SAEDNEWS: In a startling revelation, Professor Michael Hudson has disclosed that, during the 1970s, a cadre of US generals discussed partitioning Iran into multiple states—believing that controlling Middle Eastern oil was impossible without first subjugating Iran.
According to Saed News, in an exclusive interview, Professor Michael Hudson—an esteemed university academic and international affairs analyst—recounted his participation in a high‑level Pentagon briefing during the early 1970s. Invited by his colleague Herman Kahn to attend the session, Hudson heard US generals outline a plan to dismantle Iran into five or six ethnically defined regions.
“These officers argued that controlling Middle Eastern oil without subduing a major power like Iran was impossible,” Hudson recalled. “They discussed countering Iran’s independence by breaking the country into smaller, more manageable units.”
Hudson’s testimony sheds light on a covert strategic mindset that viewed Iran—as the region’s strongest power—as the key obstacle to US and allied dominance over the Gulf’s vast petroleum reserves. According to Hudson, the generals believed that only by fragmenting Iran along ethnic and regional lines could the United States secure reliable access to its oil fields.
The plan, discussed while Hudson was working at the Hudson Institute, involved redrawing boundaries to create a patchwork of client states, each too weak to challenge American interests. “In the early 1970s,” Hudson said, “I sat in a room with generals who openly debated severing Iran along ethnic divisions—Persians, Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis and others—as a means to ensure control over oil.”
While never publicly acknowledged, Hudson’s account suggests that ideas for radical regime change and territorial fragmentation were once entertained at the highest levels of US military planning. Critics argue that such proposals, had they been acted upon, would have led to decades of chaos and conflict—far outweighing any short‑term gains in oil security.
Today, as geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran persist, Hudson’s revelation prompts fresh scrutiny of past US strategies in the Middle East. It also raises urgent questions about the legacy of Cold War–era plans and their bearing on contemporary regional stability.
