During the first week of December 2007, the American intelligence community released an NIE (“National Intelligence Estimate”) that Iran had stopped its nuclear program in 2003, four and half years ago. This “shoddy, politicized, outrageous parody…piece of propaganda” contradicted the May 2005 reports by more than a dozen intelligence agencies and the UN, a frequent apologist and protector of Iran that it was indeed pushing ahead with its weapons’ program .
What’s the reason for this obvious intrusion of politics into an already dangerous game of chicken? Whence does it come? What will happen, who will lose, who will ‘win’?
It is simple to explain and understand this radical and timely reversal of opinion which flies in the face of numerous condemnations and repeated deadlines for compliance issued by the UN and varied high officials from every geopolitical bloc.
Iran already has been encouraged to proceed with its programs and to attack or provoke preemption from Israel which has been told to go it alone.
At the Conference at Annapolis numerous ‘moderate’ and ‘allied’ Islamic states again denied that Israel, in any borders, could be a Jewish State and emphasized this by again refusing to sit next to Jews. Israel received not even the vague assurance of “peace” as at past confabs but that at some point, Mr. Bush said “security” would arise from those trained to preclude it. Again Israel was ordered to destroy Jewish homes and expel Jews from the Jewish heartland, the middle of the Jewish National Home . This is called withdrawal or "a gesture for peace."
In this context, the political function of this “intelligence estimate” serves the outcome scripted for the Jewish National Home by John Dove and the increasingly dominant pro-Arab faction of the Round Table since 1920. The message is blunt: because the world is now on notice that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, Israel will have to absorb a first strike from Iran or other sources. If it preempts, it will be blamed for being a paranoid warmonger and its role confirmed as the main cause of “the cycle of violence in the region.” The tangible form the ensuing storm of Jew-hatred whipped up by mass media will be that Israel hasten to “make more painful concessions,” expel more Jews and totally renounce Jewish sovereignty over more parts of the Promised Land.
This was the message of the partition resolution (not a law) of November 1947; the message of the Round Table meeting of spring 1939 (and the excuse for effectively banning Jewish immigration to Israel during the holocaust); the message of all the British-prompted pogroms of the 1920s and ‘30s; the message of the severing of the Gilead (“Transjordan”) from the Jewish National Home in 1922.
The situation also reminds one of 1973: because Iran is now said officially to not have a nuclear weapons program [sic], Israel’s counter-strike to any significant attack will be greeted by more than usually virulent condemnations of Israeli aggression and demands that Israel “make more painful concessions.”
Please note that no matter what the scenario and no matter where and when a Conference to advance regional “Peace” is held, no matter how much genocide is preached from mosques or embedded in school texts  the outcome already is scripted: Israel will have to make more painful concessions of the Promised Land from which any and all Jews will have to be physically expelled.
Elsewhere in the world it’s called “ethnic cleansing.” When it comes to Jews in the Jewish heartland, it’s fronted by a Secretary of State who claims to be inspired by pain at segregation: but clearly not at making Jews homeless and, like a Medieval inquisitor blaming them for all the region, and world’s problems.
Strip away the political verbiage and diplomatic mumbo-jumbo and we’re back in the Middle Ages, the inquisition and expulsions from 1183 (France) to the 20th century displacement and destruction of Jewish populations. This is the meaning of the NIE on Iran: it is war by other means, a war on the Jews which as we have shown is a war on Judaism by all those groups from Aquarian New Age types to the Vatican which, like the Arab League must be exulting that Jews are about to be expelled from Judea and Samaria leaving it, according to Department of Defense analyses, defenseless . "Jews out!"
The only just and safe alternative is for Jews to settle all their inheritance and ancient land: maximize strategic depth; minimize population density, develop the land, and live sovereign. “Live free or die”: they must have borrowed that motto from Hanukkah.
Eugene Narrett, PhD
1. Comments by Daniel Pipes in a column of December 12, 2007.
2. Lord Arthur Balfour reiterated for the record in a letter to the London Times, December 20, 1929 that “the British Empire and all the powers with whom it has been closely associated [inter alia, in the League of Nations] have solemnly declared their intention of again rendering Palestine the National Home of the Jewish people.” That is, that the entire area of the Mandate (today’s “Jordan” and Israel west of the Jordan River) as intended to be the Jewish National Home not just some of it as the Arab Federation backers sought to re-define it. See Samuel Katz, Lone Wolf: a Biography of Zev Jabotinsky (NY 1996), 1515. These forces have never let the matter rest and continue to compress and partition Israel. It’s their scripted outcome, the synthesis of the dialectic attrition they created and have nurtured by the pro and pan-Arab policies to this day.
3. See www.pmw.org.il Palestine Media Watch that details the content of school texts.
4. Report by Joint Chiefs of Staff produced in shortly after June 1967 war, pried loose by FOI and published by the Wall Street Journal in 1983. See map in Journal of ‘Palestine’ Studies, page 126. The top brass noted that Israel needed at a minimum to retain the entire “Gaza strip,” at least the western 80% of Judea and Samaria, more of the Golan Heights than is now in Israel, the east central and southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula.
Biography - Eugene Narrett, PhD
Eugene Narrett has been writing and teaching in the greater Boston area since 1979. He has published extesnively on American politics and culture and on the history and geopolitics of the Middle East. His two most recent books on these topics are Israel and the Endtimes: Writings on the Logic and Surface Turbulence of History (2006, Authorhouse.com) and WW III: the War on the Jews and the Rise of the World Security State (2007, www.lightcatcherbooks.com.