Professor Eugene Narrett on the Dialectics of Terror
Video from Lighthouse Publishers: Ten Minutes with Eugene Narrett
Professor Narrett has been instrumental in helping me make sense of Middle Eastern politics. He’s so brilliant my head hurts after reading his books but after awhile, I start catching on, at least to the major points. Here’s another great op-ed piece from him at Arutz Sheva. I’ve only published part of the piece. To read it in it’s entirety, along with Professor Narrett’s footnotes, click here:
The dialectic of managed terror, attrition and threats of major conflict is growing in the Middle East. The client states in the region now are grouped into two clearly identifiable blocs, one of which is escalating rhetoric and armaments at an alarming rate. One may feel, at least at the edges of consciousness a heightening of terror. When violence occurs, the major media, mouth pieces of the powers will urge salvation through regional solutions arranged by the Quartet and United Nations.
Threats and tensions have reached such a high level that a series of explosions at Iran’s main underground base, near Khorramabad in the western Iranian province of Lorestan, for the Shehab-3 ballistic missile, though “a devastating blow” to Iran’s offensive plans and pretensions is the least newsworthy of current events . One could say that the non-coverage of this major event is in inverse portion to the posturing and hatred of those most effected.
During his two-day visit to Beirut, continuing the absorption of Syria and Lebanon by Iran, Ahmadinejad “announced the formation of a new anti-Israel Eastern Front encompassing Iran, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinians and Iraq.” Amid the ranting against “the Zionist entity as the embodiment of the deception of the capitalist world order and [its] materialistic ideas,”  a phrase that could also have been written in Moscow or London, the Persian chieftain sketched two groupings that reflect the dialectic conflict of already extant encounters and future fighting.
A map shows that Ahmadinejad denotes a northern Middle Eastern grouping that is unstable and also a result of Anglo-American diplomatic maneuvers. Readers of Memri.org know that since 2003 the US State Department has driven Turkey toward Islamic – centered powers, alienating it from the Western coalition and facilitating its continued exclusion from the EU. Turkey’s recent receipt of SU -27 and Mig-29 fighters from China , arriving just as the Persian spree in the Lebanon occurred accentuates this northern grouping and obscures the instability of any arrangement between Syria and Turkey except that based on oppressing the Kurds, semi-autonomous in Northern Iraq.
Given the thorough integration of the Chinese and American economies, and thus of their sustainability, this military posturing is mainly about heightening dialectic tensions in the Middle East; it more reflects Chinese-NATO collaboration than tensions. The same could be said regarding Russia who consults with the State Department about the ways in which to encourage and disable Iran or at least to pretend to do so.
If Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and the ‘Palestinians’ constitute one grouping, their antithesis consists of Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and Egypt. The countries of Russia, China and their dependencies, like North Korea whose missiles are shipped to and adapted by Iran, back the north, more or less openly, while NATO backs the south and the EU frets around the middle, lost in the corruption and spectacular egoism that attends the corruption of its tradition, the growth of superstition and hyper-individualism .
The fact that most of the States in both groupings are artificial, constructed by the great powers, principally Britain in the last century, heightens the ability of the powers to manipulate the conflict through financial and other emoluments to their clients; the intrinsic volatility of the situation attests to the egomania within Esau’s monomaniacal re-structuring of the world to suit his grand games. Every time you hear a great power diplomat, politician or their client with a pronouncement just recall the phrase, “game was in his mouth” (Genesis 25:28). “Esau, he is Edom.”
While these events occurred at the northern border of Israel, one of the few genuine nations in the region and the one whose principle of shlaimut, integrity and wholeness, is ignored by its political handlers, instructed not by the wisdom of Torah but by the masters in London and Washington, said little and did less. Torah stipulates what today are called “preemptive strikes” on States like Iran, Syria and Hezbollah-Lebanon; but it did nothing. The inactivity was compared to the ostensible lameness of Chamberlain in delivering Europe to Hitler’s Germany . The analogy is apt but not for the reasons routinely assumed.
Those who cite historical precedents claim that the administration of Neville Chamberlain was obtuse, cowardly and passive. On the contrary, its relentless drive toward its goal, a Europe dominated by Germany that could be used to terrify America into an enduring servitude to ‘the mother country’ and entice the Soviet Union into an otherwise implausible alliance as part of merging the two systems (as argued by Wells, Julian Huxley, Churchill and many others ) was eminently successful. It also encouraged and enabled German-led Europeans to slaughter the Jews thus ‘proving’ Esau’s god and deforming a Jewish State that might have interfered with Britain’s plans for a regional Arab dependency “with its front door on the Mediterranean,” as longtime Round Table editor John Dove wrote. . The Jews who fought in the “Underground” set back the British plan but, cramped by the client regime of the establishment Yishuv they could not destroy it by establishing a fully sovereign and integral Israel .
Cross-posted at Avid Editor’s Insights
Ahmadinejad Plays the Game by Aliwood Studios Photostream