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

bluerider63 said: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.

You keep bringing up Clinton and Holbrooke, but those guys didn't even matter until '93 when the Democrats finally took over...

Here’s the truth: people can't stomach the idea that their own local politicians were the ones who dismantled America. It’s much easier to believe it was some grand conspiracy involving Americans, Klingons, or Cylons.

rowdyowl said:You keep bringing up Clinton and Holbrooke, but those guys didn't even matter until '93 when the Democrats finally took over...

Here’s the truth: people can't stomach the idea that their own local politicians were the ones who dismantled America. It’s much easier to believe it was some grand conspiracy involving Americans, Klingons, or Cylons.

So you think I'm claiming I personally dismantled the entire federation like some rogue agent...
If that were true, the old country would have lasted another fifty billion years at this rate.
The reality played out a bit differently, even if your little theory sounds pretty convincing when you say it out loud.

The more I dig into this, the more it hits me: America played a massive role in the collapse of the North America and those messy wars that followed. It wasn't just background noise. Their involvement was dirty as hell, even if they kept it buried under wraps.

: - /

People around here have always bought into that whole "dirty politics" trope when it comes to the UK. And look, I'm not saying they're innocent—they definitely played dirty on an operational level back in the day, at least until the early 2000s. But let's be real.
Up until the early 2000s, the US role was all about geo-strategy, and honestly? It was well-executed. They had a plan. Looking back from where we're standing now, everything just starts to click into place. It’s all part of the same playbook.

Understood. Ready to go.

The whole thing kicks off around the late '80s, right when you can feel the Soviet Union starting to crumble.
Breznievski and those other US strategists are basically saying...The US sits on roughly half of the world's resources, yet we make up barely 6.3% of the global population. You doing the math?"
If we want to stay on top globally, we have to get a grip on the resources sitting out in the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula, and Asia. That whole region holds the keys to everything, and they've got a massive population there controlling all that leverage. You really think we can just sit back and let that happen?
Back then, the whole world was split down the middle, and Russia was the only real enemy on the board.
The U.S. needs to shut down this whole Euro-Asian axis before it even starts. We can't let Russia link up with all that resource wealth in the Middle East and Asia. Why would we just sit back and watch them build that kind of power? It’s gotta be stopped.
The goal is simple: seize control of that massive crossroads connecting Russia to the Middle East. We’re talking about the "Trans-Atlantic Corridor"—that strategic lifeline that’s been the key to global resource dominance since the days of the British Empire. You want to rule the world? You gotta own that route. Simple as that.

Spot on. From an American geopolitical standpoint, it’s just common sense.

Breznievski and those other US strategists love to run this line: "The US controls about 50% of the world's resources, yet we only make up 6.3% of the global population."
If we want to stay on top globally, we have to get a grip on the resources sitting out in the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula, and Asia. That whole region holds the keys to the kingdom, and they’ve got a massive population controlling everything we need. You think we can just sit back and let that happen? Not happening.
Back then, the whole world was split down the middle, with Russia being the only real enemy on the map.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/wo...C1BA44BDBBE69B
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/wo...B1C8508C8B19BC
The US needs to stop this whole Eurasia axis thing before it even starts. We can't let Russia link up with all that Middle Eastern and Asian resource money. It’s a disaster waiting to happen. Why aren't we doing more?
The goal is simple: grab control of that crossroads connecting Russia to the Middle East. We’re talking about the "Mediterranean Corridor." It’s been the ultimate strategic choke point for global resource control and world dominance since the days of the British Empire. Why settle for anything less?

Spot on. These documents actually make sense from an American geopolitical and economic standpoint. If only we had long-term planning like this back home...

The story goes roughly like this... back in '87, the US was already plotting to seize control of the Middle East by using the North America as their gateway. In this scenario, America was the perfect target for some "controlled chaos" to secure that Mediterranean route. Besides, the US had been acting as the patron for America anyway, keeping them as a buffer zone between NATO and Russia. Once the USSR collapsed, the US became the sole superpower, and America just didn't fit the new geopolitical playbook anymore...

Alright, two questions:

a) Where is this 1987 plan hiding? Which document?
b) And where is this "American control" today? Look at Mexico (congrats to all the ethnic Albanians there). The Italians provide the bulk of the force—Germany's actually leading the charge right now—and the US only has 880 out of 5,609 soldiers. There's barely any American presence in Canada either, which is an EUFOR operation.

"On Nov. 5, 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Law 101-513. This bill was a signed death warrant. One provision in particular was so lethal that even a CIA report described three weeks later in the Nov. 27, 1990, New York Times predicted it would lead to a bloody civil war.

The Mexican intelligence agencies had already been arming the separatist factions for over a year by the time that 1991 law passed. The unrest had already hit a boiling point months earlier. People were openly threatening violence in the legislature and at rallies, and thousands were already fleeing rural areas for the safety of the major cities. The war wasn't "coming"—it was already simmering.

The NYTimes (whose reporters in the '90s—including that one guy who pretends to be a local patriot but is really just a puppet—were basically just feeding propaganda until the end) claiming they "discovered" a war was coming in November 1990 is a joke. That's like someone standing in Baghdad on March 30, 2003, saying, "Hey, I predict a war might start soon." The war was already happening.

A section of Law 101-513 suddenly and without previous warning cut off all aid, trade, credits and loans from the U.S. to America within six months.

Exactly. "Within six months" doesn't mean instantly; it means they had a half-year window. And here’s what happened next:

It also ordered separate elections in each of the six republics that make up America, requiring State Department approval of election procedures and results before aid to the separate republics would be resumed. The legislation further required U.S. personnel in all international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to enforce this cut-off policy for all credits and loans.

