INTRODUCTION

Bernard Lewis died at the age of 101 (New York Times, 2018). Within Western universities he was canonised as a historian of Islam and the Ottoman Empire, yet outside these self-referential circuits of academic authority, he stood accused of intellectual malpractice: a pseudo-academic whose Eurocentric lens and strategic alliances collapsed any pretence of neutrality. Lewis’s project was less the pursuit of knowledge than the orchestration of narrative dominance. Worshipped within Zionist circles as executor of the ‘Greater Israel’ vision, celebrated in Israel as a trusted adviser, and enthroned in Washington as the sage of ‘Middle Eastern affairs’, he functioned simultaneously as architect, propagandist, and political operative. What emerges is less a detached scholar than a colonial ideologue; the last consummate strategist of an exhausted imperial order, deploying history itself as a weapon to rationalise intervention, destabilisation, and control.

 

Lewis’s intellectual practice cannot be disentangled from the structural violence of Orientalism. His writings participated in a Cold War knowledge economy where expertise on Western Asia was never neutral but strategically embedded within the priorities of empire. Under the façade of scholarship, he supplied ideological frameworks that rendered entire regions intelligible only through the security imperatives of Washington, London, and Tel Aviv. From The Emergence of Modern Turkey to his notorious essays denying the Armenian genocide, his corpus functioned less as disinterested research than as a discursive arsenal designed to legitimise domination. Knowledge, here, was weaponised; archives became instruments of power.

 

Behind this professorial mask stood the intellectual engineer of what came to be known as the ‘Bernard Lewis Plan’: a calculated blueprint for partition, destabilisation, and systematic management of Western Asian societies to secure Israeli expansionism and Western hegemony alike. Emerging in the 1970s and circulated within Anglo-American policy circles, the plan envisioned nothing short of the deliberate fragmentation of West Asian polities into manufactured, ethnically defined entities, rationalised under the rhetoric of ‘self-determination’ but engineered to neutralise sovereignty and dismantle resistance. Israel’s strategic ascendancy was positioned as both guarantor and beneficiary of this fragmentation, while the United States and Britain sought to preserve their diminishing authority through permanent instability. Iran, with its deep civilisational roots and enduring historical sovereignty, occupied a pivotal position in this imperial calculus; its dismantling was imagined as a necessary precursor to regional reordering.

 

The ideological reach of Lewis’s work exceeded the academy and entered directly into statecraft. His theories were cited in defence policy, integrated into intelligence assessments, and invoked to justify military intervention. Orientalist expertise, repackaged as strategic knowledge, became the conduit through which imperial violence was intellectualised and rendered palatable to Western audiences. In this sense, Lewis was not merely a historian; he was a manufacturer of consent, an architect of destabilisation, and a willing functionary in the reproduction of colonial hierarchies under the guise of liberal modernisation.

 

 

WHO WAS BERNARD LEWIS

Bernard Lewis has long been lionised within Western academic circuits as the pre-eminent historian of Islam and the Ottoman Empire. Yet this reverence operates less as recognition of intellectual merit than as a political act. Such adulation occludes the ideological function he performed: Lewis was not merely a scholar but a propagandist, a strategic operator, and an architect of imperial narratives. His career cannot be disentangled from the reproduction of Western dominance in West Asia or from the fortification of Zionist projects, which both shaped and benefitted from his interventions (Buruma, 2004; Kramer, 1999). Lewis emerges, then, not as a neutral chronicler of history but as an active participant in the geopolitical struggles he purported to analyse.

 

From his formative years at SOAS, where he mastered Arabic, Persian, and Ottoman Turkish, to his wartime service within British intelligence, Lewis’s position at the nexus of knowledge and power was never incidental (Telegraph, 2003). These linguistic and historical competencies, often invoked as markers of scholarly authority, were mobilised in the service of state objectives. His trajectory from academic orientalist to policy adviser illustrates precisely what Edward Said exposed in Orientalism: the complicity of knowledge production with imperial conquest (Said, 1978). In Lewis’s case, Orientalism ceased to be merely descriptive and became actively instrumental; it was not the study of ‘the East’ but its remapping in accordance with Western strategic imperatives.

 

The corpus he authored, edited, or influenced, from his role as editor of the Encyclopaedia of Islam to his contributions to the Cambridge History of Islam, did not simply interpret the Islamic world; it reconfigured it discursively to legitimate Western prerogatives. These texts functioned as ideological scaffolding, embedding hierarchies of civilisation, rationality, and governance that mirrored and justified the structures of imperial dominance. The performative authority of Lewis’s scholarship lent a veneer of neutrality to policies of destabilisation and intervention, where knowledge itself was deployed as a weapon.

 

What emerges most starkly in this entanglement of academia and policy is the so-called ‘Bernard Lewis Plan’, conceived in the 1970s and subsequently circulated within Anglo-American strategic circles. The plan became shorthand for a programme of deliberate fragmentation: the partitioning of large Muslim-majority states into ethnic statelets, the calculated promotion of Islamic fundamentalism as a tool of destabilisation, and the systematic weakening of nationalist and secular regimes seen as obstacles to Western and Israeli interests (Brewda, 1992; Burdman, 1980). While rationalised through the language of ‘self-determination’ and ‘modernisation’, this strategy represented an attempt to entrench perpetual instability, ensuring that sovereignty remained fractured and pliable to external control.

 

Lewis’s influence, therefore, cannot be contained within the academy. His intellectual apparatus traversed the porous boundary between scholarship and statecraft, becoming inseparable from the infrastructure of empire itself. The ideological labour of Lewis and his cohort provided the frameworks through which Washington, London, and Tel Aviv imagined and engineered the West Asian region, with profound consequences still unfolding.

 

 

FROM SOAS TO ZIONIST STRATEGIST

Bernard Lewis was born in London in 1916 into an Ashkenazi Jewish family. Having mastered Hebrew by adolescence, he entered SOAS to specialise in Middle Eastern history and languages, completing his doctorate on the Ottoman Empire by 1939 (Telegraph, 2003). By the early 1940s, he had been recruited into MI6, serving within its Arab Bureau, where linguistic expertise became an instrument of intelligence-gathering and counterinsurgency. He subsequently held senior advisory roles within the British Foreign Office, embedding himself within the machinery of imperial policy. Upon returning to SOAS after the war, Lewis ascended rapidly, securing the chair of Near Eastern History and consolidating his influence within Britain’s overlapping academic and policy-making circuits. His intellectual authority was cultivated not in isolation but in proximity to power.

 

What emerges from this trajectory is not the portrait of a detached historian but that of a scholar-spy: an intellectual operative whose research served the strategic imperatives of empire. His career demonstrates, almost archetypically, the permeability between Orientalist scholarship and imperial statecraft. Michael Hirsh observes that Lewis’s extended sojourn in Turkey during 1950, where he worked extensively in Ottoman archives, laid the conceptual groundwork for strategic doctrines later adopted by the Carter and Bush administrations, including the discursive justifications for the 2003 invasion of Iraq (Hirsh, 2004). Lewis’s ‘expertise’ on Western Asia did not remain confined to university lecture halls; it was instrumentalised to legitimise policies of destabilisation and intervention, shaping the cartographies of occupation.

