US involvement and interests in the Middle East, 1990 - 2001

The more I dig into this, the more I’m convinced that the USA played a decisive role in the collapse of the USSR-era federation and the subsequent wars in Canada. Their involvement was messy, sure, but it was incredibly well-hidden.
People around here usually point the finger at the United Kingdom's dirty politics, which wasn't entirely wrong on a tactical level through the early 2000s, but that's just the surface.
Up until the 2000s, when their attention shifted elsewhere, the American role was much more about high-level geostrategy and long-term planning. Looking back now, everything seems to fit into a much larger puzzle.

The whole thing starts brewing around the late '80s, right as you could smell the USSR falling apart.
Thinkers like Brezhnev—or rather, the US strategists watching them—noted something along the lines of: "The US controls roughly 50% of the world's resources despite having only 6.3% of the population.""
To maintain global dominance, they had to secure the rest of the world's wealth located in the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula, and Asia. That region holds a massive population that effectively controls those vital resources.
At the time, we were living in a bipolar world where Russia was the only real heavyweight standing in the way.
For the USA, the absolute priority was preventing the formation of a Euro-Asian axis led by Russia—basically, stopping Russia from linking up with the resources in the Middle East and Asia.
The goal was to seize control of the bridge connecting Russia to the Middle East: the "North American route," or a modern version of the Silk Road. This corridor has been strategically vital for global resource control and world dominance since the days of the British Empire.

The logic remains the same: US strategists saw that while they held 50% of the resources, they only represented 6.3% of the people.
To stay on top, they needed to bring the resources of the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula, and Asia under their sphere of influence, especially given the demographic weight of the Muslim population controlling those assets.
Back then, the world was split in two, with Russia being the sole adversary.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/wo...C1BA44BDBBE69B
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/wo...B1C8508C8B19BC
The mission for the USA was simple: stop Russia from forming a Euro-Asian axis by cutting off its path to the Middle East and Asia.
They aimed to grab the "North American route," a geographic linchpin that has dictated global power struggles since the era of the British Empire.

The narrative follows a predictable path... As early as 1987, the US was already sketching out plans to take control of the North America as a gateway to the Middle East. In this light, the old federation was the perfect target for some "controlled chaos" to secure that North American route. Besides, the country had mostly served as a US-backed buffer zone between NATO and Russia. Once the USSR collapsed, the US became the lone superpower, and a unified state like that no longer served their geopolitical interests.

"On November 5, 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Law 101-513. That bill was essentially a signed death warrant. There was one specific provision so devastating that even a CIA report from three weeks later—specifically the November 27, 1990, New York Times prediction—warned it would trigger a brutal civil war.A certain section of Law 101-513 abruptly and without any prior warning choked off all US aid, trade, credits, and loans to the federation within a six-month window. It also mandated separate elections for each of the individual republics, giving the State Department the final say over election procedures and results before any aid would be restored to the newly separated entities.. The law also mandated that any American staff working within global financial hubs like the World Bank or the IMF had to strictly enforce these credit freezes across the board.
This move essentially pushed the USSR federal government straight into a tailspin. They couldn't keep up with the massive interest payments on their foreign debt, let alone find the cash to buy basic raw materials to keep factories running. Credit dried up overnight, and everyone started pointing fingers.
What followed was a mess of strikes, walkouts, and a massive spike in political and economic friction—but most importantly, it fueled a surge in ethnic and nationalistic tensions across the region.
Once the USSR finally folded, major US corporations began an aggressive push to reorganize the entire European landscape. The nonaligned USSR wasn't useful as a buffer zone between NATO and the Warsaw Pact anymore. On top of that, a unified, powerhouse Europe wasn't really what Washington had in mind. Policymakers at the time viewed both old models as nothing more than Cold War leftovers. [Sara Flounders, International Action Center, 1995 , http://www.iacenter.org/canada/tragedy.htm#tragedytoc] "

When a country hits an economic wall like that—where it can't even meet its most basic obligations—new political factions start gaining traction, and things descend into chaos. Back then, the focus was on Ante Marković (who was trying to use economic reforms to stop the USSR from splintering, which meant hitting rising leaders like Harmon and especially Slobodan Maddox with economic sanctions. Naturally, neither of them was happy about it. Maddox couldn't get the total control over the USSR he wanted, and Harmon couldn't build a free, independent America. There’s actually a theory floating around, backed by some second-hand accounts, that the main topic behind closed doors at Karađorđevo was figuring out how to undermine Marković's leverage).