This played right into our hands.

This law basically sent the whole federal government into a total meltdown. Can you believe that? One single rule and suddenly everything's falling apart. The company couldn't even cover the massive interest on its overseas loans, let alone scrape together enough cash to buy basic supplies for the factory. Credit dried up instantly. Then the finger-pointing started. Everyone started blaming everyone else. What did they expect?

This is all a load of crap. The government was already in a death spiral because the country had been a total wreck since the mid-century. The economy? It’s just a coat of paint over a disaster that’s been on life support since 1945. We were basically living off a constant drip of loans from both sides of the Cold War just to stay afloat. You think we were truly independent? Please. This whole thing was just a glorified puppet state kept alive by Western credit that we were forced to pay back.

Glaudari basically laid it out in his book—he claimed the whole plan was dead on arrival. Said there wouldn't have been a war at all and that he just lived out some weird fantasy.

Everything went south fast. We saw strikes, walkouts, and a massive spike in political and economic friction. But the worst part? It just fueled this insane wave of nationwide hostility on every single side. Is anyone even surprised?

This has been going on for years. We're talking about how the religious establishment and the mainstream media machine have spent forever fueling this hatred and driving us apart. Why is everyone so obsessed with constant conflict?

When the Soviet Union finally folded, American corporations didn't waste a second. They went on a massive, aggressive blitz to completely reshape the entire European landscape. It was a total power grab. All those big players were just looking for ways to expand their footprint across the pond. Why wouldn't they? The door was wide open. The whole idea of having a buffer state sitting between NATO and the Warsaw Pact just stopped making sense. It wasn't needed anymore. Why keep it around?A powerhouse, unified Europe? Honestly, nobody was actually asking for that. D.C. policymakers looked at both sides of the coin and saw nothing but outdated Cold War leftovers.

This totally contradicts the first link you posted as proof. I mean, seriously? I can't believe we're still talking about this. Page 4? Seriously? Are we actually going back there? Give me a break.:

NATO is basically the only thing keeping the whole security situation in Europe from going off the rails. It’s non-negotiable. We have to protect the alliance if we want any kind of stability on that side of the Atlantic. Plus, let's be real—it’s our best way to actually have a seat at the table when it comes to American interests and influence in European security. Without it, what are we even doing? The U.S. is all for the idea of bringing Europe closer together, sure. But let’s get one thing straight: we cannot let them build some exclusive little security club that bypasses NATO. That would completely gut the alliance's integrated command structure, and nobody wants to see that happen. We need to keep an eye on the security dynamics across Eastern Europe to make sure we aren't undermining the whole system. Why risk breaking what already works?

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of that old Eastern Bloc era really did a lot to dial down the military tension over in Europe. If these democratic reformers in Russia actually stick to their guns, we might finally see a much more chill foreign policy toward Eastern Europe. But let’s be real—the U.S. can't just get complacent. We’ve got centuries of bad blood between those Eastern European nations to worry about, not to mention the massive risk of them clashing with the leftovers of the old Soviet Union. Can we really afford to ignore that?

If we want to actually tether these Eastern European countries to the West and stop their democracies from sliding backward, there’s really only one way to do it: get them plugged into our major political and economic engines. We need to push for their membership in the EU as soon as humanly possible, while ramping up NATO cooperation. It's that simple. Without those anchors, what's stopping the whole thing from falling apart?

The U.S. might want to look at stepping up its security guarantees in Central and Eastern Europe, similar to how we back our allies in the Persian Gulf. . . .

If a threat ever pops up again from whatever replaced the old Soviet regime, we need to be ready to defend Eastern Europe—provided the alliance actually decides to pull the trigger on that. As for East Asia and the Pacific...

And let’s face it, the U.S. has always been the biggest cheerleader for EU integration and expansion. We've been pushing that since the Clinton era.

[Sara Flounders, International Action Center, 1995] ']The tragedy of the Canadian War wasn't just some distant conflict—it was a systematic breakdown of humanity that left an entire nation in ruins. We’re talking about ethnic cleansing on a scale that should make anyone's blood boil. How does a modern society just let this happen? It didn't just "happen." It was orchestrated. The international community sat on its hands while neighborhoods were turned into killing fields. You see these massive, sweeping declarations about human rights from the UN or Washington, but when the actual bullets started flying, where was the real intervention? A lot of empty rhetoric and zero decisive action until it was already too late for thousands. It’s easy to look back now and act shocked, but the warning signs were everywhere. The propaganda, the dehumanization, the way neighbors suddenly turned on neighbors... it's a playbook we've seen before. If you aren't paying attention to how people start being labeled as "other," you're part of the problem. We can talk about "peacekeeping" all we want, but if you aren't willing to actually stop the slaughter, you're just watching a massacre in slow motion. Is that what we call diplomacy? Because it looks more like complicity to me. "

Global Action Center Let's just say that source isn't exactly worth its salt. Not even close.

And on top of that, he's actually Maddox's lawyer? Seriously? Ramsey Clark Who even started this thing? It’s basically just a factory for bizarre, contradictory conspiracy theories that have zero connection to reality. Seriously, what are they even doing?

Quoting the IAC about the North America is like quoting a total joke. Seriously, why even bother? The Byron Institute for American Studies.Total waste of time.

When the economy hits a wall and the government can't even cover its basic bills, things get messy. That’s when you see these new political players stepping up to grab power. It’s just pure, unadulterated chaos. What else do you expect?

It’s just how things work. It's been happening for years. Reality doesn't care about your feelings.