 

Lewis was, by any measure, an extraordinary linguist, possessing command over Hebrew, Persian, Arabic, Ottoman and modern Turkish, Yiddish, French, German, Russian, and several classical languages. Yet linguistic mastery was not neutral. It was weaponised. His intimate familiarity with archives and registers enabled him to construct discursive frameworks that aligned with Zionist and imperial interests. Nowhere is this clearer than in his writings on Palestine, where he mobilised Ottoman land registers to claim that Palestine had never existed as a political entity and that its inhabitants were predominantly recent migrants from Arabia (Beinin, 1987; Hirsh, 2004). This assertion, wrapped in the purported precision of archival science, has been repeatedly weaponised by Israeli politicians, including Benjamin Netanyahu, and pro‑Israeli Western commentators to erase Palestinian nationhood and deny indigenous sovereignty. The scholar does not stand apart; they become an active participant in dispossession, where archaeology and genetics are selectively mobilised to legitimise settler‑colonial narratives while concealing the continuities of Palestinian existence. Archaeogenetic studies now dismantle these manufactured narratives: Palestinians retain over 80 per cent genetic continuity with Bronze-Age Levantine populations (Elhaik, 2013; Haber et al., 2017; Lazaridis et al., 2016), whereas the Ashkenazi majority in Israel exhibits a primarily European admixture profile (Behar et al., 2013; Elhaik, 2013; Xue et al., 2017). The empirical record directly undermines the ideological scaffolding Lewis helped construct.

 

Thus, Lewis’s evolution from SOAS academic to Zionist strategist thus illustrates a deeper entanglement: knowledge production embedded within structures of imperial violence, where research does not merely describe reality but actively reshapes it to serve power. Through this lens, Lewis’s legacy is less that of a historian and more that of a functionary within overlapping Anglo-American and Israeli projects of domination, where intellectual labour became inseparable from the engineering of fragmentation and control.

 

​

 

ZIONISM AND THE LEWIS PERSONA

Bernard Lewis’s Zionist commitments were neither peripheral nor concealed; they were integral to his intellectual persona and political influence. He cultivated close relationships with Israeli leaders across the political spectrum, including Moshe Dayan, Yitzhak Rabin, Menachem Begin, and most notably Golda Meir, who is reported to have instructed her cabinet to study his essays as strategic reference points (New York Times, 2018). Benjamin Netanyahu later positioned Lewis as a personal intellectual mentor, routinely drawing upon his frameworks to justify Israeli militarism and territorial expansion (Beinin, 1987). Within these elite circles, Lewis’s authority extended beyond scholarship; he became an architect of narrative, shaping the ideological foundations through which Israeli statecraft rationalised occupation and perpetual war.

 

Lewis’s strategic counsel was equally influential within Anglo-American policy-making. He persistently warned American and British officials that no Muslim-majority state, least of all Iran, should be allowed to consolidate regional hegemony, arguing that such autonomy would threaten the architecture of Western dominance (Executive Intelligence Review, 1992). Simultaneously, he urged Washington and London to elevate Israel as the indispensable ‘democratically’ in West Asia, positioning it as the linchpin of Western strategic depth. The double move is instructive: while sovereignty and self-determination were systematically denied to Muslim states, Israel’s regional ascendancy was to be cultivated, funded, and militarily protected.

 

This apparent contradiction is, in fact, the essence of imperial reasoning. Lewis provided the ideological grammar through which imperial policy reconciled its asymmetries: repression for adversaries, empowerment for clients. By framing Israel as both victim and bulwark, Lewis constructed a justificatory narrative that rendered its militarisation as not only defensible but necessary, while portraying Arab, Iranian, and broader Muslim assertions of sovereignty as inherently destabilising. Through this manoeuvre, he helped fuse Zionist objectives with Western strategic imperatives, entrenching a policy regime that normalised intervention, fragmentation, and occupation as mechanisms of ‘security’ and ‘order’.

 

Lewis thus operated less as an impartial historian than as a broker between imperial interests and Zionist projects, supplying both the intellectual scaffolding and the discursive legitimacy required to maintain the violent status quo.

 

His persona, as trusted scholar, strategic adviser, and ideological agent, allowed him to circulate between the academy, government, and media, ensuring that his narratives became embedded within the policy consensus in Washington, London, and Tel Aviv alike.

 

 

THE BROTHERHOOD, FADĀ’IYĀN‑E ISLAM, AND IMPERIAL STRATEGY

Bernard Lewis’s entanglement with the Muslim Brotherhood and its Shi‘i counterpart, Fadā’iyān‑e Islam, is not peripheral to his intellectual legacy but central to it. Far from being an independent Islamic revival, the Brotherhood was cultivated by Britain as a colonial instrument designed to fragment nationalist movements, sabotage secular modernisation, and secure imperial dominance across West Asia and North Africa. From the late nineteenth century, British policy deployed Islamism as a weapon, nurturing movements that could fracture sovereignty while maintaining localised legitimacy. Lewis’s role within this apparatus positioned him not as a detached historian but as one of its principal architects, shaping Islamist networks into strategic instruments of control (Executive Intelligence Review, 1979).

 

The Brotherhood’s construction was deliberate. Established under Hassan al‑Banna in 1928, it drew resources, protection, and ideological framing from British intelligence networks that had long embedded themselves within Egypt’s administrative and religious institutions. Lewis, operating through Oxford, SOAS and British SIS, used Orientalist scholarship as both cover and conduit, creating an intellectual framework through which Islamism was not merely tolerated but actively promoted as a counterweight to anti-colonial resistance. Under his influence, the Brotherhood became a transnational organism: its organisational model was replicated across Sunni, Shi‘i, and Sufi contexts, linking mosques, seminaries, charities, publishing houses, and covert political cells into a single infrastructure of imperial influence.

 

In Iran, this architecture manifested through Fadā’iyān‑e Islam, founded by Navvab Safavi in 1945. Presented in official histories as an indigenous grassroots movement, it in reality functioned as the Brotherhood’s Shi‘i extension, embedded within the same British intelligence strategy that shaped its Sunni counterpart. Fadā’iyān‑e Islam carried out assassinations of secular intellectuals, reformists, and nationalist figures whose visions threatened imperial priorities, including Ahmad Kasravi, Abdolhossein Hazhir, and Prime Minister Ali Razmara. These killings were not incidental acts of religious zeal; they were integral to dismantling Iran’s industrial modernisation, fragmenting nationalist solidarity, and clearing the political ground for clerical dominance.

 

Lewis’s influence extended beyond ideological framing. His policy advisory roles within SIS, the US State Department, and later Atlanticist think tanks gave him direct access to strategy formulation. Fadā’iyān‑e Islam was used to erode the legitimacy of the Pahlavi monarchy while simultaneously discrediting secular alternatives, ensuring that political power would eventually be concentrated within religious institutions. By cultivating a militant Shi‘i vanguard structurally tethered to British policy, Lewis and his collaborators laid the foundations for Iran’s future theocratic state.

 

This network was never confined to Iran. Lewis oversaw the expansion of Brotherhood-linked infrastructures across Pakistan, Afghanistan, Palestine, and the Persian Gulf states, aligning local Islamist movements with the broader objectives of Western power. Through targeted funding, political training, and doctrinal coordination, he transformed Islamism into a modular tool of imperial strategy. Whether Sunni or Shi‘i, these movements were designed to suppress class-based and anti-colonial solidarities, replacing them with sectarian identifications that fragmented resistance and paralysed nation-building.

