Armageddon Knights: The Romney-Netanyahu Friendship

By LUIS R. MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | APRIL 9, 2012

An old friendship that is rooted in 1976 could spell trouble for Iran. Mitt Romney, the leading presidential candidate for the Republican party in the United States has not been shy about his intentions to attack Iran in order to prevent that country from developing a nuclear weapon. In fact, Mr. Romney has been extremely critical of current US president Barack Obama, for not fully supporting an attack on Iranian nuclear sites. Is Tel Aviv, his old pal Benjamin Netanyahu thinks the same way. Opposing views to an attack on Iran, such as that of former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, warn that a pre-emptive Jewish attack on Iran will open the door for endless regional warfare between Israel and militia terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, that will work as Iran’s proxy armies.

In addition to Dagan’s warning, no intelligence agency in the world has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Iran is either seeking or fabricating a nuclear weapon. According to Dagan, western Iranian foes aren’t even sure how many nuclear sites Iran has and where are they exactly located. Dagan said that Israel and its western partners have at least three years to find common ground with Iran and with this, avoid a military confrontation. The former Israeli spy chief says that should war break out between Iran and Israel, he envisions a very difficult future for this country. He has called on Benjamin Netanyahu to call off any intent to attack Iran.

According to the New York Times, Romney’s friendship with Netanyahu began while both men worked as corporate advisers in Boston, Mass. Their shared work experience in the corporate world made their friendship a very cozy one. Now, these two men could find themselves in opposite sides of the world, holding two of the most powerful offices in the planet while sharing the same goal: attacking Iran. The likelihood of an American, Jewish or a joint attack on Iran is not less likely to happen under Obama, who has not send American troops into harms way due in part to the heavy opposition at home, his poor poll ratings and the bad shape the American economy is in right now. Launching a new war, most likely without the approval from Congress or the American people would mean certain defeat for Obama.

This is why, Mr. Obama publicly, although inadvertently told Benjamin Netanyahu that he — Obama — needed more time to launch the attack, perhaps after his reelection in November. Barack Obama was caught telling Netanyahu that once was elected, he would have more time to plan and work out events such as attack on the Iranians. The gaffe confirmed Obama’s intention to carry out an attack on Iran, just not now. In fact, American war ships have begun leaving the fiery Strait of Hormuz area to their previous homes. Analysts now believe that either Israel or the United States may launch a military strike during the summer of 2013.

According to the Times, the relationship between Romney and Netanyahu has been kept warm by multiple encounters between the men over the years, and even strengthened by numerous mutual friends. This, says the NYT “has resulted in an unusually frank exchange of advice and insights on topics like politics, economics and the Middle East.” Could this mean that these two men have already figured out how to deal with Iran themselves, without any help from allies or even the US government? What is certainly true is that if Mr. Romney becomes US president in November 2012, the Israeli Prime Minister will indeed have a stronger partner should he decide to carry out an attack on Iran. Their friendship has not devolved or faded, not even through the American political campaign, with Mr. Romney giving Netanyahu personal advice on who to talk to in the United States in order to achieve his goal to divest American monies from Iranian investments. Previously, Netanyahu had advised Romney on how to shrink the size of government while the Republican presidential candidate was the governor of Massachusetts.

“Only a few weeks ago, on Super Tuesday, Mr. Netanyahu delivered a personal briefing by telephone to Mr. Romney about the situation in Iran,” reports the NYT. This and any other intelligence reporting by Netanyahu may come in handy, given that unless a terrorist attack hits the US between now and the November election, it is very possible that Mitt Romney will be the next US president. “We can almost speak in shorthand,” Mr. Romney has said. “We share common experiences and have a perspective and underpinning which is similar.” At the very least, these two men have learned that they agree on how to do things and the methods they may or may not use to solve any problems. “… despite our very different backgrounds, my sense is that we employ similar methods in analyzing problems and coming up with solutions for them,” said Benjamin Netanyahu.

The New York Times implies that the relationship between Netanyahu and Romney stands out because of the unlikelihood that two men of different backgrounds share a friendship that is so strong as theirs, while both have achieved such a relevant political stature. An educated hunch would propose that given the past and vision they share it is very likely that these two men were groomed — as it always happened — once they entered the political arena, to carry out an agenda. Mr. Netanyahu has already achieved his pinnacle, which is to hold the most influential government position in Israel, while Mitt Romney is well on his way to getting into office. The aspect of their relationship that is most worrying is Mr. Romney’s past statements which seem to show a high degree of loyalty towards Benjamin Netanyahu. In multiple occasions, Romney expressed his view that he would not dare make plans for Israel without first consulting his old friend Netanyahu. A similar position was expressed by Barack Obama, who said that he would not wait for the US Congress to make the decisions. Instead, he would act unilaterally and under the authority vested on him by the United Nations.