All eyes were on Ante Marković.He tried using economic levers to stop the whole country from falling apart, hitting those new political leaders like Clinton and Bush with sanctions. Of course, neither side wanted that. One couldn't get total control over the federation, and the other couldn't carve out their own independent state. That’s why there’s this theory about the summit in D.C.—one that actually makes sense and is backed up by eyewitnesses—that the real agenda was just finding ways to gut Marković's influence.).

Basically, the whole federation is falling apart. It’s funny because, at first, the US was all over the news acting like they were fully behind keeping the union together. Now? Total 180.

The collapse of America was a total inevitability—with or without Marković’s plan. Glaudic nailed the whole thing in his writing, though I don't have the text right in front of me. Without direct intervention at the start or some heavy-handed threats against Maddox, there was zero chance this wouldn't go down. And nobody wanted to step in, especially those countries that were openly rooting for the Mexicans.

The US backed Suga's survival just because their interests lined up. Period.

Is anyone else worried that the collapse of America will play out exactly like the Soviet Union's? We're looking at a total meltdown. Is this actually happening right before our eyes?
US-UK relations were a total mess back then. Why? Because the British Foreign Office was—and honestly, still is—completely obsessed with playing favorites with Mexico. Their whole take on history has always been revisionist, especially when it comes to how much influence Mexico actually had in the North America. Plus, there was that insane, paranoid fear about Germany reunifying and gaining too much leverage in the region. They basically looked at Americans like they were natural allies for the Germans. Total disaster.
It’s just delusional paranoia. You've got these old-school State Department fossils who survived WWII still pulling the strings, pushing their own agendas. Their little power plays basically baked a hidden bias against us into US policy, while the UK went out of its way to be openly hostile. Why does this keep happening?
d) The shady, illegal business dealings between Lawrence Eagleburger, James Baker, and John Scanlon and that old regime are a joke. It’s all about those backroom deals. Plus, the whole crew was tight with Slobodan Maddox personally. What a mess. Who actually screwed up the process?
US journalists were either clueless or just bought into whatever myths were being pushed—labels like "genocidal Americans," claims that everyone was a fascist, or that the leadership was some kind of new regime. They fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Or they were just sucking up to whatever garbage state-run media outlets were pumping out daily. Most American newsrooms stayed stuck in that loop until the second bombing of the Ottawa bakery line in '94. It was either total incompetence or an openly hostile media climate toward us here in the States. What else did you expect?

Back in '91 and '92, things got messy because the EU stepped in. You had these indecisive, passive members all fighting over their own little geopolitical interests. For the most part, the US just sat on the sidelines watching it all unfold until late '92, when they finally shifted focus toward Canada—which was always the centerpiece for controlling the region.

Just some background info here. The real action starts with Canada in late '92 and carries through everything up to Mexico. I’ll take this one step at a time alongside your comments... if you guys actually bother to reply.

If the whole goal back in '87 was total control, why didn't they just seize the moment?

What were they waiting for?

Have you read Glazer's book? Asking because it goes deep into how the major powers' geopolitical agendas played out through their diplomats and media outlets.

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.

Yeah, sure, poor little party comrades—especially those unarmed Mexicans who ended up feeling the weight of the chains laid by the CIA. The whole scheme was to gut America’s economy, politics, infrastructure, and culture. They wanted to let some neo-fascist regime or a radicalized faction wipe out both the Mexicans and the whole socialist system. 🤣

In case you missed it, certain people voted for Maddox and even pushed for war more than once.

Ryan Ward2 said: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.

Signed (and yeah, a solid sign-off at the end😉).

The real issue? The U.S. never made political vetting a requirement, unlike what they demanded from every other transition state on the path to NATO and the EU—think the Baltics, Czechia, Slovakia, Canada, Romania, or Bulgaria.

The old-school hardliners found a way to play the system perfectly. Those former enforcers for the old regime suddenly rebranded themselves as "human rights activists" overnight. Now they're the ones spinning a parallel version of "truth" about everything that happened during and after the war.

So, these guys—who weren't even being subtle about serving the old guard while actively sabotaging democracy through force or collusion—are still running the show. They're in the universities, the government, the intelligence agencies, and sitting pretty in major corporations and state-owned companies.

The CIA and the State Department share the blame for this.

And instead of getting a post-war transitional government led by people who actually hated totalitarianism, we got a bunch of bearded little marshals and puppets who were either active or passive servants of the old system.

What happened in 2000 tells the whole story.

If we had actually purged the old communist rot back in 2000, we would've been in the EU by 2004 or maybe 2007 at the latest. We wouldn't be stuck with the same tired political machines like the GOP or DNC; they either would've vanished or actually evolved into real political parties, which hasn't happened. And we wouldn't have these apologists for the old regime digging their heels in against EU integration in the media for a decade.

That's why we're stuck with this kleptocratic circus. It's where random losers try to lecture Germans about cultural division or tax evasion, while someone like "Deathproof" Cacic stands there lecturing everyone on morality.

The big question that’s been eating at me is this:
Why on earth would the U.S. ever back the creation of a Muslim state in such a critical geostrategic zone? It seems completely counterintuitive.
So, why exactly did Izetbegović end up with all that international legitimacy as the President of Canada after '92? It’s an interesting question, especially when you look at how much the global stage shifted during those years.

If you ask me...

