Clean break report
Executive summary
The “Clean Break” report — formally A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm — was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for then–Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and argued Israel should “make a clean break” from previous policies, emphasizing a new strategic posture and regional power shifts [1] [2]. Authors included Douglas Feith, Meyrav Wurmser and others; the paper urged stronger, more proactive measures toward regional actors and recommended working with states like Turkey and Jordan to roll back threats [3] [1] [2].
1. What the report is and who wrote it
The Clean Break document is a 1996 policy paper produced by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu; its roster included neoconservative figures such as Douglas Feith and Meyrav Wurmser and interleaves commentary with “key passages of a possible speech” urging a strategic rupture from past Israeli policy [1] [2]. Multiple sources identify it as a think‑tank style blueprint rather than an official government white paper, produced for an incoming prime minister’s consideration [2].
2. Core prescriptions and strategic framing
The paper frames Israel’s opportunity to “make a clean break” from what it calls continuity — replacing it with a new intellectual foundation focused on restoring strategic initiative, economic reform, and a foreign‑policy strategy based on balance of power and preemption in some contexts [3] [2]. It explicitly recommends working with regional actors such as Turkey and Jordan to “contain, destabilize, and roll‑back” hostile forces, and argues for abandoning earlier diplomatic frameworks in favor of more assertive options [3].
3. Contested readings: regime change and regional repercussions
Some commentators and later analysts read the paper as advocating aggressive regional measures and even regime change; opinion pieces and retrospective accounts link Clean Break language — such as the notion of a “New Middle East” and reestablishing a principle of preemption — to later U.S. and Israeli policies, and suggest overlap between authors’ later roles and 2000s policy choices [4] [2]. Critics argue these prescriptions contributed to a broader hawkish current in Washington and Jerusalem; supporters or neutral descriptions present it as strategic advice, not a direct order to implement regime change [2] [4].
4. Influence vs. causation: how direct was its impact?
Scholars and journalists note overlap between several Clean Break authors later occupying influential positions in U.S. policy circles, and they raise the question of influence on later actions such as the Iraq War — but available sources vary in asserting direct causal links. Wikipedia and journalistic retrospectives document the personnel overlap and observe that the report’s themes reappeared in public rhetoric, while analyses caution that a paper for an Israeli leader is not, by itself, proof that it directly caused major U.S. decisions [2] [4].
5. How the report is used in contemporary debate
Contemporary opinion pieces invoke the Clean Break doctrine when critiquing current Israeli administrations or U.S. policy that appear to favor preemption or regional realignment; for example, columnists recommend rejecting a “Clean Break” approach as a path away from negotiated peace [5]. Conversely, other commentators treat it as an explanatory document for a strand of strategic thinking rather than a conspiratorial blueprint [2] [6].
6. Variants, reproductions and public access
The original text and multiple reproductions circulate online via sites that host the PDF and excerpts; summaries and critical essays are widely available, and some outlets emphasize the report’s speechlike passages and six or so policy recommendations directed to Netanyahu [1] [7]. Different reproductions and secondary accounts sometimes amplify or compress claims; readers should compare the text itself (available in reproductions) with journalistic and scholarly analysis to separate direct quotations from interpretive claims [1] [7].
7. Limitations, disagreements and what reporting does not say
Reporting documents the paper’s authorship, language and recommendations, and notes overlaps between its authors and later policymakers, but available sources do not establish a single, definitive causal chain proving the report “caused” later wars or regime changes; some analysts draw strong connections while others treat them as indicative of shared ideas rather than direct implementation orders [4] [2]. Sources also differ on whether the report’s recommendations were ever formally adopted by an Israeli government [2].
8. Bottom line for readers
The Clean Break paper is an influential 1996 policy memo authored by prominent neoconservative and Israeli advisers recommending a strategic rupture in Israeli policy and more assertive regional tactics; it has become a focal point in debates about the intellectual origins of hawkish Middle East strategies, but claims that it alone engineered subsequent wars exceed what the provided reporting proves [1] [2] [4]. Readers should consult the original text alongside critical commentaries to distinguish direct recommendations from later interpretive claims [1] [2].