fight against Al-Qaeda was not initiated by the Bush Jr. Administration, but was initiated and drafted by the Clinton Administration. It should also be noted that it is also under the term of the Clinton Administration that Al-Qaeda was revealed to be an American product being used in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Balkans. This is an important fact to remember.
The Clinton Administration had also crafted the invasion plans for Iraq. In fact it was the economic sanctions and the Anglo-American bombing campaigns under the Clinton Administration that softened Iraq for a ground invasion under the Bush Jr. Administration. Iraqi air defences were also seriously eroded by the time Iraq was invaded in 2003. The no-fly zones over pre-2003 Iraq, that were declared by the U.S., British, and French governments were also not internationally recognized or de jure (legal).
The bombardment of Iraq and Iraqi defensive facilities was carried on for years under the Clinton Administration, but were acts that were hardly noticed by the North American and British press. Under the Clinton Administration a dual containment policy in regards to Iraq and Iran had also been drafted, or upgraded. This was in addition to an ambitious dual-phased invasion plan for conquering both Iraq and Iran.  In Afghanistan the U.S. and British governments sponsored radical elements of the Afghan Mujahedin and helped nurture what became the repressive Taliban via Pakistan and the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).
The division of Iraq and the restructuring of the Middle East has become an Anglo-American and Israeli ground operation. The religious, sectarian, and ethnic tensions being fueled in Iraq, Turkey, the Persian Gulf, and Lebanon are a part of this process. In hindsight it is worth quoting a translation of the Yinon Plan drafted by Oded Yinon in 1982: "[Iraq"s] dissolution is even more important for [Israel] than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against [Israel]. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. 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 Shiite [Muslim Arab] areas in the south will separate from the Sunni [Muslim Arab] and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization." 
These 1982 Israeli policy statements forecast the strangulation of the Iraqi nation through the geo-strategic manipulation of Iraq and Iran against one another. However, this was not an idiosyncratic Israeli strategy, but an element of a far broader joint Anglo-American and Israeli strategy in the Middle East and Eurasia. Many years have passed since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the bloody Iraq-Iran War. Both wars were instigated by the White House and 10 Downing Street as part of a calculated and long-term global strategy. It is through these wars and both the 1991 Gulf War and 1999 Kosovo War that the seeds of the wars of the Twenty-First Century have been planted. Just as the First World War led to the Second World War, these wars have led to further conflicts and wars. There is no doubt, these wars are elements of a "long war" that is part of the effort to establish what Professor Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama calls an "end to history" through a singular global polity or what George H. Bush Sr. called a "New World Order" during the period of the Gulf War. This is the history and the ultimate objective of the bloody march to war.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an indepedent writer based in Ottawa specializing in Middle Eastern affairs. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
" Copyright Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2007
I cannot but agree with Nazemroaya, and what he presents strongly illustrates that Israel is not boss over the U.S. government, but is in some serious degree of partnership and surely as the lesser of the partners; although influential, still not boss. Israel is of intrumental value geo-strategically, and is profitable to businesses profiting from selling to Israel which is paying with money the U.S. govt first stole from U.S. taxpayers and businesses not profiting from sales of anything to Israel; I guess is one way that the U.S.-Israel partnership can be described.
Larry Everest provides an eight-part series which, based on what I've read of it so far anyway, is a good or strong complement, alongside the above article.
"Background to Confrontation: The U.S. and Iran. A History of Imperialist Domination, Intrigue and Intervention: Part 1",
by Larry Everest, May 20 2007 issue of Revolution,
The Voice of the Revolutionary Party of the U.S.A.,http://rwor.org/a/089/iran-en.html
For over 100 years imperialist domination of Iran has been enforced by the U.S. and other powers through covert intrigues, economic bullying, and outright military assaults, even invasions. This history is crucial to understanding the real motives for U.S. threats today"including the real threat of war, even nuclear war.
This is the focus of this series. Part 1 begins in the mid-19th century, with Iran a prime target of rival powers in imperialism"s "great game" for global dominance and control.
In 1889 Lord Curzon, the British Viceroy of India, wrote that Iran and its neighbors were "the pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a game for the domination of the world," and where "the future of Great Britain"will be decided not in Europe" (Amin Saikal, The Rise and Fall of the Shah, p. 13).
For over 150 years, with the global spread of capitalism and the rise of imperialism, Iran and the Middle East have been the target of a handful of Western powers who have wanted to gain control of the region and its resources, while preventing their rivals from doing likewise.
The forms and battle lines in this struggle for dominance have evolved and changed, but capitalism remains a system driven by the interconnected compulsions of economic competition between rival firms and strategic competition between rival nations; securing ready access to markets, investment opportunities, and natural resources is essential. And this demands control of vast stretches of the globe, particularly in the Third World, or oppressed, countries, where the overwhelming bulk of humanity lives.