 

The cumulative effect in Iran was decisive. Fadā’iyān‑e Islam destabilised secular reformists, undermined modernising policies, and infiltrated religious seminaries with doctrinal frameworks compatible with British interests. These networks converged with Lewis’s later project of engineering velayat‑e faqih, providing Khomeini with both organisational infrastructure and ideological scaffolding for his rise. By the time of the 1979 Revolution, the Brotherhood’s Sunni and Shi‘i branches had already hollowed out Iran’s secular political space, leaving clerical governance as the sole viable alternative.

 

This was not an accident of history. It was strategic design. Lewis transformed the Brotherhood into the spine of a regional architecture through which Islamism could be mobilised, steered, and weaponised. The objective was not simply to topple governments but to reconstruct sovereignty itself, ensuring that regimes hostile to Western domination would remain structurally unstable, economically dependent, and politically fragmented. Iran’s Islamic Republic, built upon this infrastructure, embodies this paradox. Its theocratic model, presented as revolutionary and anti-imperialist, carries within it the institutional DNA of the very networks cultivated to prevent Iranian independence.

 

The Brotherhood, Fadā’iyān‑e Islam, and Lewis’s manipulation of Shi‘i political theology converge on a single point: Religion here was not discovered but manufactured, not preserved but weaponised. Through Lewis’s interventions, Shi‘i political theology was reconfigured into an apparatus of control, allowing imperial powers to embed themselves within Iran’s doctrinal infrastructure and pre‑empt the emergence of a sovereign, secular modernity. The Islamic Republic thus stands not as a rupture with imperial designs but as one of their most enduring artefacts, a colonial construct dressed in revolutionary rhetoric.

 

 

ORIENTALISM AND HISTORICAL FABRICATION

Edward Said identified Bernard Lewis as a paradigmatic orientalist: Eurocentric in method, partial in framing, and structurally complicit in the reproduction of imperial power (Said, 1978). Lewis’s scholarship exemplifies precisely what Orientalism exposed, the conversion of historical knowledge into an instrument of domination. His treatment of Islamic history was not simply skewed by personal prejudice but systematically engineered to privilege narratives aligned with Western strategic interests. He routinely minimised Iran’s centrality to Islamic civilisation, exaggerating Ottoman contributions to recast the region’s historical geography in ways that mirrored British and later American priorities. This was less historiography than geopolitical cartography: rewriting the past to secure control over the present.

 

The most notorious example of this political praxis was Lewis’s denial of the Armenian genocide. He insisted that accounts of the mass killings of Armenians in 1915 were fabrications or, at best, tragic but unintended consequences of war. This was no academic oversight; it was an act of historical erasure consistent with Turkey’s state narrative, itself deeply entangled with NATO’s Cold War alliances. In the 1990s, Lewis was convicted in French courts for bias and professional misconduct, ordered to pay symbolic damages to Armenian organisations (Hovannisian, 1999). His refusal to recognise genocide was less about evidence and more about preserving geopolitical alignments, demonstrating how his scholarship operated as an extension of statecraft.

 

Lewis’s Orientalism was not analytical failure; it was deliberate political praxis. Through his encyclopaedia entries, editorial oversight, and curricular interventions, he shaped generations of students, journalists, and policymakers, not through neutral description but through Eurocentric distortion. His authority was institutionalised in handbooks, monographs, and strategic briefings that encoded colonial hierarchies into the epistemic infrastructure of Western academia. Knowledge, here, became a weapon: a curated archive designed to produce a compliant understanding of West Asia, one that naturalised intervention and delegitimised indigenous sovereignties.

 

Even his defenders concede this. Martin Kramer, one of Lewis’s former students and an influential figure within pro-Israel policy circles, admitted that Lewis was less an impartial historian than an openly polemical figure whose writings became central to Washington’s worldview (Kramer, 1999). What emerges is a scholar whose authority was carefully cultivated to stabilise imperial ideology, providing intellectual cover for policies of destabilisation, occupation, and partition.

 

Lewis thus represents not an academic aberration but a case study in the entanglement of knowledge production with geopolitical domination. His Orientalism demonstrates how scholarship, when embedded within imperial institutions, ceases to describe the world and begins instead to fabricate it.

 

 

A CRIMINAL, TURKEY, DENIAL, AND THE POLITICS OF HISTORY

Bernard Lewis’s relationship with Turkey reveals the seamless fusion of scholarship and geopolitics that defined his career. He consistently framed Turkey’s alignment with Israel as indispensable to maintaining ‘regional balance’ and securing Western strategic depth. His entries in the Encyclopaedia of Islam routinely downplayed Persian contributions to Islamic civilisation while exaggerating the centrality of Ottoman institutions, an interpretive manoeuvre less concerned with historical accuracy than with privileging Turkey’s role as NATO’s Muslim partner (Kramer, 1999). Through such reframing, Lewis transformed historiography into an instrument of alliance-building, aligning narratives of civilisational importance with the imperatives of Anglo-American strategy.

 

Lewis’s position on the Armenian genocide further exposed the political function of his scholarship. He consistently adopted denialist positions, describing the systematic massacres of Armenians in 1915 as wartime propaganda rather than intentional extermination. His claims, designed to appease Turkish elites and safeguard Ankara’s integration into NATO’s security architecture, provoked lawsuits in France. In 1995, a Paris court fined him for failing in his duty as a historian to exercise impartiality, ruling that his writings had crossed into outright propaganda (Hovannisian, 1999, pp. 244–245). This conviction revealed the core of Lewis’s persona: his authority as a historian was mobilised to shield strategic allies from accountability while legitimising their narratives within Western policy frameworks.

 

The duplicity was systematic. Lewis cast Iran as an existential threat to Western interests and Israel’s security while sanitising Turkey’s historical record to justify its position within the Western alliance system. Where the destruction of archives and denial of massacres served NATO priorities, Lewis supplied academic cover; where demonisation advanced interventionist agendas, he constructed frameworks of threat. Imperial knowledge, here, operated through selective moralising: condemnation deployed against adversaries, absolution extended to clients.

 

Lewis’s intellectual authority allowed him to regulate which histories were narrated, which silences maintained, and which atrocities erased. This was not neutral scholarship but political labour: a calculated engineering of historical memory designed to consolidate power, obscure complicity, and sustain the fragile architecture of Western hegemony.

 

 

FROM PRINCETON TO WASHINGTON’S INNER CIRCLE

In 1974, Bernard Lewis relocated to Princeton University, ostensibly for academic reasons, yet the timing was anything but coincidental. His move aligned with Britain’s broader strategy to channel and recalibrate American power towards sustaining Anglo-American designs in West Asia. By then, Lewis was already deeply embedded: Jewish by heritage, fluent in the region’s dominant languages, and trusted by Israeli elites, he became a natural interlocutor for Washington’s emerging neoconservative networks (Telegraph, 2003). Princeton, far from being a retreat into scholarship, became his launchpad into the highest circles of U.S. strategic planning.