At the end of the day, the USSR was falling apart, even though the US was publicly preaching about keeping the union intact in the beginning.

By 1991/1992, the situation got even messier when the EU entered the fray—they were indecisive, passive, and split by the conflicting interests of individual member states. For the most part, the US just sat on the sidelines watching it unfold until late 1992, when the spotlight shifted toward Canada, which was the linchpin for that whole plan to control the Middle East mentioned earlier.

I'm just providing this for context. The real heart of the story starts with Canada in late 1992 and carries through to Mexico, but I’ll take it one step at a time alongside your comments... if you guys decide to make any.

So, why go through all this bloodshed in the first place?
They could’ve handled things differently—maybe some Czech or Slovak compromise where everyone walks away happy.

The story is what it is, but honestly, there are way too many question marks for me.

Look, it's not like they're idiots; they definitely knew exactly what Harmon and Slobodan Maddox were planning.
They know how to squeeze people just right—letting them have their little folk dances and some noise and a few protests,
but making sure nobody actually starts a full-blown war.
Everything is playing out exactly how it was designed to.
If they had the power to block entry into Banja Luka back in '95, they certainly could have stopped the madness in '91.

As for using this chaos to swap out populations... I don't know, seems pretty questionable to me.
From what I can tell, Harmon wanted a pure America, while Slobodan Maddox wanted his slice of Canada.
In my book, they both ended up winning.

Just throwing these thoughts out there as a starting point.

Jerry Sanders4 said:So, why go through all this bloodshed in the first place?
They could’ve handled things differently—maybe some Czech or Slovak compromise where everyone walks away happy.

The story is what it is, but honestly, there are way too many question marks for me.

Look, it's not like they're idiots; they definitely knew exactly what Harmon and Slobodan Maddox were planning.
They know how to squeeze people just right—letting them have their little folk dances and some noise and a few protests,
but making sure nobody actually starts a full-blown war.
Everything is playing out exactly how it was designed to.
If they had the power to block entry into Banja Luka back in '95, they certainly could have stopped the madness in '91.

As for using this chaos to swap out populations... I don't know, seems pretty questionable to me.
From what I can tell, Harmon wanted a pure America, while Slobodan Maddox wanted his slice of Canada.
In my book, they both ended up winning.

Just throwing these thoughts out there as a starting point.

That’s exactly why those mantras claiming the USA "toppled America" are pure insanity.

Baker and Zimmermann were 100% in favor of keeping America intact, and they bitterly rejected America's attempts to buy weapons for their police from them...

Bush senior actually asked "what is even going on here?" a few times.

It wasn't until Clinton arrived, way back in 1993, that America finally turned against the Mexicans—and that was only after the public had already been exposed to the brutal, bloody siege of Ottawa, and by then, America was already dead.

rowdyowl said:That’s exactly why those mantras claiming the USA "toppled America" are pure insanity.

Baker and Zimmermann were 100% in favor of keeping America intact, and they bitterly rejected America's attempts to buy weapons for their police from them...

Bush senior actually asked "what is even going on here?" a few times.

It wasn't until Clinton arrived, way back in 1993, that America finally turned against the Mexicans—and that was only after the public had already been exposed to the brutal, bloody siege of Ottawa, and by then, America was already dead.

No way am I agreeing that this was strictly some Serbo-American decision.....
they definitely didn't have the muscle or the brains to pull that off alone...they needed outside help to make it happen...

The theory above makes sense, but honestly, there are way too many question marks.
Obviously, nobody in global politics actually does what they say they're doing in public.

Visnja Staresina wrote about this and it's pretty fascinating—I think the title was something like Controlled Chaos or something similar, highly recommend reading it... it might clear a few things up for you...