From the late 1700s on, Iran had suffered a series of military defeats and had to give up territory to European powers, particularly Britain and czarist Russia. Beginning in the second half of the 19th century, Iran became a focal point of a prolonged struggle between Russia and Great Britain over who would acquire territory and gain political and economic control. For the British, Iran was a crucial communications link to the Indian subcontinent"the "crown jewel" of its empire"and a buffer against Russian expansionism. Russia in turn viewed Iran as key to protecting its southern flank and preventing British encroachment.
Both powers sought to exploit Iran"s ethnic, religious and tribal differences and keep the central government weak and dependent. Iran was robbed through economic and political concessions which sold the right to exploit Iran"s wealth and resources for a pittance.
The Rise of Oil
Petroleum"s skyrocketing importance to global capitalism in the early 1900s made imperialist dominance of Iran and the Middle East more strategically significant than ever.
It was long known that oil could be found in the southwest part of Persia (which became Iran in 1935), and in 1901 William D"Arcy, an Englishman, purchased an exclusive 60-year concession covering 500,000 square miles, over five-sixths of the country today. The concession gave him the exclusive right to develop and exploit Iran"s oil. The very cheap price was: 20,000 British pounds in cash, 20,000 pounds in stock and 16% of profits to the Iranian government. In close collaboration with the British state, D"Arcy established the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (which later became Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and finally British Petroleum) to exploit the concession. BP became one of the world"s largest oil companies; it was founded solely on Middle Eastern oil. (Larry Everest, Oil, Power & Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda, p. 30)
AND SO ON.
I believe to have already posted the link for the book 'Diplomacy by Deception' by Dr Coleman, and it fits very well with the immediately above articles.
Following are parts 2-7 of the above article series, while part 8, which is supposed to be the last one, is to be watched for; and it should appear in the index page at RWOR one of these days or weeks, or next month, not far ahead anyway.
"... Part 2: The U.S. Siezes Control in Iran: The CIA'S 1953 Coup D'etat", May 27 2007,http://rwor.org/a/090/iran-pt2-en.html
"... Part 3: Iran 1953-1979: The Nightmare of U.S. Domination", June 27 2007,http://rwor.org/a/092/iran-pt3-en.html
"... Part 4: Iran in the 1970s: Oil Boom, Breakneck Development, Seething Discontent", July 1 2007,http://rwor.org/a/094/iran-pt4-en.html
"... Part 5: The 1979 Revolution & the Rise of Islamic Fundamentalism", July 15 2007,http://rwor.org/a/095/iran-pt5-en.html
"... Part 6: The 1980s -- Double-Dealing, Double-Crossing, and Fueling the Gulf Slaughter", Aug. 22 2007,http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=6607
"... Part 7: 1991-2001: The Soviet Collapse, the Growth of Islamic Fundamentalism, and The Intensification of U.S. Hostility Toward Iran", Sep 16 2007,http://rwor.org/a/101/iran-pt7-en.html
A New "Great Game" in Central Asia
The Soviet collapse also had enormous repercussions for the U.S. " and Iran " in Central Asia. Suddenly, states formerly part of the Soviet Union possessing vast energy resources " Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan (today the site of the world"s largest oil development project) " were independent and up for grabs. Fierce competition was quickly underway between the U.S., Russia, China, as well as European powers for access, influence and control. Former Carter official Zbigniew Brzezinski warned, "For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia" America"s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained."
Iran sought to expand its historic, geographic, cultural, and linguistic ties with these new republics. It also sought inclusion in the new energy arrangements centering on the construction of oil and gas pipelines from Central Asia to outlets for the global market. Iran lies between the energy-rich Caspian Sea to the north and the Persian Gulf to the south, and already had a network of pipelines. So why not transport oil and gas through Iran?
As Revolution noted, "If the pipes go south through Iran to its refineries and harbors, then the U.S. containment of Iran is broken". The U.S. vetoed any Iranian route and insisted the pipes run over Afghanistan " to Pakistan." (See "Afghanistan: The Oil Behind the War," Revolutionary Worker (now Revolution ) November 4, 2001)
"US steps up push for Kosovo Independence", by Paul Mitchell, WSWS.org, Sep 13 2007,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=6766
"Iraq: 'The Logic of Withdrawal'. A Review of Anthony Arnove's most recent book",
by Jim Miles, Palestine Chronicle, Sep 13 2007,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=6774
That article is a fine overview of the contents of the book and includes a little on a part or two specifically relevant to this discussion thread.
While I much despise the man the following is about, I'll include a link to the article anyway; given it is related to our discussion.
