Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney have a long-standing friendship that dates back to 1976, when they both worked as corporate advisers to the Boston Consulting Group.
Despite some efforts to downplay the 36-year relationship, both men have noted that they formed a lasting bond during the time they spent working together at the Boston Consulting Group. In a New York Times article from April, Romney and Netanyahu were both quoted saying they share a common worldview in many respects.
Romney told the newspaper: “We can almost speak in shorthand. We share common experiences and have a perspective and underpinning which is similar.”
And Netanyahu described their communication as follows: “[D]espite our very different backgrounds, my sense are that we employ similar methods in analyzing problems and coming up with solutions for them.”
Now with Romney in the running for President, the close relationship between candidate and Israeli Prime Minister is an unprecedented one that may pose some heavy questions about the future of American foreign policy in the Mideast and how Israel-dominated its direction will be.
One of Romney’s closest foreign policy advisers is Dan Senor, a high-profile and decidedly neocon foreign policy expert whose resume includes advocating a number of Bush-era Mideast foreign policy initiatives. But even when George W. Bush was hesitant to unleash an American or Israeli military assault on Iran because of a stretched-thin military battling in Iraq and Afghanistan, people from Senor’s school of thought were openly calling for the United States to embark on an aggressive bombing campaign against the nation. Senor has exhibited a career-spanning support for Israel and was reportedly one of the key orchestrators of Romney’s recent legally questionable campaign fundraising event in Israel where he received money from a number of unnamed donors who were alleged to have been linked with illegal diamond trading.
Indeed, Senor is not the only pro-Israel advocate tied to the Romney campaign. In a recently leaked video, Romney admitted that his campaign uses the same consultants that manipulate campaigns the world over to garner favor for the globalist-backed candidate in a given race. He said:
I have a very good team of extraordinarily experienced, highly successful consultants, a couple of people in particular who have done races around the world, I didn’t realize it. These guys in the US – the Karl Rove equivalents – they do races all over the world: in Armenia, in Africa, in Israel. I mean, they work for Bibi Netanyahu in his race. So, they do these races and they see which ads work, and which processes work best, and we have ideas about what we do over the course of the campaign. I’d tell them to you, but I’d have to shoot you.
Romney’s allusion to his international thought shapers raises questions about the true origin and purpose of events that have transpired in recent weeks throughout the Mideast and what Israeli-manipulated shenanigans may unfold over the next month leading up to the election.
Here’s another telling remark from the same Romney speech:
[I]n the Jimmy Carter election, the fact that we had hostages in Iran, I mean, that was all we talked about. And we had the two helicopters crash in the desert, I mean, that was the focus, and so him solving that made all the difference in the world. I’m afraid today that if you simply got Iran to agree to stand down on nuclear weapons, they’d go, “Now hold on. It’s really a-” I mean, if something of that nature presents itself I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.
Will a manufactured Iran crisis arise before November? Only time will tell, but it is getting pretty close to October surprise season. And given the amount of speculation that the recent round of Mideast riots are part of a psyops ploy, it isn’t implausible.
Paying attention to American/Israeli news coverage, one cannot help but notice Netanyahu’s recent push for media visibility in the United States. He has essentially inserted himself into the 2012 Presidential campaign.
Netanyahu has repeatedly made critical statements about Obama’s foreign policy stance of crippling economic sanctions and patience to stifle Iran’s nuclear ambitions, saying that the United States must essentially draw a line in the sand and dare the Iranian regime to step over it.
He had this to say on MSNBC’s “Meet the Press”:
I actually I read this in the American press. They said, well, you know, if you take action, that’s– that’s a lot worse than having Iran with nuclear weapons. Some have even said that Iran with nuclear weapons would stabilize the Middle East– stabilize the Middle East. I– I think the people who say this have set a new standard for human stupidity. We have to stop them. Don’t rely on containment. That is not the American policy. It would be wrong. It would be a grave, grave mistake. Don’t let these fanatics have nuclear weapons. It’s terrible for Israel and it’s terrible for America. It’s terrible for the world.
Whether Obama or Romney assume the office of President following the election matters not to Netanyahu, because Israeli influence in America’s military-industrial complex and legislature guarantees American backing of Israel should it launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran. But his relationship with Romney and Romney’s promise to telephone him with questions like “Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?” before making key American foreign-policy decisions make Netanyahu’s most-favorable option clear.
With the prospect of a virtual handover of Mideast foreign policy decision-making to the Israeli government, American voters can bet that Netanyahu, with the help of Mossad, will do everything in his power to ensure that Romney takes the White House.
Many “conservatives” reading this are likely saying to themselves, “Good, anything to get Obama out of the Oval Office.” And unfortunately, they have been brainwashed into believing that support for Israel is a biblical mandate that directly affects American prosperity through divine intervention. (That doesn’t sound all too different than the way some other cultures make policy decisions, does it?)
But the harsh and unavoidable reality for more pragmatic thinkers is that Romney’s willingness to give Israel such a powerful role in American policy goes against any true patriotic value left over from our Nation’s founding.
During his farewell address in 1796, President George Washington gave a grave warning against the very kind of relationship the United States has cultivated with Israel, a relationship that Romney seeks to further embolden with Israeli power in American decision-making.
[A] passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
… Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.
… Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
Of course, more prophetic was probably Washington’s understanding that money and zealotry would lead the Nation astray and into a spiraling collapse as he said later in the speech: “I dare not hope they [these counsels] will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit…”
There are thousands of reasons to support “anyone but Obama” for President and maybe even a few reasons to believe that Romney would make a good President. His slobbering love for Netanyahu and willingness to wholly entangle the United States in the battle between Muslims and Jews are not those reasons. Anyone who believes otherwise cannot be called a true conservative, and most definitely not a patriot, in the sort of Nation envisioned by America’s Founding Fathers.