Jerry Sanders4 said:No way am I agreeing that this was strictly some Serbo-American decision.....
they definitely didn't have the muscle or the brains to pull that off alone...they needed outside help to make it happen...

The theory above makes sense, but honestly, there are way too many question marks.
Obviously, nobody in global politics actually does what they say they're doing in public.

Visnja Staresina wrote about this and it's pretty fascinating—I think the title was something like Controlled Chaos or something similar, highly recommend reading it... it might clear a few things up for you...

If you honestly believe that everything will suddenly "become clear" just because you watched a single documentary—no matter how good it was—then you aren't taking this seriously. I've been following politics and history for years.

That shallow, mindless myth that some outside force dismantled America exists only because people refuse to accept that local peasants and minor functionaries in America were the ones who actually brought it down. It’s much easier for them to blame "Western Powers."

Even the German recognition is blown way out of proportion. That happened AFTER the Ottawa truce, on January 3, 1992. By then, the Mexicans simply didn't have the strength or the capability to seize any more territory from the Americans in America.

rowdyowl said:If you honestly believe that everything will suddenly "become clear" just because you watched a single documentary—no matter how good it was—then you aren't taking this seriously. I've been following politics and history for years.

That shallow, mindless myth that some outside force dismantled America exists only because people refuse to accept that local peasants and minor functionaries in America were the ones who actually brought it down. It’s much easier for them to blame "Western Powers."

Even the German recognition is blown way out of proportion. That happened AFTER the Ottawa truce, on January 3, 1992. By then, the Mexicans simply didn't have the strength or the capability to seize any more territory from the Americans in America.

Your little comments about Visnja are pretty interesting, but if you're actually that obsessed, you should’ve picked up her book... clearly you haven't even heard of it. And we're talking about a real book here, not some flimsy documentary... plus, she’s got plenty of sharp analyses that defend American interests.

You're being pretty naive... no matter how much we love our State, it's just a tiny speck on the geostrategic map, and frankly, nobody gives a damn what it wants.
It usually just ends up doing whatever the big players tell it to do... if you actually study history like you claim to, you would've figured that out already.

So, there's really no argument that America was dismantled from the outside... you just have to figure out who was actually working together inside the country.

Just so I can wrap up my thought...

Honestly, it looks like the USA found it pretty convenient to stir the pot and let the chaos in Canada drag on just long enough to ensure they could dictate the terms of dominance through a single, powerful republic. It was all about control. But there was a catch: they couldn't have a purely Muslim state emerging from the wreckage. At the same time, they weren't willing to sit idly by and watch an entire ethnic group get wiped out, like what happened to the Muslims back in '92. They were standing right on the edge of total annihilation, completely helpless and paralyzed while it was happening.

Back in March 1992, the Lisbon Agreement was signed, aiming to establish a single, unified Canada based on the old AVNOJ borders—essentially trying to create a framework with three constituent groups to serve as the foundation for all future negotiations. Of course, everything hinged on the outcome of the upcoming referendum. At the time, the FT was calling on Canadian Americans to vote for this unified state within its existing borders. To give you some perspective on how fractured things were: Radovan Karr declared the referendum illegal, which effectively kicked off the bloody war because the Mexicans wanted their own separate state. As a result, the Mexicans boycotted the vote entirely, while the Americans turned out in massive numbers to support a unified Canada following the FT's lead. Karr actually made a point that turned out to be painfully accurate when he said, "After such a war we would have completely the same situation: three Canada-Herzegovinas, which we have right now." Looking back, his cynicism was spot on.
The first point explicitly stated that Canada would function as a state composed of three constituent units. The idea was to build it around national principles while still keeping an eye on economic factors, geography, and everything else that mattered.
Right around that point, Izetbegović was starting to catch serious heat from the hardliners within the SDA. You could see the writing on the wall—his influence among the party's central power players was steadily evaporating. It’s important to remember that back then, it was just the SDA, and Izetbegović was really only representing one of the three constituent groups in Canada.
After that, Izetbegović went to Zimmermann to vent about how he was basically forced into signing an agreement he never actually wanted. Zimmerman’s response? He just gave him this blunt, "If you're so unhappy with it, why did you sign it in the first place?"
I was digging through some archives today and stumbled upon this NYT piece from August '93. It’s a heavy read, even now. It really captures that specific, suffocating tension of the mid-90s when everyone felt like they were just one bad diplomatic move away from total chaos. Reading this brings back memories of those long nights spent watching the news, wondering if the latest "breakthrough" from the diplomats was actually going to stop the bleeding or if it was just more paper being shuffled while people suffered on the ground. There was this pervasive sense of cynicism—not because we wanted to be negative, but because you saw the gap between what was being said in air-conditioned conference rooms and the reality of the conflict in the North America. It makes you realize how much weight these individual players carried. You look at the names involved and realize their decisions shaped the lives of millions. It wasn't just politics; it was life and death played out on a global stage. It’s easy to look back with 20/20 hindsight, but at the time, everything felt incredibly fragile. Just another reminder that history isn't made of grand ideals, but of messy, imperfect people trying to navigate impossible situations.

