Romney: A new sheriff in town?
Soumaya Saleh
With American presidential elections just around the corner, candidates are willing to play their best cards to win majority votes, be they true- or not.
According to one of Mitt Romney's right hand men, Richard Williamson, Romney will demonstrate to Iran that there's a new sheriff in town. According to Williamson, Romney's priorities, before turning to the affairs of the domestic realm, are with foreign policy. At the forefront of this, are: the credibility of war with Tehran, arming the Syrian rebels, and visiting "Israel" ahead of anything else.
Rather confidently, Williamson, Romney's foreign policy adviser, bragged to "Israeli" newspaper "Haaretz" that "When Mitt Romney is president, Iran will understand that there is a new sheriff in town and that his position is that the only thing worse than the U.S. using force would be for Iran to have nuclear weapons"
Furthermore, the assertive politician overtly criticised the democrats' lack of capacity to inculcate fear among both Syrian and Iranian systems: "Iran knows there is no credible military threat from Barack Obama," illuminated by Obama's "feckless and ineffective leadership".
Overlooking all the efforts of appeasement the Obama administration has been offering "Israel", Williamson conceded that "As Bismarck said: Diplomacy without a credible use of force is like music without instruments. And when "Israel" has talked about the range of options they may have to consider to protect their own interest, the Obama administration has done its best to make it difficult if not impossible for "Israel" to do what it must."
Williamson did not stop at this however, and continued to play the finger pointing game. He blamed the current state of the Middle East on the ineffectuality of Obama's approach to foreign policy, and that Romney's approach was to end Obama's "mother, may I" style vis-à-vis coordinating moves on Syria, with China and Russia. In saying this, he claimed that Romney favors arming "the moderate elements" of the Syrian opposition.
Illuminating US intentions toward foreign policy, the former US ambassador to the UN for political affairs, did not fail to identify Russia as a threat to the autonomy of America. He labeled Russia as America's "number one geo-political foe", whom he also conceded "not only has a domestic authoritarian drift" but is "working against American interests" in both Syria and Iran. Further claiming that Americas interest in Syria was merely "strategic."
One would have thought that Obama's appeasement towards "Israel" had reached its limit, but Williamson, speaking in an interview sanctioned by the Romney campaign headquarters, stated that "one of the results of his foreign policy is that our friends and allies, including Great Britain, "Israel" and others, have not had their interests taken into account, have not been consulted closely, and there isn't a constructive working relationship."
It becomes questionable here, exactly who Romney is aiming to appeal to, merely the American public, or the Zionist entity? Who exactly holds the key to the presidential seat?
This became rather interesting when Williamson referred to an incident in 2010 with Prime Minister Joe Biden, proclaiming that "in a Romney Administration, an American vice president won't act like a teenager and keep the elected prime minister of "Israel" waiting for 45 minutes for dinner, because of a personal pique." Well they do say a hungry man is an angry man.
From Romney's perspective, the relationship between him and "Israeli" Prime Minister Netanyahu is so close, expressing "we can almost speak in shorthand". This was contrary to a statement from the "Israeli" prime minister to "Vanity Fair", where he was quoted saying "I don't think we had any particular connection".
Williamson also confirmed Romney's intentions to travel to the occupied land ahead of any other trips abroad, saying that "that was his decision, his statement, and he's a man who's good to his word."
No doubt would this trip be necessary in order to solidify Romney's allegiance to the Zionist entity, but which faction of the American voters will this appeal to? The majority, or the far- reaching 2.1%??
With American presidential elections just around the corner, candidates are willing to play their best cards to win majority votes, be they true- or not.
According to one of Mitt Romney's right hand men, Richard Williamson, Romney will demonstrate to Iran that there's a new sheriff in town. According to Williamson, Romney's priorities, before turning to the affairs of the domestic realm, are with foreign policy. At the forefront of this, are: the credibility of war with Tehran, arming the Syrian rebels, and visiting "Israel" ahead of anything else.
Rather confidently, Williamson, Romney's foreign policy adviser, bragged to "Israeli" newspaper "Haaretz" that "When Mitt Romney is president, Iran will understand that there is a new sheriff in town and that his position is that the only thing worse than the U.S. using force would be for Iran to have nuclear weapons"
Furthermore, the assertive politician overtly criticised the democrats' lack of capacity to inculcate fear among both Syrian and Iranian systems: "Iran knows there is no credible military threat from Barack Obama," illuminated by Obama's "feckless and ineffective leadership".
Overlooking all the efforts of appeasement the Obama administration has been offering "Israel", Williamson conceded that "As Bismarck said: Diplomacy without a credible use of force is like music without instruments. And when "Israel" has talked about the range of options they may have to consider to protect their own interest, the Obama administration has done its best to make it difficult if not impossible for "Israel" to do what it must."
Williamson did not stop at this however, and continued to play the finger pointing game. He blamed the current state of the Middle East on the ineffectuality of Obama's approach to foreign policy, and that Romney's approach was to end Obama's "mother, may I" style vis-à-vis coordinating moves on Syria, with China and Russia. In saying this, he claimed that Romney favors arming "the moderate elements" of the Syrian opposition.
Illuminating US intentions toward foreign policy, the former US ambassador to the UN for political affairs, did not fail to identify Russia as a threat to the autonomy of America. He labeled Russia as America's "number one geo-political foe", whom he also conceded "not only has a domestic authoritarian drift" but is "working against American interests" in both Syria and Iran. Further claiming that Americas interest in Syria was merely "strategic."
One would have thought that Obama's appeasement towards "Israel" had reached its limit, but Williamson, speaking in an interview sanctioned by the Romney campaign headquarters, stated that "one of the results of his foreign policy is that our friends and allies, including Great Britain, "Israel" and others, have not had their interests taken into account, have not been consulted closely, and there isn't a constructive working relationship."
It becomes questionable here, exactly who Romney is aiming to appeal to, merely the American public, or the Zionist entity? Who exactly holds the key to the presidential seat? This became rather interesting when Williamson referred to an incident in 2010 with Prime Minister Joe Biden, proclaiming that "in a Romney Administration, an American vice president won't act like a teenager and keep the elected prime minister of "Israel" waiting for 45 minutes for dinner, because of a personal pique." Well they do say a hungry man is an angry man.
From Romney's perspective, the relationship between him and "Israeli" Prime Minister Netanyahu is so close, expressing "we can almost speak in shorthand". This was contrary to a statement from the "Israeli" prime minister to "Vanity Fair", where he was quoted saying "I don't think we had any particular connection".
Williamson also confirmed Romney's intentions to travel to the occupied land ahead of any other trips abroad, saying that "that was his decision, his statement, and he's a man who's good to his word."
No doubt would this trip be necessary in order to solidify Romney's allegiance to the Zionist entity, but which faction of the American voters will this appeal to? The majority, or the far- reaching 2.1%??
Comments