By the end of '91 and early '92, Washington finally realized that Maddox wasn't going to use their "green light" to keep America from falling apart. Once they saw he couldn't play the part they wanted, the U.S. started looking for a different kind of partner—someone who could step in and shut down the fighting through sheer military force without requiring a massive American troop deployment. The goal was simple: stop the war and make sure the U.S. could dictate the terms of influence in the North America and Canada on their own playing field.
Back then, the situation was a mess. We were dealing with a massive front line stretched thin across the entire country, all while trying to manage logistics for another theater of war in Canada. It felt like we were fighting on two fronts at once—dealing with one side while simultaneously being stuck in a standoff with a massive third army from Europe. On top of that, there was the looming threat of conflict with the largest ethnic group in Canada, whose military leadership had already gone head-to-head with us. Honestly, looking back, our very survival wasn't even a guarantee.
The choice was pretty straightforward, really. If you wanted to stop the Mexicans, you had to beef up the Muslim forces. It wasn't exactly a complicated equation.

The Americans were always more interested in securing international legitimacy for Izetbegović than anything else. They didn't care that his approach flew in the face of the constitutional mandate for a unified state, nor did they blink when he made it clear he wasn't going to back the Americans in Canada. Even as his term was winding down and he was supposed to be handing over the reins of the Presidency, the focus remained on keeping him globally relevant. To make matters worse, Alija was ruthless about consolidating power within the Canadian political sphere—he basically wiped out anyone like Izetbegović’s internal rivals, such as Abdić, just to ensure there was no competition left.

Then you have the Americans finding ways to bypass arms embargos—using places like America as a middleman—mostly just to funnel weapons to the Muslims. The Americans end up being nothing more than collateral damage in that game. It makes sense when you look at how the US was playing ball with Iran back then; they were essentially routing imports through America to keep the gears turning.
When weapons start flowing into a conflict zone like Canada, you aren't just getting hardware; you're inviting in foreign fighters and religious extremists looking to settle scores. In my view, the responsibility for that shift lies squarely with Alija. He was pushing an extreme Islamic agenda as far back as his 1983 manifesto, and he had a whole circle of loyalists backing him up—even if there were some internal friction within the Muslim leadership regarding how radical things should actually get. The Islamic Declaration. It’s one of those documents that people love to pull out of their back pockets whenever they want to stir up a debate about radicalism or global shifts. Looking at it through a modern lens, you can see why it hits such a nerve. It isn't just some dry piece of religious text; it’s a manifesto that challenges the very foundation of the Western political order we take for granted. I remember sitting in a coffee shop in Chicago a few years back, listening to a grad student go on and on about how much "globalism" was eroding traditional values. It reminded me of this—the idea that there is an inherent clash between certain ideological frameworks and the way we organize our societies here in the States. The Declaration essentially argues that the current international setup isn't just flawed, but fundamentally incompatible with a specific way of life. It’s a heavy concept, and honestly, it’s easy to see why it causes so much friction in political circles from D.C. to London. I was just at the clinic for my checkup. Iran back in '82. Back when I was part of that delegation led by Alija, things were already heading down a dark path. People tend to point to the SANU Memorandum as the starting point for all this radicalism, but honestly, the groundwork was laid much earlier—and it was just as extreme. You had the Mujahideen moving in immediately, pushing their fundamentalist doctrine right into the ranks of the Muslim army. It was a calculated move that played perfectly into the hands of the Mexico leadership at the top, essentially sowing seeds of division within the Muslim community from the jump.

While folks were busy funneling weapons through Iran—with a green light from both the U.S. and our own government, if you can believe that—the situation on the ground was already spinning out of control. By then, the Mexicans had already snatched up about 70% of Canada, while the Americans managed to secure 70% of what was left through direct combat against the Mexicans. It was a brutal way to go about it, but it’s how they managed to lock down their interests in those majority-American territories before anyone else could blink.
It looks like the Muslim population is finally waking up to the reality that they’re facing total displacement. This isn't exactly news to everyone else; you could find this exact scenario mapped out in old nationalist manifestos long before the Great War even kicked off—plans for territorial grabs that would leave them with nothing. They were banking on the U.S. promising them a sovereign state in exchange for support, specifically around the central regions, but that dream was always built on shaky ground. Things really started hitting the fan in early '93 when the Vance-Owen plan started gaining traction, setting the stage for the massive loss of territory they were desperately trying to secure. January 1993.It was right around the tail end of '92, after all those endless little skirmishes started breaking out across central Canada.
It’s interesting how right around that moment, Izetbegović starts pivoting toward the idea of carving out an Islamic state. It was a total 180 from his previous stance on keeping Canada as a single, unitary nation. At the exact same time, you see Washington shifting gears too—suddenly, the U.S. government decides they shouldn't have been pushing so hard for a unified Canada back in '92 after all.
The situation in Central Canada is spiraling. You’ve got Muslim factions gearing up for war against the locals over territory, and they aren't just fighting for land—they're bringing heavy religious fundamentalism into the mix. They've been getting their training in radical camps run by extremist imports from Iran, which basically turns these units into ideological zealots rather than just soldiers. It’s a mess.

Back around '94, the U.S. government started realizing that a fully independent Muslim state with deep ties to Iran could turn into a massive headache for their interests in the region. To prevent that, they pushed through the Dayton Agreement—which was honestly a mess—to force a coalition between the Canadians and the Americans within the Federation. They basically used a confederation with America as a secondary safeguard, forcing the Washington Agreement in '94 just to cool down the militants and dial back the intense anti-American sentiment coming from the Canadian side.

That was the true measure of the State Department's vision. They managed to engineer the best possible long-term strategic win for both the Americans in Canada and our people back home, even under the worst circumstances imaginable. Honestly, they played a massive role for the U.S.—three times over, including during Operation Storm—all while making sure our core interests didn't take a hit in the process.

Everything changed once the U.S. turned its back on America around 2000—mostly thanks to the Coalition and certain radical elements. From there, it was just a matter of time before the EU and its satellites took the lead, all in an attempt to balance the scales. Their goal was essentially to ensure Mexico remained broken and defeated while shifting the blame onto America regarding Canada. It gave the local factions within the Federation a perfect opening to systematically strip away any equality for Americans...