"Greenspan: the Iraq war was largely about oil", by Peter Beaumont and Joanna Walters, Observer, Sep 17 2007,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=6795
That's based, very briefly, on two things that Greenspan states in his memoir; one being that the war on Iraq is 'largely' about oil, while the other matter is about his criticism of G.W. Bush as president, and bogus, misplaced, most surely deceit-intended praise of Bill Clinton's presidency. (The latter bit strikes me as if he's actually trying to use this part of his newly released memoir as a way to promote Hillary Clinton to be nominated to run for the Dem. Party in the next U.S. presidential election, and for readers to be influenced into voting for her; wickedly. I guess he doesn't say that that's his intention, else the above article should have mentioned this.)
The rest of that article is about the Iraqi casualty toll due to the present war, an estimate of around 1.2MN reported last week and based on a survey by O.R.B., UK.
Anyway, the rest are qualitative articles.
"Preventing a Rogue President from Committing a War Crime: Open Letter to the New Generation of Military Officers.
Should some civilian order you to initiate a nuclear attack on Iran, you are duty-bound to refuse that order",
by Robert M. Bowman, USAF Lt Col (ret.), PhD, ThePatriots.us, Sep 13 2007,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=6773
Robert Bowman does include words specifically relevant to this disucssion thread.
The next two articles are on the Pan Am-Lockerbie plane bombing in 1988; extra articles of "incidentally, ..." added kind, and because of what the account helps to strongly reveal or re-expose about the U.S. and U.K. governments. Why was Libya treated the way the two articles, particularly the second one, describe and which the informed know to be true; if not because the U.S. and U.K. governments war for matter of RACKET?
It certainly was not for the sake of Israel; although, maybe it did have something to do with working to ensure that Israel would be or become the superpower and unchallengeably so in the Middle East. That would not per se be for the sake of Israel, which would nonetheless "benefit". It'd instead be because it's of strategic value for the elites really running the U.S. government in terms of its foreign policies of conquest for economic predation and domination.
Anyway, the first of the two articles is a much less substantial but some people might like it as a useful or quick intro.. or brief overview. The second article is of strong substance, very comprehensive or thorough, and should be treated as MUST READ and by everyone; imo.
"Was Libya Framed for Lockerbie Bombing?", by
Linda S. Heard, Sep 15 2007, originally Sep 4th,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=6787
"Key Lockerbie Witness Admits Perjury",
by Prof. Ludwig De Braeckeleer,
(from an earlier, July 30th article by him and posted at GR) Ph.D. in nuclear sciences, teaches physics and international humanitarian law, and blogs on The GaiaPost,
Sep 15 2007,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=6786
The July 30th article at the same website doesn't say where he teaches so I did a Web search, and the following seems to be the fit; a research assistant professor in the nuclear physics department.
Next is a report strongly illustrating how much the U.S. government has given to Israel and of U.S. taxpayers' and businesses' dollars; 'strongly', because the estimate is very conservative. The estimated total in the article's title represents many decades of this theft and giving away of the stolen proceeds, but the present per-annum is still far too much, of course. Etc.
"A Conservative Estimate of Total Direct U.S. Aid to Israel: $108 Billion", by Shirl McArthur, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, WRMEA, Sep 15 2007,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=6784
With resepct to oil being mentioned much less in PNAC than Israel (I guess) is, and Mossad agents having been found to be guilty for committing the anthrax attacks of Oct. 2001 and on Congress, I'll just say a little.
'Diplomacy by Deception' is very fitting in terms of what reality much consists of, and what meets the eye and is therefore obvious is not necessarily if even often equivalent to the whole truth about all that is critically related to what the eye observes. The eye sees a part of reality, but whether or not all that is relevant in terms of the perceived reality is indeed perceived or known, this is another matter; one about which the answer is usually negative.
The matter about oil and PNAC, and the one about Mossad and the anthrax attack, these are things that fit with "what meets the eye". They're not necessarily indicative of the whole relevant truth. Mossad is an instrument body or agency; not ruler or director. It works for the latter, and that may hypothetically be only Israeli leadership or elite, but not necessarily so; it would surely involve them, but perhaps, if not likely, with them in a position of "junior" partner, as is illustrated of Israel in some of the above articles.
The economic world is more powerful, and it profits when corporations profit; etc.
Following is an article that evidently fits quite strongly with regards to the warring on the Middle East, and the U.S. being moved along to try to gain domination and worldwide en masse. It's about the attempted assassination on President Reagan's life shortly after becoming president in 1980, and based on the following compilation using a few U.S. news media reports, G.H.W. Bush definitely seems to have been very likely involved.
"Reagan dead 23 years after hit by Bush cabal", June 06 2004,
http://www.libertythink.com/2004/06/rea ... -bush.html
A very little of that and near the beginning seems goofy to include, I think; but most of the compilation is ... very interesting. That 'most' part illustrates that there's definitely much more than meets the eye; definitely so with respect to the people permitted to become or made to be president and v.p. I doubt that what's reflected in Reagan's case has really changed; the theme surely continues. The power elites make sure of this.
I wonder how many Americans are aware of what this LT compilation tells of.