What Obama’s but most decisively Mitt Romney’s position on Israel’s role in the Middle East could mean is uncertain to this point. However, something that is clearer than ever is that if Mr. Romney gets into the White House in November, the state of Israel would have every door of the White House wide open, perhaps more than ever before. This means that the two most influential men on the planet who share a long and strong friendship would be able to openly discuss what they want to do with Iran in the short term; and with other countries like Syria and Pakistan in the long term. This is the kind of scenario that the world would expect if Mitt Romney gets into office. Similar results are to be expected if Obama wins re-election.

Short of a brokered convention for the Republican ticket in November that results in Mitt Romney not being on the ballot, it seems that two business men will have the future of the Middle East and perhaps the world in their hands come 2013. It is difficult to see how Barack Obama will stay in office after November, unless, as we pointed out before, a false-flag attack on the United States, or a fabricated emergency enables the current US president to remain in office for longer. Either way, war against Iran is inevitable; it is just a matter of when. The timing is very important, because a government preparations for war are not as seen from outside by the public or the media. Many details are taken into account, then they’re finely tuned and finally carefully executed. An attack on Iran by the summer of 2013 seems a likely outcome with either Obama or Romney in the Oval Office. What we still must learn is what instrument or instruments will they use to spark the flame: faulty intelligence, false-flag terrorist attacks, proxy wars, assassinations… The menu is large and diverse.

You may share our original content as long as you respect our copyright policy as shown on our website footer. Please don’t cut articles from The Real Agenda to redistribute by email or post to the web if you don’t follow our policies.

Ron Paul: ‘Kooky’ is to Invade Iraq, Kill Millions and Hand it to the Iranians

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
January 11, 2012

Presidential candidate Ron Paul came out to defend his record against those who call his foreign policy ‘kooky’. During an interview on Fox News this morning, Mr. Paul said that those who call him and his policy ‘kooky’ simply cannot defend themselves intellectually. The Congressman is talking about those pundits that the main stream dinosaur media often consult on air regarding a candidate’s points of view and plans for an eventual government.

After finishing third in Iowa and second in New Hampshire, Ron Paul has been making the rounds on the same main stream media shows that used to sideline him back in 2008 and who laughed at him just a few months ago. The very same pundits who support the Republican establishment candidates used to say that Mr. Paul was unimportant and that even a victory in Iowa would not mean anything.

While other candidates such as Newt Gingrich have to apologize for their unfortunate baseless attacks on fellow candidates as they retreat into their dark holes, Mr. Paul has gone around explaining to talking heads and the rest of the public why he’s been so successful with the young vote, that is, people with ages between 18 and 30, of whom Paul has garnered some 50 percent in Iowa and New Hampshire.

“If they say my foreign policy is kooky, maybe they ought to look at what is happening.” said Mr. Paul. “…invading a country like Iraq, who never did a thing to us, killing a lot of people and turning it over to the shiites who are allies with the Iranians, I call that kooky. I call it kooky allowing our president now to go into numerous countries, even today he went into another African country without permission of the Congress. Fighting undeclared wars, that is kooky, and that is why the American people are sick and tired of what we have.” Then he emphasized: “They choose that term to discredit me because I’m the consistent one.” Paul said alluding those who criticise him.

See the full video interview below:

But not even Paul’s meteoric success has prevented the main stream media from attacking him, using loaded questions during exclusive interviews, making straw man arguments about debunked accusations and so on. Mr. Paul has successfully explained the infamous issue of the newsletters and now, they have ran out of questions to ask. Do not expect the pundits and talking heads to stop asking him about it, though.

What you will not see the main stream media doing is questioning how Rick Santorum made it from single digits to tying Mitt Romney for first place in Iowa in just a week. That would be too much to ask. Neither the rest of the candidates asked for a public verification of the voting even though the Republican Party had announced they would take the counting to an undisclosed location.

“All I can do is do my best at the speaking rallies” said Paul later on an interview on MSNBC.

Since the mains stream media refuses to carry out their work, Mr. Paul has also had to come to their aid, rightfully identifying Mitt Romney as a Big Government Conservative. While on Morning Joe, Paul affirmed that someone who supports TARP and single mandate healthcare programs cannot be called a real conservative. “There is a large base in the Republican party who are saying We’ve been stomped too many times with people who are not convincingly enough good conservatives. That is the group of people who Mr. Paul hopes to attract with his long time record of conservative policies in economics, monetary, fiscal and social matters.”

When asked about whether he could maintain and increase the support of more voters, Mr. Paul reminded the audience that many people used to ignore him because they thought he couldn’t get out of the single digits and now those same people are questioning whether he can keep up with other candidates numbers. To this, Mr. Paul said: “But another thing is that people in this country are really afraid about the economy. Despite the fact there is a lot of wealth in this country, they realized it is all based on debt, and that is very unsteady.” Paul has been one of a handful of people who accurately predicted the current economic collapse, and the only candidate who has been warning about the impending economic depression for the past 30 years. That alone gives him a monumental edge against his opponents who have all been proponents of the same debt-based system that has brought the United States and the world down to shambles.

“That is why the message of liberty and sound financing, the message that I’ve been talking about is going to continue to grow,” said Paul.