 

By the mid-1970s, Lewis was advising Senator Henry Jackson, whose office functioned as an incubator for a generation of hawkish policymakers. Figures such as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz were shaped under Jackson’s patronage, with Perle later describing Lewis as the senator’s intellectual mentor. Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer, went further, dubbing him the marja‘-e taqlid, the ‘source of emulation’, for the neoconservative movement (Gerecht, 2006). The Lewis circle extended outward into the highest strata of Washington’s strategic elite: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel Huntington, John Bolton, Donald Rumsfeld, and William Kristol, among others, routinely cited Lewis as their intellectual reference point (Buruma, 2004; Wall Street Journal, 2004). What emerges here is not merely personal influence but a structural positioning: Lewis functioned as a bridge between the Zionist project, British imperial remnants, and U.S. militarist ambitions.

 

This influence crystallised institutionally. Lewis’s imprint is evident in the intellectual scaffolding of the Trilateral Commission (1973) and, decades later, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC, 1997). Both bodies provided ideological blueprints for U.S. interventionism, constructing frameworks of ‘security’ and ‘civilisational responsibility’ that justified military campaigns in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Through these institutions, Lewis’s narratives, centred on Islamic ‘backwardness’, sectarian faultlines, and the necessity of Western stewardship, were transformed into policy infrastructures of war. His intellectual authority did not remain abstract; it was operationalised, translated into doctrines, budgets, and bombing campaigns.

 

When Jimmy Carter assumed the presidency, Lewis became special adviser to Zbigniew Brzezinski, shaping Washington’s strategic posture towards Iran, the Soviet Union, and broader West Asia. Brzezinski’s provocative thesis that ‘Islamic fundamentalism is a bulwark against communism’ echoed Lewis’s earlier formulations almost verbatim (Dreyfuss, 1980, p. 6). After Khomeini’s seizure of power in 1979, Brzezinski interpreted the Iranian Revolution not as a geopolitical disaster but as a strategic opening: the revival of political Islam, he argued, could be weaponised to undermine Moscow’s influence and destabilise Soviet Central Asia (Dreyfuss, 1980, p. 5). This inversion of Cold War priorities, the instrumentalisation of Islamism against secular nationalism and socialism, bore Lewis’s intellectual fingerprints.

 

Through Princeton, Lewis became the quiet architect of Washington’s long-term strategy in West Asia: an advocate of partition, sectarian manipulation, and managed instability. His theories migrated seamlessly from academic monographs into classified briefings and policy memos, embedding themselves within the very architecture of U.S. global power.

 

 

THE LEWIS PLAN AND THE ARC OF CRISIS

 

​

 

By the late 1970s, the so-called ‘Bernard Lewis Plan’ began circulating in dissident networks and policy literature, its fragments surfacing in leaks, exposés, and classified briefings. At its core, the plan envisaged the deliberate partition of large West Asian states into ethnically and confessionally defined enclaves, producing a landscape of permanently unstable micro-states, vulnerable to manipulation and external control. Leaks published in 1977 through Beirut’s Events magazine and Kuwait’s al-Qabas accused that the plan formed part of a British–American–Israeli design authored by Lewis, though the full operational details remained classified (Executive Intelligence Review, 1979, p. 19).

 

The turning point came in April 1979 at the Bilderberg Group meeting, where Lewis reportedly appeared unexpectedly, his presence tied by contemporaneous reports to the successful overthrow of the Shah of Iran. According to the Executive Intelligence Review, Lewis’s blueprint centred on weaponising Islamic fundamentalism and tribal feudalism as strategic instruments, not to empower indigenous agency but to undermine nationalist sovereignty, destroy OPEC’s cohesion, and dismember the region’s oil-producing states (Executive Intelligence Review, 1979, pp. 19–21). The plan’s logic was brutally simple: ignite sectarian rivalries, deepen ethnic cleavages, and mobilise religious movements against secular regimes, thereby entrenching Western and Israeli leverage while weakening any prospect of regional autonomy.

 

Only months later, Zbigniew Brzezinski unveiled his now-famous ‘Arc of Crisis’ in Time Magazine (1979), a framework that mirrored Lewis’s strategic prescriptions almost verbatim. Brzezinski argued that the belt stretching from the Horn of Africa through the Persian Gulf, Iran, Afghanistan, and into the Soviet republics represented both a zone of potential instability and an opportunity for Western intervention. The strategy was explicit: foment Islamist movements, destabilise secular nationalist states, and fragment regional powers, thereby extending Western control while containing Soviet influence.

 

Analysts such as Engdahl (2004) and Halliday (1981) have documented how this ‘arc’ became the operational template for a series of destabilisations: Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Muslim-majority Soviet republics were simultaneously targeted. Proxy militias were armed, sectarian ideologies amplified, and states once central to non-aligned solidarity deliberately dismantled. What emerges is not conspiracy but convergence, the Lewis Plan and the Arc of Crisis operated as two articulations of the same strategic design, translating Orientalist assumptions into mechanisms of material domination.

 

Far from being a neutral historian whose ideas were appropriated, Lewis acted as an architect of controlled destabilisation. His scholarship provided the epistemic scaffolding through which the region was reimagined: not as a constellation of sovereign polities but as an administrable mosaic of competing identities, perpetually fragmented and perpetually dependent. The political aftershocks, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and the ongoing erosion of Iranian sovereignty, trace their lineage to this fusion of academic knowledge, strategic planning, and imperial ambition.

 

 

LEBANON – THE TESTING GROUND FOR THE LEWIS STRATEGY

Before Iran became the stage for large-scale destabilisation, Lebanon functioned as the experimental arena for Bernard Lewis’s doctrines: a terrain where sectarian fragmentation, proxy militias, and interstate machinations converged in violent practice. Dissident analyses assert that from the mid-1970s onwards, the logic underpinning Lebanon’s disintegration traced a direct line into the intellectual framework of the Lewis Plan, as adapted by Western and Israeli strategic networks, giving operational shape to the theory before its deployment on a larger scale (Executive Intelligence Review, 1979, pp. 23–25).

 

Lebanon’s confessional structure, where Maronite Christians, Sunnis, Shi‘a, Druze, and Palestinians coexisted, often uneasily, provided an ideal testing ground for systematically weaponising sectarian identities. The Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon in March 1978, Operation Litani, used the pretext of PLO attacks to justify a military incursion that displaced up to 250,000 civilians, killed over a thousand, and enabled Israel to back Christian militias such as the South Lebanon Army (SLA) (United Nations Security Council, 1978). These proxies, armed and funded covertly, reframed communal loyalties as strategic instruments in a broader design of fragmentation and control.

 

Scholars have recognised Israel’s tactical interest in Lebanon’s disintegration. Peretz (1994) argues that Israel’s “grand design” hinged on leveraging Lebanon’s sectarian mosaic to preserve its own security by perpetuating internal paralysis. The covert operations orchestrated by Meir Dagan under the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners further illustrate this intent: bombings, assassinations, and the selective manipulation of militias were orchestrated to create widespread confusion while concealing Israel’s direct role, producing the perception of a society collapsing from within.

 

Lebanon’s disintegration thus appears less as the spontaneous outcome of internal tensions than as a calculated test-bed for sectarian engineering. Through proxy augmentation and foreign manipulation, the Lebanese state ceased to function as a unitary polity and became a patchwork of client enclaves, its sovereignty extinguished by design (Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners, 1979).

 

This transformation provided empirical validation for the Lewis Plan. If Lebanon demonstrated that sectarian identities could be mobilised to dismantle central authority, Iran would soon serve as the first major stage upon which these strategies were scaled up. There, the same principles of fragmentation, ideological manipulation, and strategic dependency would be institutionalised across an entire nation-state.