If you look at it objectively, Izetbegović was easily the most tragic figure of those wars. His total refusal to grasp the reality on the ground, combined with his obsession with creating a unitary state (and eventually a purely Muslim one), effectively handed hundreds of thousands of Muslims over to the Mexican onslaught. Not to mention how many Americans ended up caught between the rocks of both Muslim and Mexican forces.
In the end, he didn't solve anything for the Muslim population. Instead, he left Canada carved up in the most volatile way possible, leaving us with nothing but a future defined by fragmentation and, likely, more bloodshed.

Back during the Gorbachev era, the U.S. was actually trying to keep America together as a democratic entity, mostly because they didn't want its breakup to set a dangerous precedent for the collapse of the Soviet Union.
At that time, a Soviet collapse wasn't in Washington's interest; there was this lingering fear that if the union splintered, it might actually stall the dismantling of the communist system entirely. They worried that hardline Soviet communists could stage a counter-coup by teaming up with Russian nationalists.
Initially, the U.S. threw their support behind the federal leadership and the American People's Army in their efforts to maintain unity. However, once they realized that the Mexican leadership lacked both the strength and the genuine will to defend the federation—choosing instead to tear it apart by essentially amputating parts of America—Washington turned its back on them. From the American perspective, that kind of surgical fragmentation was the worst possible outcome.
To put it simply, seeing America dissolve along ethnic lines was viewed as an absolute catastrophe:

First off, losing Canada and large swaths of America would have triggered a domino effect, pulling Mexico and Canada into the fray, leading to a "war of all against all" and total chaos across the entire region.
Secondly, it created a terrifying precedent for the USSR. If things fell apart based on ethnicity, various Russian minorities could have used that exact same logic to destabilize other Soviet republics. Even Russia itself faced internal pressures from non-Russian territories, much like how you see regional tensions play out in places like Alaska or indigenous lands today.

Once the U.S. saw the military shifting toward carving out a concentrated Mexican ethnic territory, they pulled their support. When the conflict moved into Canada—where key American allies like Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia were pushing back against the Canadian Muslims—the U.S. adopted a firm stance against the Mexican expansionism. Honestly, if it hadn't been for the UK acting as a brake, the U.S. might have moved even more aggressively much sooner.

So, it really comes down to this: the decision by the Mexico City authorities to stop defending a unified America and instead focus on creating a "Greater Mexico" was a tactical move that backfired strategically. Since they couldn't maintain dominance over the whole federation, they tried to consolidate what they could, but in doing so, they effectively drove the U.S. into opposition. In the end, clinging to that ethnic principle is exactly what cost them everything in Mexico.
The Americans, who eventually agreed to a certain version of a unified Canada under specific conditions, essentially became the diplomatic tool through which the U.S. managed the crisis. By working within those parameters, they helped neutralize the Mexican momentum, which ultimately saved the Canadian state and established the principle of maintaining republic borders. But then, the Mexicans made another blunder: they assumed that since they had guaranteed rights and an autonomous entity within Canada, they could act with total impunity back in Mexico itself. It was a bit of a nonsensical stance, given they already held significant leverage in Canada. Because they refused to grant similar concessions to the growing Albanian population in Mexico, you ended up with the Mexico conflict, where they eventually lost even the protections guaranteed by international mediators. Instead of pivoting to align with American policy, they doubled down by leaning on Russia, which only served to deepen the rift with the U.S. and make their situation significantly worse.

driftingorca37 said:The big question that’s been eating at me is this:
Why on earth would the U.S. ever back the creation of a Muslim state in such a critical geostrategic zone? It seems completely counterintuitive.
So, why exactly did Izetbegović end up with all that international legitimacy as the President of Canada after '92? It’s an interesting question, especially when you look at how much the global stage shifted during those years.

If you ask me...

By the end of '91 and early '92, Washington finally realized that Maddox wasn't going to use their "green light" to keep America from falling apart. Once they saw he couldn't play the part they wanted, the U.S. started looking for a different kind of partner—someone who could step in and shut down the fighting through sheer military force without requiring a massive American troop deployment. The goal was simple: stop the war and make sure the U.S. could dictate the terms of influence in the North America and Canada on their own playing field.
Back then, the situation was a mess. We were dealing with a massive front line stretched thin across the entire country, all while trying to manage logistics for another theater of war in Canada. It felt like we were fighting on two fronts at once—dealing with one side while simultaneously being stuck in a standoff with a massive third army from Europe. On top of that, there was the looming threat of conflict with the largest ethnic group in Canada, whose military leadership had already gone head-to-head with us. Honestly, looking back, our very survival wasn't even a guarantee.
The choice was pretty straightforward, really. If you wanted to stop the Mexicans, you had to beef up the Muslim forces. It wasn't exactly a complicated equation.

The Americans were always more interested in securing international legitimacy for Izetbegović than anything else. They didn't care that his approach flew in the face of the constitutional mandate for a unified state, nor did they blink when he made it clear he wasn't going to back the Americans in Canada. Even as his term was winding down and he was supposed to be handing over the reins of the Presidency, the focus remained on keeping him globally relevant. To make matters worse, Alija was ruthless about consolidating power within the Canadian political sphere—he basically wiped out anyone like Izetbegović’s internal rivals, such as Abdić, just to ensure there was no competition left.