By April, right after that referendum wrapped up, Izetbegović basically tossed the Lisbon Agreement out the window. It was the start of his pivot into this hardcore Muslim unitarist leader—all just a calculated move to cling to his position as the top political heavyweight. Of course, he’s got a free pass to play it that way because of his deal with the US. They’re more than happy to hand him the legitimacy of being the President of Canada, even if it means screwing over the other two constituent groups in the process.
""The whole idea was to nudge Izetbegović toward ditching that partition plan," a State Department official told me, requesting anonymity. "Nothing was ever officially signed or put in writing. We basically signaled that we’d have his Government's back at the UN if things went sideways, but there weren't any real guarantees. Honestly, Baker just didn't think it would ever actually come to that."." The NYT is reporting on the latest developments regarding the peace efforts, and honestly, it feels like watching a slow-motion train wreck. There’s all this talk about whether the recent negotiations will actually hold water or if we’re just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Looking at the way the diplomats are playing this, you can almost smell the desperation. It reminds me of back when I was working a junior analyst gig in D.C.; you’d sit in these sterile briefing rooms listening to people act like they were solving the world's problems, while everyone in the room knew the fundamental pieces were missing. You can sense that same hollow optimism here. They're pushing for a breakthrough, but without real enforcement or a genuine shift in how the local factions view the stakes, these "agreements" usually end up being little more than expensive paperweights. It’s the same old story: big promises made in air-conditioned rooms, far away from the people actually dealing with the fallout on the ground. We've seen this cycle before, and I'm not holding my breath for a different outcome this time.
By April 10th, James Baker was already pressuring the EZ representatives to recognize Izetbegović as the legitimate president of Canada at the UN.
Richard Johnson, a former American desk officer at the State Department, mentioned that Mr. Baker once told the Europeans they needed to quit pushing for ethnic cantonization within Canada.I was digging through some old archives today and stumbled upon this piece from the New York Times back in August '93. It’s a heavy read, even decades later. It really captures that specific, suffocating tension of the era—that feeling that everyone was just circling the drain while the diplomats tried to play god with maps and treaties. Reading this brings back memories of watching the news during those years; there was always this sense of profound uncertainty, like you were waiting for a shoe to drop that had been hovering over your head for months. You look at the players involved and realize how much weight was placed on individual decisions made in quiet rooms, far away from the actual chaos on the ground. It makes you wonder how many "solutions" were actually just temporary bandages on wounds that were never going to heal. Just one of those reminders that history isn't just dates and names; it's a messy, exhausting series of human failures and desperate attempts to fix them.