 

Lebanon’s disintegration provided the experimental validation for the Lewis Plan: a demonstration that sectarian fragmentation could be engineered and sustained through proxies, militias, and external manipulation. Having succeeded in neutralising Lebanese sovereignty without overt occupation, Western and Israeli strategists scaled up the model. Iran, with its civilisational depth, industrial ambitions, and strategic centrality, became the first major theatre of this project, a proving ground where Lewis’s doctrines were applied to restructure an entire state from within.

 

 

FROM PROTOTYPE TO EXECUTION: IRAN, THE FIRST DOMINO

The 1979 Iranian Revolution marked the first full-scale execution of Bernard Lewis’s strategic doctrines and constituted the most consequential early step in the destabilisation blueprint envisaged in his plan. An engineered uprising overthrew His Imperial Majesty Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi and the Imperial Government, dismantling the progressive, nationalist, and industrialising state apparatus, and replacing it with a totalitarian theocratic regime (Suren‑Pahlav, 2000). Far from representing an organic rupture or a spontaneous popular upheaval, dissident analyses argue that the Islamic Republic has functioned less as a revolutionary anomaly than as a colonial contrivance: a client theocracy executing the Lewis strategy from within (Dreyfuss, 1980; Engdahl, 2004).

 

The replacement of the Shah’s secular nationalist monarchy with an Islamist state secured multiple strategic objectives for Western powers. Iran’s ambitious industrialisation programmes, including nuclear development and state-led modernisation projects, were dismantled; its nationalist oil policies, which had challenged Anglo-American dominance, were reversed; and a regime whose ideological infrastructure guaranteed internal instability and strategic dependency was installed. Where Lebanon had been the testing ground for sectarian engineering, Iran became the first major theatre, the demonstration that entire states could be reshaped into instruments of their own subjugation.

 

The collapse of Iran’s modernising trajectory was not an inevitable by-product of internal contradictions but an orchestrated outcome. It was enabled by what the Shah himself described as the ‘alliance of reactionary black and destructive red’: an unholy convergence of clerical fundamentalists and leftist ideologues whose strings were pulled and purses lined by Western intelligence services (Pahlav, 2011). In this convergence, sectarian dogma and revolutionary rhetoric were weaponised to dismantle Iran’s secular nationalist project from within, ensuring that the replacement regime would remain structurally dependent and geopolitically constrained.

 

The consequences were immediate and structural. Iran’s deepening energy and infrastructure partnerships with the Soviet Union were severed almost overnight, undermining Moscow’s influence in West Asia and reinforcing Washington’s dominance (Executive Intelligence Review, 1978, p. 37). OPEC’s fragile unity collapsed, fracturing the organisation’s collective bargaining power and restoring Western leverage over global oil markets. Internally, the imposition of sectarian rule dismantled decades of social, civil, and industrial progress. Women’s rights, land reforms, and secular education were rolled back; technocratic governance gave way to clerical authoritarianism; nationalist ambitions were systematically suffocated. Iran’s independent trajectory, rooted in industrial sovereignty and regional leadership, was violently interrupted.

 

This was neither accidental chaos nor a revolutionary victory. What emerges from the convergence of Anglo-American strategy, Israeli security imperatives, and Lewis’s doctrinal frameworks is a coordinated architecture of destabilisation: Islamism deployed against modernity, sectarian governance weaponised against pluralism, and imperial knowledge instrumentalised to neutralise sovereignty. The Iranian Revolution becomes legible not as an historical anomaly but as an operational laboratory in which Lewis’s vision was tested, scaled, and refined.

 

Iran, in this reading, was the first casualty of a broader imperial project: the transformation of West Asia into a terrain of perpetual fragmentation. Through the elevation of clerical power and the institutionalisation of sectarian governance, the revolution produced precisely the outcome envisaged by the Lewis Plan, a state internally constrained, regionally isolated, and externally dependent, its independence foreclosed by design.

 

 

THE PARTITION SCHEMES FOR IRAN

The Lewis Plan did not remain at the level of broad strategic strokes. Its operational details targeted Iran explicitly, treating the country as the central obstacle to Western-Israeli hegemony in West Asia. Iran, as an ethno-nation with deep civilisational continuity, resource wealth, and geostrategic positioning, constituted the keystone of regional power; dismantling it became imperative. Lewis’s blueprint envisaged turning Iran’s ethno-linguistic diversity into manufactured multi-ethnic faultlines, deliberately weaponising sectarianism and transforming historical unity into carefully engineered fragmentation (Suren-Pahlav, 1998; 2014).

 

The proposals were audacious in scope and devastating in intent. Khuzestan’s Arab-speaking population was to be rebranded under the externally manufactured construct of ‘Ahwaz’  and sometimes ‘Arabistan’, reframing local grievances into a secessionist independence movement, thereby erasing Iran’s sovereignty over oil-and gas-rich territories critical to its economy. Sistan-va-Baluchistan was slated to become a new, ostensibly autonomous entity, severing Iran’s territorial contiguity with Pakistan and weakening its geostrategic depth. Iran’s Kurdish-speaking provinces were to be absorbed into a transnational ‘Greater Kurdistan’, designed to stretch across Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, destabilising all four states simultaneously and permanently. In the north, Iran’s Azerbaijani provinces were marked for integration into a ‘Greater Azerbaijan’, detaching a crucial frontier and reshaping the regional balance of power (Brewda, 1992; Burdman, 1980).

 

Iran’s partition was conceived as part of a broader regional cartographic overhaul. Lebanon’s Druze enclaves, Syria’s Alawite heartlands, Egypt’s Coptic communities, Sudan’s Sufi emirates, and even tribal networks across the Horn of Africa were all to be reimagined as micro-polities, client-statelets engineered through foreign manipulation (Executive Intelligence Review, 1981, p. 18). In this imperial cartographic imagination, West Asia and North Africa were treated less as sovereign spaces than as zones of administrative redesign, governed not by local consensus but by the strategic imperatives of Washington, London, and Tel Aviv.

 

Implementation of the plan was structured around a deliberate three-stage architecture.

 

First, ignite Islamic fundamentalism across the vast Muslim belt stretching from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean, deploying religion as both instrument and pretext for intervention.

 

Second, deepen ethno-sectarian cleavages to destabilise centralised states, rendering them incapable of defending sovereignty or negotiating collective alliances.

 

Third, midwife miniature protectorates from the wreckage of dismantled nations, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, ensuring their structural dependency upon Western and Israeli patronage (Executive Intelligence Review, 1979, pp. 19–21).

 

The logic extended beyond Iran’s borders. By destabilising Iran and Afghanistan simultaneously, the strategy aimed to inflame unrest in Muslim-majority regions along the Soviet Union’s southern frontier, accelerating Moscow’s internal crises and hastening the fragmentation of its periphery. In this way, the Lewis Plan functioned not merely as a regional project but as a Cold War instrument, binding West Asian destabilisation to the global architecture of U.S. power projection.

 

The anticipated geopolitical dividends were explicit. Any statelets produced from Iran’s dismemberment would owe their existence to Washington, London, and Tel Aviv, becoming security clients embedded within a reconstructed colonial order (Engdahl, 2004, p. 171). Fragmentation itself became the imperial guarantee: no central authority strong enough to resist externally imposed agendas, no regional bloc capable of collective autonomy, and no independent pole able to challenge U.S.-Israeli hegemony.