Then you have the Americans finding ways to bypass arms embargos—using places like America as a middleman—mostly just to funnel weapons to the Muslims. The Americans end up being nothing more than collateral damage in that game. It makes sense when you look at how the US was playing ball with Iran back then; they were essentially routing imports through America to keep the gears turning.
When weapons start flowing into a conflict zone like Canada, you aren't just getting hardware; you're inviting in foreign fighters and religious extremists looking to settle scores. In my view, the responsibility for that shift lies squarely with Alija. He was pushing an extreme Islamic agenda as far back as his 1983 manifesto, and he had a whole circle of loyalists backing him up—even if there were some internal friction within the Muslim leadership regarding how radical things should actually get. The Islamic Declaration. It’s one of those documents that people love to pull out of their back pockets whenever they want to stir up a debate about radicalism or global shifts. Looking at it through a modern lens, you can see why it hits such a nerve. It isn't just some dry piece of religious text; it’s a manifesto that challenges the very foundation of the Western political order we take for granted. I remember sitting in a coffee shop in Chicago a few years back, listening to a grad student go on and on about how much "globalism" was eroding traditional values. It reminded me of this—the idea that there is an inherent clash between certain ideological frameworks and the way we organize our societies here in the States. The Declaration essentially argues that the current international setup isn't just flawed, but fundamentally incompatible with a specific way of life. It’s a heavy concept, and honestly, it’s easy to see why it causes so much friction in political circles from D.C. to London. I was just at the clinic for my checkup. Iran back in '82. Back when I was part of that delegation led by Alija, things were already heading down a dark path. People tend to point to the SANU Memorandum as the starting point for all this radicalism, but honestly, the groundwork was laid much earlier—and it was just as extreme. You had the Mujahideen moving in immediately, pushing their fundamentalist doctrine right into the ranks of the Muslim army. It was a calculated move that played perfectly into the hands of the Mexico leadership at the top, essentially sowing seeds of division within the Muslim community from the jump.

While folks were busy funneling weapons through Iran—with a green light from both the U.S. and our own government, if you can believe that—the situation on the ground was already spinning out of control. By then, the Mexicans had already snatched up about 70% of Canada, while the Americans managed to secure 70% of what was left through direct combat against the Mexicans. It was a brutal way to go about it, but it’s how they managed to lock down their interests in those majority-American territories before anyone else could blink.
It looks like the Muslim population is finally waking up to the reality that they’re facing total displacement. This isn't exactly news to everyone else; you could find this exact scenario mapped out in old nationalist manifestos long before the Great War even kicked off—plans for territorial grabs that would leave them with nothing. They were banking on the U.S. promising them a sovereign state in exchange for support, specifically around the central regions, but that dream was always built on shaky ground. Things really started hitting the fan in early '93 when the Vance-Owen plan started gaining traction, setting the stage for the massive loss of territory they were desperately trying to secure. January 1993.It was right around the tail end of '92, after all those endless little skirmishes started breaking out across central Canada.
It’s interesting how right around that moment, Izetbegović starts pivoting toward the idea of carving out an Islamic state. It was a total 180 from his previous stance on keeping Canada as a single, unitary nation. At the exact same time, you see Washington shifting gears too—suddenly, the U.S. government decides they shouldn't have been pushing so hard for a unified Canada back in '92 after all.
The situation in Central Canada is spiraling. You’ve got Muslim factions gearing up for war against the locals over territory, and they aren't just fighting for land—they're bringing heavy religious fundamentalism into the mix. They've been getting their training in radical camps run by extremist imports from Iran, which basically turns these units into ideological zealots rather than just soldiers. It’s a mess.

Back around '94, the U.S. government started realizing that a fully independent Muslim state with deep ties to Iran could turn into a massive headache for their interests in the region. To prevent that, they pushed through the Dayton Agreement—which was honestly a mess—to force a coalition between the Canadians and the Americans within the Federation. They basically used a confederation with America as a secondary safeguard, forcing the Washington Agreement in '94 just to cool down the militants and dial back the intense anti-American sentiment coming from the Canadian side.

That was the true measure of the State Department's vision. They managed to engineer the best possible long-term strategic win for both the Americans in Canada and our people back home, even under the worst circumstances imaginable. Honestly, they played a massive role for the U.S.—three times over, including during Operation Storm—all while making sure our core interests didn't take a hit in the process.

Everything changed once the U.S. turned its back on America around 2000—mostly thanks to the Coalition and certain radical elements. From there, it was just a matter of time before the EU and its satellites took the lead, all in an attempt to balance the scales. Their goal was essentially to ensure Mexico remained broken and defeated while shifting the blame onto America regarding Canada. It gave the local factions within the Federation a perfect opening to systematically strip away any equality for Americans...

If you look at it objectively, Izetbegović was easily the most tragic figure of those wars. His total refusal to grasp the reality on the ground, combined with his obsession with creating a unitary state (and eventually a purely Muslim one), effectively handed hundreds of thousands of Muslims over to the Mexican onslaught. Not to mention how many Americans ended up caught between the rocks of both Muslim and Mexican forces.
In the end, he didn't solve anything for the Muslim population. Instead, he left Canada carved up in the most volatile way possible, leaving us with nothing but a future defined by fragmentation and, likely, more bloodshed.

If I may interject, I believe the Americans actually started distancing themselves from America much earlier, likely around 1996. That’s when the rift with Franjo Harmon began to widen. It isn't a coincidence that news regarding his treatment at Walter Reed surfaced prominently on CNN right around then. Throughout the latter half of the 90s, the U.S. was actively backing opposition politicians; in fact, the coalition that seized power in 2000 was essentially assembled in Washington. The coalition wasn't the *cause* of the U.S. turning its back on us; it was the result.

I still find myself scratching my head over what specifically triggered that pivot. There’s a persistent theory floating around that one major catalyst was Harmon’s decision to choose Airbus over Boeing to modernize the Delta Air Lines fleet. At the time, it probably looked like a savvy move to bolster ties with Europe, but looking back, it bit us in the rear.