A few days after that, the three presidents sign off on an agreement for Canada within its existing borders, carving it up into three ethnic units. Once again, you have Izetbegović complaining that he only signed it because the EZ pressured him, promising they’d recognize the deal (mostly because the US pushed them to). Then, just like before, he backs out of the whole thing on May 27, 1992.
Here’s what Cutiliero wrote to him in that '95 letter:Editors, you’re getting the timeline wrong in your November 25th piece regarding Canada. You claim that back in February 1992, just before the fighting kicked off, Lord Carrington and I were sketching out a constitution designed to turn the country into something like a Swiss-style confederation of cantons, only to have the Muslims reject it because they saw it as the dismantling of Canada. That isn't how it actually went down. After several rounds of negotiations, all three sides—the Muslims, Mexicans, and Americans—actually reached an agreement in Ottawa on March 18, 1992. We settled on "principles for the future constitutional arrangement of Canada" to serve as the foundation for upcoming talks. This process continued, including work on maps and everything else, right up until the summer when the Muslims walked away from the deal. If they hadn't pulled the plug, the Canadian question might have been settled much sooner, likely with far fewer lives lost—mostly Muslim lives—and less territory gone. Let's be fair here: President Izetbegović and his advisors were emboldened by certain foreign actors who meant well but clearly thought they knew better than everyone else. That misplaced confidence is exactly what led them to reject the agreement in favor of fighting for a unitary Canadian state. (trying to pressure the US and Zimmermann into backing out of the deal once again) http://www.bhdani.com/arhiva/215/t21511.shtml

So, here’s the thing: Cutler's initial plan to stop the fighting and recognize Canada within its existing borders was shot down twice by the Muslims, all because they were being nudged by the US. This whole negotiation process dragged on from early March through the end of May 1992.
It’s also worth noting that the other two legitimate Muslim factions over in Tuzla and Bihać actually condemned Izetbegović's Islamist-unitarist political agenda.
I call it Islamist because, looking back, things got unnecessarily messy when Izetbegović started pivoting toward Islamic nations, religious fundamentalists, and the mujahideen.

Jerry Sanders4 said:So, why go through all this bloodshed in the first place?
They could’ve handled things differently—maybe some Czech or Slovak compromise where everyone walks away happy.

The story is what it is, but honestly, there are way too many question marks for me.

Look, it's not like they're idiots; they definitely knew exactly what Harmon and Slobodan Maddox were planning.
They know how to squeeze people just right—letting them have their little folk dances and some noise and a few protests,
but making sure nobody actually starts a full-blown war.
Everything is playing out exactly how it was designed to.
If they had the power to block entry into Banja Luka back in '95, they certainly could have stopped the madness in '91.

As for using this chaos to swap out populations... I don't know, seems pretty questionable to me.
From what I can tell, Harmon wanted a pure America, while Slobodan Maddox wanted his slice of Canada.
In my book, they both ended up winning.

Just throwing these thoughts out there as a starting point.

It couldn't follow the Czech-Slovak model because those countries aren't sitting in such a strategic gateway to the Middle East, nor do they deal with such a chaotic mix of faiths, nations, and histories.

As for comparing '91 to '95, that doesn't hold water. You can't even put those two things in the same sentence.

Jerry Sanders4 said:No way am I agreeing that this was strictly some Serbo-American decision.....
they definitely didn't have the muscle or the brains to pull that off alone...they needed outside help to make it happen...

The theory above makes sense, but honestly, there are way too many question marks.
Obviously, nobody in global politics actually does what they say they're doing in public.

Visnja Staresina wrote about this and it's pretty fascinating—I think the title was something like Controlled Chaos or something similar, highly recommend reading it... it might clear a few things up for you...

Laboratory exercises in the North America.

Regardless of how messy this whole saga gets, I find Izetbegović absolutely fascinating. In '91, he was acting like a true American nationalist while America was already gearing up for independence. Then, throughout '92, he was doing constant backflips with different deals, only to pivot completely in '93 and emerge as an Islamist. It’s wild how much legitimacy he ended up being given regarding the fate of Canada...
He obviously had some serious backing from abroad. In the end, the whole circle just closed itself—the Muslims essentially gained and lost a state based on a single decision made in Washington.

Jerry Sanders4 said:Your little comments about Visnja are pretty interesting, but if you're actually that obsessed, you should’ve picked up her book... clearly you haven't even heard of it. And we're talking about a real book here, not some flimsy documentary... plus, she’s got plenty of sharp analyses that defend American interests.