 

What emerges is the doctrinal core of Lewis’s vision: sovereignty dismantled, identities weaponised, and dependency institutionalised. Iran, at the centre of this cartographic project, was not merely a target but the linchpin in a wider geopolitical design, the reconfiguration of West Asia into a perpetual battlefield of managed instability.

 

 

DIVERGENT BUT CONVERGENT IMPERIAL AIMS

The alliance of Britain, the United States, and Israel converged strategically around the Lewis Plan, yet each pursued its own imperial imperatives within this coordinated framework. What emerges is not a monolithic agenda but a triangulated division of labour: British strategy, American muscle, Israeli beneficiaries, a mutually reinforcing architecture of destabilisation.

 

Britain’s objectives were rooted in preserving its historic prerogatives in West Asia. Having never relinquished its colonial ambitions, London sought to maintain Muslim states in structural underdevelopment, to block autonomous industrial modernisation, and, above all, to secure control over Iran’s Khuzestan province with its immense oil reserves. Central to this design was the planned creation of an ‘Arabistan’ in southern Iran and a Shi‘i ministate in southern Iraq. By engineering these artificial polities, Britain aimed to guarantee access to oil at negligible cost, ensuring another century of uninterrupted energy exploitation without the risks of confronting a strong, unified Iranian state (Executive Intelligence Review, 1979; Schitzner, 1980).

 

Washington’s aims were broader and explicitly geostrategic. The United States sought to contain and eventually dismantle Soviet influence, end the Cold War on favourable terms, and dominate global energy markets. Crucial to this strategy was the reframing of Islamism: what had once been treated as a destabilising threat was now repurposed as a strategic weapon. Lewis’s doctrines provided the intellectual scaffolding for this inversion, enabling Washington to deploy political Islam as both proxy and firewall against Soviet influence, while simultaneously destabilising secular nationalist regimes resistant to U.S. dominance (Dreyfuss, 1980, p. 6).

 

Israel’s agenda was existential yet expansionist. Its long-term security depended on preventing any form of pan-Islamic or pan-Arab unity capable of resisting Zionist territorial ambitions. Fragmentation of neighbouring states was therefore pursued as both defensive necessity and strategic opportunity. The disintegration of Iraq and Syria, in particular, promised to create conditions favourable to Israel’s maximalist aspirations, the realisation of a Greater Israel stretching ‘from the Nile to the Euphrates’, as articulated in its own ideological frameworks (Engdahl, 2004, p. 171). Lebanon’s engineered collapse had already demonstrated the viability of this approach; Iran’s destabilisation was designed to consolidate it.

 

This triangulated alignment, British designs, American militarisation, Israeli strategic beneficiaries, illustrates the convergent yet differentiated nature of imperial power in West Asia. Britain functioned as the cartographer, mapping lines of partition and manufacturing secessionist identities; Washington supplied the economic, military, and covert infrastructure to operationalise destabilisation; Israel, meanwhile, stood as both catalyst and ultimate beneficiary, embedding its security imperatives within the broader Anglo-American strategy.

Far from ad hoc policy convergence, this represents a coherent architecture of control. The Lewis Plan served as the conceptual interface, translating overlapping interests into an integrated framework of managed instability, where sovereignty was dismantled, identities weaponised, and the very map of West Asia redrawn to ensure perpetual dependency.

 

 

CARTER, THE SHAHANSHAH, AND BRITISH HOSTILITY

Why was Mohammad Reza Shah targeted, despite being a longstanding ally of the West? The answer lies at the intersection of Cold War geopolitics, energy politics, and imperial rivalry, where Washington, London, and Tel Aviv converged on a shared objective: neutralise Iran’s trajectory as an independent power.

 

For Washington, two factors were decisive. First was growing suspicion that the Shah was drifting towards the Soviet Union, threatening U.S. strategic primacy in West Asia. In 1975, Iran signed a landmark pipeline agreement with Moscow and West Germany, labelled by Soviet officials as the ‘deal of the century’, to link Iranian natural gas directly to European markets while bypassing U.S. control (Executive Intelligence Review, 1979, p. 2). This project promised to undermine America’s leverage over global energy flows and strengthen Tehran’s autonomy. When the 1979 revolution toppled the Imperial government, Khomeini swiftly annulled the agreement and even ordered sections of the pipeline destroyed, eliminating one of Washington’s primary concerns while entrenching Iran’s economic dependency (Executive Intelligence Review, 1978, p. 37).

 

Second was personal and political hostility between the Shah and President Jimmy Carter. The Shah had covertly channelled $120 million into Gerald Ford’s re-election campaign to prevent Carter’s rise to power, reportedly describing Carter as ‘an inexperienced fool like Kennedy’ who ‘knows nothing of politics’ (Barseghian, 2016). After assuming office, Carter’s punitive posture towards Iran reflected not only ideological differences but also a deliberate personal vendetta. Carter recast the Shah, once celebrated as Washington’s “pillar of stability”, into a liability, using Iran’s growing unrest to orchestrate regime change under the guise of defending ‘human rights’.

 

British antagonism, however, predated Carter and ran deeper. Since Reza Shah’s nationalisation of oil infrastructure in the 1930s, his expulsion of British troops, and his refusal to subordinate Iran’s sovereignty to clerical elites historically cultivated by London, the Pahlavis were viewed as an obstacle to Britain’s enduring regional dominance. Mohammad Reza Shah’s industrialisation programmes in the 1960s and 70s, nuclear development, infrastructure expansion, and state-led modernisation, threatened to transform Iran into the preeminent power in West Asia, undermining Britain’s traditional role as arbiter of Persian Gulf oil (Brewda, 1995, p. 10). London thus had every incentive to destabilise Tehran, aligning itself with Washington to remove a nationalist regime it could no longer control.

 

The result was an extraordinary convergence: Britain sought to reclaim influence, Washington used Islamism to erode Soviet leverage and contain Iranian autonomy, and Israel benefitted directly from a fragmented regional order. Far from being the ‘spontaneous popular uprising’ celebrated in Western media, the 1979 revolution emerges as the culmination of a decades-long strategy, a triangulated operation designed to dismantle Iran’s modernising trajectory, entrench sectarian governance, and reconfigure the balance of power across West Asia in accordance with the Lewis Plan.

 

 

REDEFINITION: WEAPONISING ANTI-SEMITISM TO CRIMINALISE ANTI-ZIONISM

Although outside the boundaries of this paper, Bernard Lewis’s power did not lie only in engineering states and Islamist infrastructures. It lay equally in his ability to control discourse — to redraw the boundaries of political legitimacy by redefining anti-Zionism as pathology. Through academic authority, media influence, and state policy frameworks, Lewis rewrote the very grammar through which Palestinian resistance, Arab nationalism, and anti-imperial struggles were understood, turning solidarity into suspicion and opposition into criminality.

 

At the heart of this strategy was the systematic conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism (Beinin, 1987). Lewis pioneered this discursive manoeuvre within British and American institutions from the 1960s onwards, embedding it into think-tank reports, journal articles, and policy briefings. By collapsing political critique of Israel’s colonial project into a narrative of irrational hatred, he created an epistemic weapon capable of discrediting entire movements for liberation. Palestinian self-determination was reframed not as anti-colonial resistance but as a symptom of civilisational inferiority, irrationality, or fanaticism — categories Lewis carefully developed in his Orientalist analyses.