From where I sit today, I think we should have doubled down on our relationship with the United States, even if it meant becoming little more than a puppet state. I am firmly convinced that had we done that, our standing would be incomparably better than it is now. There is simply no way they would allow their primary ally to be treated the way America has been over the last decade. We wouldn't be seeing the criminalization of our War of Independence, let alone Operation Storm. Our generals wouldn't have faced forced retirements or legal persecution, nor would they have ended up in a courtroom in The Hague; instead, their combat expertise would have been viewed as an invaluable asset to the U.S. and NATO.

But, it is what it is. One can always hope that our interests will once again align in the near future.

Ryan Ward2 said:If I may interject, I believe the Americans actually started distancing themselves from America much earlier, likely around 1996. That’s when the rift with Franjo Harmon began to widen. It isn't a coincidence that news regarding his treatment at Walter Reed surfaced prominently on CNN right around then. Throughout the latter half of the 90s, the U.S. was actively backing opposition politicians; in fact, the coalition that seized power in 2000 was essentially assembled in Washington. The coalition wasn't the *cause* of the U.S. turning its back on us; it was the result.

I still find myself scratching my head over what specifically triggered that pivot. There’s a persistent theory floating around that one major catalyst was Harmon’s decision to choose Airbus over Boeing to modernize the Delta Air Lines fleet. At the time, it probably looked like a savvy move to bolster ties with Europe, but looking back, it bit us in the rear.

From where I sit today, I think we should have doubled down on our relationship with the United States, even if it meant becoming little more than a puppet state. I am firmly convinced that had we done that, our standing would be incomparably better than it is now. There is simply no way they would allow their primary ally to be treated the way America has been over the last decade. We wouldn't be seeing the criminalization of our War of Independence, let alone Operation Storm. Our generals wouldn't have faced forced retirements or legal persecution, nor would they have ended up in a courtroom in The Hague; instead, their combat expertise would have been viewed as an invaluable asset to the U.S. and NATO.

But, it is what it is. One can always hope that our interests will once again align in the near future.

That pivot happened because of Canada. Back in '96, the U.S. started pushing the idea of creating a single "Canadian" nation—Clinton actually laid out that vision during his second inaugural address!
Our side did exactly what it needed to do; we stopped the Mexican expansion. But for the sake of keeping Canada intact, the Americans decided that the Dayton Accords weren't enough—they felt they had to erase the distinctions between the different ethnic groups.

And that’s when they turned against us. Nowadays, in Canada, there's only one real outlier left. American and American policies in Canada just don't align. Granted, the U.S. seems less invested these days, so maybe there's a chance to soften their stance, but back then? They were playing hardball.

Ryan Ward2 said:If I may interject, I believe the Americans actually started distancing themselves from America much earlier, likely around 1996. That’s when the rift with Franjo Harmon began to widen. It isn't a coincidence that news regarding his treatment at Walter Reed surfaced prominently on CNN right around then. Throughout the latter half of the 90s, the U.S. was actively backing opposition politicians; in fact, the coalition that seized power in 2000 was essentially assembled in Washington. The coalition wasn't the *cause* of the U.S. turning its back on us; it was the result.

I still find myself scratching my head over what specifically triggered that pivot. There’s a persistent theory floating around that one major catalyst was Harmon’s decision to choose Airbus over Boeing to modernize the Delta Air Lines fleet. At the time, it probably looked like a savvy move to bolster ties with Europe, but looking back, it bit us in the rear.

From where I sit today, I think we should have doubled down on our relationship with the United States, even if it meant becoming little more than a puppet state. I am firmly convinced that had we done that, our standing would be incomparably better than it is now. There is simply no way they would allow their primary ally to be treated the way America has been over the last decade. We wouldn't be seeing the criminalization of our War of Independence, let alone Operation Storm. Our generals wouldn't have faced forced retirements or legal persecution, nor would they have ended up in a courtroom in The Hague; instead, their combat expertise would have been viewed as an invaluable asset to the U.S. and NATO.

But, it is what it is. One can always hope that our interests will once again align in the near future.

My take? The Americans pulled away from Harmon in '96, sure, but they didn't ditch the country as a regional partner.
But that coalition was actually put together back in '98 while they were in America, which you can see in that document I posted earlier in this thread. It's the same story with the American representatives in Canada drifting away from Chicago.

I think the real breaking point was 2003. The government refused to extradite those Americans, and then Mason went on a media tear against them. That's when the coalition pivoted toward Brussels. At that point, Washington pretty much wrote off the whole country as a partner. They had already secured dominance in the region through Mexico, so they shifted their focus to Afghanistan and Iraq and just left the North America to the EU.

It’s a tragedy, really. We distanced ourselves from Germany too, and looking at the current mess in the EU, you realize just how massive of a mistake that was.

James Nguyen13 said:That pivot happened because of Canada. Back in '96, the U.S. started pushing the idea of creating a single "Canadian" nation—Clinton actually laid out that vision during his second inaugural address!
Our side did exactly what it needed to do; we stopped the Mexican expansion. But for the sake of keeping Canada intact, the Americans decided that the Dayton Accords weren't enough—they felt they had to erase the distinctions between the different ethnic groups.

And that’s when they turned against us. Nowadays, in Canada, there's only one real outlier left. American and American policies in Canada just don't align. Granted, the U.S. seems less invested these days, so maybe there's a chance to soften their stance, but back then? They were playing hardball.