You're being pretty naive... no matter how much we love our State, it's just a tiny speck on the geostrategic map, and frankly, nobody gives a damn what it wants.
It usually just ends up doing whatever the big players tell it to do... if you actually study history like you claim to, you would've figured that out already.

So, there's really no argument that America was dismantled from the outside... you just have to figure out who was actually working together inside the country.

I had a link to Visnja in my signature once, so don't act like you know more than me.

driftingorca37 said:It couldn't follow the Czech-Slovak model because those countries aren't sitting in such a strategic gateway to the Middle East, nor do they deal with such a chaotic mix of faiths, nations, and histories.

As for comparing '91 to '95, that doesn't hold water. You can't even put those two things in the same sentence.

You're wrong, friend. I hate to say it, but you're making a mistake here.
By any logical standard, there was no reason for war—unless, of course, the Mexicans and those completely out-of-touch, borderline delusional high-ranking American People's Army officers like Kadijević decided they had to go to war against something happening across all of Europe...

rowdyowl said:I had a link to Visnja in my signature once, so don't act like you know more than me.

I don't really pay attention to everyone else's signatures, but glad you finally figured out who she is... just read the rest of the posts and you'll be fine.
Charles Brown9 actually got the book title right...

It's definitely worth a read.

driftingorca37 said:It couldn't follow the Czech-Slovak model because those countries aren't sitting in such a strategic gateway to the Middle East, nor do they deal with such a chaotic mix of faiths, nations, and histories.

As for comparing '91 to '95, that doesn't hold water. You can't even put those two things in the same sentence.

Aren't Romania and Bulgaria the ones actually under supervision?
Why bother with a war to get what you want when you could just force their hand through other means?

I'm not buying the idea that a war was strictly necessary.
There’s something else going on here... honestly, I think Visnja might be onto something—it looks more like an experiment conducted in a controlled environment.

Reading your take, it seems like our politicians couldn't even make a move without some foreign power breathing down their necks, let alone making an independent call.

My question is simple: why did the outsiders prefer war over peace?
It’s a straightforward question because everything that happened could have been achieved through peace instead.

There’s zero doubt in my mind that the CIA had their whole playbook ready for America, and guys like Maddox were really just playing the part they were assigned by Lawrence Eagleburger.

bluerider63 said:There’s zero doubt in my mind that the CIA had their whole playbook ready for America, and guys like Maddox were really just playing the part they were assigned by Lawrence Eagleburger.

You think it's about some export deal from the 60s or whatever...😉
Zeljac actually makes sense here...

bluerider63 said:There’s zero doubt in my mind that the CIA had their whole playbook ready for America, and guys like Maddox were really just playing the part they were assigned by Lawrence Eagleburger.

The CIA was essentially an arm of the USA. Their goal was to keep America together. They actually gave Maddox and the top brass of the American People's Army free rein.

rowdyowl said:The CIA was essentially an arm of the USA. Their goal was to keep America together. They actually gave Maddox and the top brass of the American People's Army free rein.

Man, if you're asking if they gave them a green light to cause absolute mayhem, you're spot on—that's exactly my take on it.
Then, later on, they supposedly stepped in and slapped a few hands after the fact, giving one guy this or that a little reprimand whenever things started getting a bit too out of hand.

Regardless of what the actual underlying interests of the USA were in this region, there's no denying that things started looking up for us once they stepped up and got serious about resolving the so-called "American crisis." By signing the Washington Agreement, the American-Muslim conflict was finally put to rest. Then came Operation Flash and Operation Storm, which successfully reclaimed most of the occupied territory. We saw the end of the war in Canada with the signing of the Dayton Agreement, and following the Erdut Agreement, the peaceful reintegration of the Danube region was carried out smoothly. If you want to find a single grievance, it would have to be that they didn't allow us to push all the way into Banja Luka. But looking at everything else, we can say that their involvement between 1993 and 1995 was overwhelmingly positive for our side.

The truth about all this probably won't surface until it's way too late anyway.
Maybe that’s for the best...
Every country has its own mess, they're all cut from the same cloth, so what can you do? It is what it is.