 

This reframing served multiple objectives. For Israel, it neutralised Palestinian claims by pathologising them, reducing historic dispossession to a cultural defect or religious fixation. For Anglo-American power, it delegitimised pan-Arab and pan-Islamic movements by positioning them outside the sphere of rational political actors, unworthy of negotiation or equal recognition. For Persian Gulf's Arab  monarchies, it provided ideological justification for suppressing solidarity movements internally while aligning publicly with Western-Israeli strategic imperatives.

 

Lewis operationalised this discursive shift across multiple platforms simultaneously. At Princeton, SOAS, and later within RAND and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, his scholarship constructed an interpretive framework in which Arab and Muslim political subjectivities were consistently cast as inherently unstable, sectarian, and violent. In major policy briefings, he redefined anti-Zionist mobilisation as a civilisational crisis requiring Western intervention — framing colonial management as both inevitable and benevolent. His narratives seeped into Foreign Office white papers, Pentagon strategy documents, and NATO frameworks, embedding ideological control into the mechanics of governance.

 

Within media networks, Lewis’s influence was equally decisive. Through op-eds in The New York Times, Foreign Affairs, and The Times of London, he crafted public narratives that re-inscribed Israeli power as defensive necessity while recoding Palestinian resistance as existential threat. His position as a mediator between academia, policy, and journalism allowed him to control how anti-Zionism was understood both by elites and the wider public, ensuring that sympathy for Palestinian liberation could be marginalised and structurally delegitimised.

 

This redefinition had material consequences. By collapsing anti-Zionism into antisemitism, Lewis created the ideological preconditions for securitising pro-Palestinian movements globally. States from London to Washington, Paris to Berlin, adopted legal frameworks criminalising forms of solidarity under the guise of combating hate. University campuses were transformed into contested terrains where research, activism, and student organising came under surveillance, censored under policies directly shaped by Lewis’s epistemic designs. Political resistance was no longer debated; it was pathologised, managed, and, where necessary, outlawed.

 

This was not merely a propaganda project but an act of epistemic colonisation. By remapping the terms through which liberation could be articulated, Lewis ensured that Palestinian voices were systematically displaced from the domain of legitimate politics. His narratives weaponised history, turning scholarship into a tool for policing dissent and neutralising transnational solidarity. Anti-Zionism became unspeakable within elite institutions while Zionism was recast as synonymous with liberal democracy, progress, and security — categories Lewis deployed to mask ongoing dispossession and apartheid.

 

Seen within the wider framework of his strategic interventions, Lewis’s redefinition of anti-Zionism functioned as an ideological foundation for the management of West Asia. By constructing an intellectual regime in which opposition to Israel could be equated with irrational hostility, he provided the justificatory language through which Anglo-American-Israeli dominance could be normalised and institutionalised. What appears as scholarly neutrality was, in effect, the production of a discursive weapon — one whose effects continue to shape policy, suppress dissent, and fracture movements for liberation across the region and beyond.

 

 

DEATH AND CONTINUITY

Bernard Lewis’s death was marked by solemn tributes in Western policy circles and among Zionist elites, where he was celebrated as a “sage” of Middle Eastern affairs. In Iran and across much of West Asia, however, his passing was greeted less as loss than as release. Yet Lewis’s death did not extinguish the project he laboured to design, legitimise, and embed. The doctrines he helped construct, the logic of managed destabilisation, permanent partition, and externally manufactured conflict, survive him. What ends with Lewis is only a biography; the strategy persists.

 

The rhetoric of imperial fragmentation has adapted but not disappeared. Once framed overtly in terms of “dismemberment,” the discourse now moves through euphemisms: “federalism,” “minority rights,” “self-determination”, terms deployed as ideological veneers for strategies of controlled dissolution. These are not abstract slogans but operational frameworks reproduced in think tanks, security councils, and policy memos, ensuring that Lewis’s blueprints remain embedded within Anglo-American and Israeli strategic planning.

 

Iranian dissident literature underscores the continuity of these doctrines on the ground. Lewis’s intellectual progeny manifest less as individual disciples than as an infrastructure of militias, insurgencies, and proxy forces aligned with Western designs. From Ahwazi terrorist cells operating in Khuzestan to Kurdish insurgent formations in Iran’s northwest, openly supported by Israel, the operational mechanisms Lewis envisaged remain active and adaptive (Brewda, 1992). These networks function simultaneously as pressure points and pretexts, sustaining instability while rationalising ongoing intervention.

 

The bitter truth, as activists argue, is that much of Lewis’s blueprint has already been executed. The overthrow of the Shah, the imposition of clerical theocracy, the dismantling of Iran’s industrial and civic gains, the suppression of secular modernity, and the engineered fracturing of OPEC solidarity, all of these were enacted with precision. What remains unfulfilled is the territorial break-up of Iran itself, the final stage of the Lewis Plan’s cartographic imagination. That absence, however, should not be misread as permanence.

 

Lewis’s death marks neither the defeat of his vision nor the collapse of the machinery he helped construct. The intellectual frameworks he supplied, institutionalised within Anglo-American and Israeli policy architectures, remain active, reproducing themselves through think-tank networks, military doctrines, and proxy warfare. Lewis the man has passed; Lewis the doctrine endures.

 

 

RESISTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY

The Iranian question remains unresolved, and the stakes could not be higher. For dissidents, intellectuals, and political activists, the task is neither abstract nor deferred: to seize the moment, transcend factionalism, and resist dismemberment. No foreign power, whether Western strategists, Israeli planners, or clerical elites aligned with imperial interests, will safeguard Iran’s sovereignty. That responsibility rests upon Iranians themselves, through unity forged across ideological, sectarian, and class divides.

 

The Lewis Plan exposes the brutality of imperial logic but also clarifies its stakes. If the disintegration of Iran was imagined in London, Washington, and Tel Aviv as the keystone for reshaping West Asia, then the resistance to that project must be equally systemic. Activists argue that Iran’s survival depends on constructing a polity anchored in Iranian culture, historical continuity, and territorial integrity, while simultaneously transcending the authoritarianism of the clerical state and the manipulations of external actors (Engdahl, 2004). Without this reassertion of sovereignty, Iran risks becoming not just a battlefield of competing proxies but a permanently fractured terrain, its capacity for independent agency extinguished.

 

Imperialism thrives on division, and nowhere is this more evident than in the operational mechanics of the Lewis Plan. Its core assumption, that sovereignty can be dismantled by inflaming internal fractures, remains alive in contemporary policy doctrines. Dissident literature warns that separatist movements framed as struggles for “human rights,” “federalism,” or “minority recognition” must be interrogated critically. Such discourses often function less as emancipatory projects and more as extensions of divide-and-rule strategies cultivated by Britain, the United States, and Israel over decades (Executive Intelligence Review, 1979).

 

Resistance, then, requires political clarity: to distinguish between authentic pluralism and externally manufactured fragmentation; between the defence of cultural diversity and its instrumentalisation for imperial agendas. Solidarity is neither sentimental nor rhetorical; it is strategic necessity. Iran’s future depends upon rejecting the binaries imposed by clerical authoritarianism and imperial intervention alike, forging instead a vision of sovereignty rooted in historical continuity and collective self-determination.