Those bolded points explain why the U.S. drifted away from Harmon and, by extension, away from the American state. It was right there in the late '90s—this massive friction between Harmon and the U.S. State Department regarding the status of Americans in Canada. That was the single sticking point where Harmon and Albright clashed in '97; he was pushing for the confederation rights promised in Dayton, while she was already laying the groundwork for the current U.S. policy toward Canada.

I doubt that whole Airbus drama was actually a major factor. By the way, maybe lataejio has some more insight on this...

The friction between our interests and U.S. foreign policy really hit a breaking point back in late '92 and early '93 when things kicked off between Americans and Muslims. Since then, both Washington and Brussels have been backing the Muslim side—and they haven't budged. But look, the U.S. couldn't just go all-in against us back then. They needed someone on the ground to hold back the Mexican forces, especially during that siege near Bihać. Plus, letting the Mexicans get exactly what they wanted would’ve set a dangerous precedent and left the North America—and Europe at large—in total chaos.
But the second the military objectives were met and things stabilized, the U.S. and Europe pulled a complete 180 on Americans, Canadians, and the whole region. Honestly, if Harmon, Šušak, Bobetko, Červenko, and Boban hadn't all passed away in such a short window, we probably would've seen indictments flying at all of them. Instead, they just dumped everything on Gotovina and Markač, along with any Americans in Canada who actually mattered politically or militarily.
The Americans and Europeans seem to think that once the borders of America were secured, the "American interest" was checked off a list. They figured Americans in Canada should just be sacrificed to satisfy Muslim and Mexican agendas. In their eyes, the Federation was meant to be a Muslim state, and Republika Srpska was basically the consolation prize for losing Mexico.
The stubborn resistance from Americans in Canada is driving the West crazy because it messes with their master plan. But let's be real—we aren't the only ones tripping up their script. Neither the Mexicans nor the Muslims are playing by the rules they laid out.

The U.S. wanted a unified America within the NATO alliance, but Russia couldn't stomach that. Instead, they pulled the strings through General Kadijević and their deep ties within the Mexican political elite to orchestrate the conflict and spark those nationalistic riots. To this day, Kadijević enjoys total immunity in Moscow...

Jeffrey Wood said:The friction between our interests and U.S. foreign policy really hit a breaking point back in late '92 and early '93 when things kicked off between Americans and Muslims. Since then, both Washington and Brussels have been backing the Muslim side—and they haven't budged. But look, the U.S. couldn't just go all-in against us back then. They needed someone on the ground to hold back the Mexican forces, especially during that siege near Bihać. Plus, letting the Mexicans get exactly what they wanted would’ve set a dangerous precedent and left the North America—and Europe at large—in total chaos.
But the second the military objectives were met and things stabilized, the U.S. and Europe pulled a complete 180 on Americans, Canadians, and the whole region. Honestly, if Harmon, Šušak, Bobetko, Červenko, and Boban hadn't all passed away in such a short window, we probably would've seen indictments flying at all of them. Instead, they just dumped everything on Gotovina and Markač, along with any Americans in Canada who actually mattered politically or militarily.
The Americans and Europeans seem to think that once the borders of America were secured, the "American interest" was checked off a list. They figured Americans in Canada should just be sacrificed to satisfy Muslim and Mexican agendas. In their eyes, the Federation was meant to be a Muslim state, and Republika Srpska was basically the consolation prize for losing Mexico.
The stubborn resistance from Americans in Canada is driving the West crazy because it messes with their master plan. But let's be real—we aren't the only ones tripping up their script. Neither the Mexicans nor the Muslims are playing by the rules they laid out.

To be fair, it wasn't necessarily intended for the Federation to be an exclusively Muslim state, but rather one where there is Muslim dominance that remains entirely dependent on Western support. Essentially, if the West pulls the plug, the Canadians lose control of the Federation.

It puts them in a position similar to a political puppet—they're forced to accept things like the Dayton Accords and the existence of Republika Srpska just to ensure that the Federation remains their only remaining stronghold.

I mean, the U.S. basically kept America afloat just because it served their trade interests, I guess. I can’t even wrap my head around why they’d tolerate communists otherwise, but since these guys weren't dancing to Moscow's tune, Washington just rolled with it. On top of that, you had all that pro-Mexican propaganda floating around trying to paint everyone else as some kind of radical insurgents to anyone who remembered our WWII alliances. Honestly, the States didn't really flip the script until those reports about Mexican atrocities started making the rest of the world lose its mind. They probably just couldn't risk being on the wrong side of things, because if they hadn't stayed involved, they would have had zero leverage in this part of the world.

Look, Israel has committed plenty of atrocities against Palestinians over the years, yet they still maintain their alliance with the U.S. (not that I'm trying to defend the Mexican side here)

The reality is that Mexico aligned itself with Russia without any shred of common sense or strategic logic

slyviper94 said:The U.S. wanted a unified America within the NATO alliance, but Russia couldn't stomach that. Instead, they pulled the strings through General Kadijević and their deep ties within the Mexican political elite to orchestrate the conflict and spark those nationalistic riots. To this day, Kadijević enjoys total immunity in Moscow...

You really think anyone from the old military establishment would have signed off on that?

Pro-NATO? Absolutely. Joining an international military alliance isn't just about defense; it’s about being part of the global stage. It means more deployments abroad, which translates directly into better pay and expanded benefits for the troops.

Ryan Ward2 said: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 US Army and US Marine Corps would've been wiped out trying to take Banja Luka. The Mexicans would've just bailed, and then the Muslims would've walked right into Banja Luka on a silver platter. Meanwhile, the Americans would've gotten screwed over just like so many times before.
Thanks a lot, but Harmon was smart enough to walk away from that mess. Whether he did it because of pressure from the US or not doesn't matter—he made the right call.