 

 

CONCLUSION

Bernard Lewis, often presented as a historian, was in reality an imperial strategist who deployed history as a façade, merging falsification and revisionism with scholarship, espionage and propaganda into a unified architecture of power. His legacy endures not only in books and policy papers but also in the wreckage of wars, engineered revolutions, divisions, civil wars, and the persistent fragility of states such as Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya and Syria. The ‘Bernard Lewis Plan for the Middle East’, as it came to be known, laid the groundwork for later doctrines such as the Arc of Crisis and the Project for a New American Century, initially conceived in London and developed within Anglo-American and Israeli policy circles as a cartographic reordering of West Asia. Unfinished, it continues to cast its shadow across the region.

 

The intellectual task, for scholars and activists alike, is to strip away the euphemisms of policy discourse, to confront the ways in which Orientalist knowledge functions not as neutral analysis but as political weaponry, and to refuse the categories through which empire seeks to divide, govern, and dominate. To understand Lewis is to understand the entanglement of academic authority with militarised power, the conversion of history into strategy, of research into cartography, of theory into covert operations.

 

The political task is more urgent still: to resist fragmentation, defend sovereignty, and expose complicity, not only of external powers but also of the clerical and comprador elites who act as local auxiliaries of imperial design. The divisions engineered through sectarianism, separatist agitation, and manufactured ‘federalisms’ are not merely historical abstractions; they remain active infrastructures of control (Suren-Pahlav, 2014).

 

Bernard Lewis may be dead, but the machinery he helped to construct is not. The doctrines he authored endure within Anglo-American and Israeli strategic frameworks, institutionalised through think tanks, intelligence networks, and proxy warfare. To understand Lewis, therefore, is not an act of academic indulgence but a necessary act of resistance, one that recognises the past, confronts the present, and refuses the colonial futures still being mapped for West Asia.

 

 

REFERENCES

• Behar, D.M., Yunusbayev, B., Metspalu, M., et al. (2013) ‘The genome‑wide structure of the Jewish people’, Nature, 466(7303), pp. 238‑242.

• Beinin, J. (1987) ‘Bernard Lewis’s Anti-Semites’, MERIP Middle East Report, (147). Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3011952 (Accessed: 20 May 2018).

• Brewda, J. (1992) ‘New Bernard Lewis plan will carve up the Mideast’, Executive Intelligence Review, 19(43), p. 26.

• Burdman, M. (1980) ‘The Region Balkanization Plan Gains Momentum’, Executive Intelligence Review, 7(35), p. 39.

• Buruma, I. (2004) ‘Lost in Translation: The Two Minds of Bernard Lewis’, The New Yorker, 14 June. Available at: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/06/14/040614crbo_books (Accessed: 20 May 2018).

• Dreyfuss, R. (1980) Hostage to Khomeini. New York: New Benjamin Franklin House.

• Elhaik, E. (2013) ‘The missing link of Jewish European ancestry: contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian hypotheses’, Genome Biology and Evolution, 5(1), pp. 61–74. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evs119 (Accessed: 20 May 2018)

• Engdahl, F.W. (2004) A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. London: Pluto Press.

• Executive Intelligence Review (1978) ‘Banking and BP take aim at the Shah’, Executive Intelligence Review, 5(38), p. 37.

• Executive Intelligence Review (1979) ‘Executive Intelligence Review, Vol. 6’, Executive Intelligence Review, 24 April, pp. 19–21.

• Executive Intelligence Review (1979) The Bernard Lewis Plan and Western Strategy in the Middle East, pp. 23–25.

• Executive Intelligence Review (1981) ‘Muslim Brotherhood: London’s Shock Troops of the New Dark Ages’, Executive Intelligence Review, 8(41), p. 18.

• Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners (1979) Covert Operations Dossier.

• Gerecht, R.M. (2006) ‘The Last Orientalist’, The Weekly Standard, 5 June. Available at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/267ttvdc.ap (Accessed: 20 May 2018).

• Halliday, F. (1981) Soviet Policy in the Arc of Crisis. Washington, DC: Institute for Policy Studies.

• Haber, M., et al. (2017) ‘Continuity and Admixture in the Last Five Millennia of Levantine History from Ancient Canaanite and Present‑Day Lebanese Genomes’, American Journal of Human Genetics, 101(2), pp. 274‑282.

• Hirsh, M. (2004) ‘Bernard Lewis Revisited’, Washington Monthly, November. Available at: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0411.hirsh.html (Accessed: 20 May 2018).

• Hovannisian, R.G. (1999) Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

• Kramer, M. (1999) ‘Bernard Lewis’, in Kramer, M. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing. Vol. 1. London: Fitzroy Dearborn, pp. 719–720.

• Lazaridis, I., et al. (2016) ‘Genomic Insights into the Origin of Farming in the Ancient Near East’, Nature, 536(7617), pp. 419‑424.

• New York Times (2018) ‘Bernard Lewis, Eminent Historian of Islam, Dies at 101’, The New York Times, 21 May. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/obituaries/bernard-lewis-islam-scholar-dies.html (Accessed: 20 May 2018).

• Peretz, D. (1994) ‘Israel’s Foreign Policy Objectives in Lebanon: A Historical Overview’, in Collings, D. (ed.) Peace for Lebanon?: From War to Reconstruction. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp. 109–122.

• Said, E. (1978) Orientalism. New York: Pantheon.

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (1998) ‘From Ethno-Nation To Multi-Ethnicity: The Fabricated Myth And Illusion Of ‘Ethnic’ And ‘Ethnicity’ In Modern Iran’, suren-pahlav.com (20 November). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/from-ethno-nation-to-multi-ethnicity-the-fabricated-myth-and-illusion-of-ethnic-and-ethnicity.html (Accessed: 20 May 2018).

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2000) ‘A Death in Exile, Nation in Chains: Remembering Shahanshah Aryamehr’, Suren-Pahlav Foundation, 27 July. Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/a-death-in-exile-nation-in-chains-remembering-shahanshah-aryamehr.html (Accessed: 20 May 2018).

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2010) ‘Mullahs, the West and Zionism: The Diabolical Triangular Project for the Balkanisation of Iran’, suren-pahlav.com (12 February). Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/mullahs-west-zionism-diabolical-triangular-project-for-the-balkanisation-of-iran.html [Accessed: 20 May 2018].

• Suren-Pahlav, S. (2014) ‘The Federalist Trap; The Blueprint For Balkanisation of Iran’, Suren-Pahlav Foundation, 7 January. Available at: https://www.suren-pahlav.com/en/federalist-trap-the-blueprint-for-balkanisation-of-iran.html (Accessed: 20 May 2018).

• Telegraph (2003) ‘Profile: Professor Bernard Lewis’, The Telegraph, 28 May. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3602621/Profile-Professor-Bernard-Lewis.html (Accessed: 20 May 2018).

• Time Magazine (1979) ‘The Crescent of Crisis’, Time Magazine, 15 January. Available at: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,919995-1,00.html (Accessed: 20 May 2018).

• United Nations Security Council (1978) Resolutions 425 and 426 on the Situation in Lebanon.

• Wall Street Journal (2004) ‘WSJ article quoting Richard Perle’, The Wall Street Journal, February. Available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB107576070484918411 (Accessed: 20 May 2018).

• Xue, Y., Carmi, S., et al. (2017) ‘A population‑genetic study of the Ashkenazi Jews reveals a high degree of European admixture’, Nature Communications, 8:2064.