Iran Remains The Main Target Of The Presidential Candidates’ Televised Debates On Foreign Policy Issues


Watching and listening to the roster of Republican Party candidates for the presidency of the United States debating matters of foreign policy should bring tears to the eyes of any sane adult. Who comprise this rather strange menagerie; how could they be best described?

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, a politician’s campaign strategy in not to educate or reveal to the public what he or she honestly believes to be the best policies for the administration to adopt. No; the politician’s aim is to woo his or her constituents by gauging their beliefs and emotions and catering to their mindsets in order to gain their votes. So, if you are a politician running for the mayor of a small town in the perfectly flat plains of rural Kansas, by golly, the earth is flat and there ain’t no two ways about it!

By the same token, how could a politician running for office as a conservative Republican candidate not act hawkish and belligerent toward the issue of Iran? Some of our War Party candidates must know better, but choose to appear aggressively enough hawkish in order to compete with the others on national TV. Some are basically illiterate when it comes to international affairs, but feel the pressure and swim with the prevailing currents. Others suffer from deep religious or other prejudices and cannot see beyond their myopic, intellectually sophomoric beliefs.

In the roster of our Republican candidates there are two who actually do not fit the mold: Ron Paul, the Libertarian, actually calls it as he honestly sees it and is not willing to sell out his integrity. He doesn’t have to, since his chances of becoming the Party nominee is less than nil. Jon Huntsman, is the only other candidate who does not seem to belong with that egocentric, sleazy bunch. He chooses his words carefully enough to not upset the voting audiences, and yet measured enough to not sound as a stupid warmonger like his rivals. In a recent interview with Farid Zakaria on CNN, his response as to how he would treat Iran’s nuclear dilemma was very cautiously and intelligently diplomatic. He said if we find that we cannot live with a nuclear-armed Iran, then he’d take all the necessary steps…… The key word was “if”. In other words, Mr. Huntsman does leave room for the possibility of “living with” a nuclear Iran, and doesn’t reject that possibility out of hand as do his rivals. Unfortunately, the likelihood of his nomination in the primaries is perhaps even less than that of Ron Paul.

The chief charlatan among the rest of the group is Newt Gingrich, rising in the polls and overtaking Mitt Romney, at least for now. Oh, he’s the consummate politician: he is brilliant, he is a master hypocrite, he exaggerates, lies and distorts as he deems necessary, and above all, he lacks, or can easily turn off, any sense of honor and ethics to achieve his objective.

Regarding Iran, he has stated that he would overtly engage in a range of covert terror operations to bring down the regime by any and all means available, as long as we could maintain a necessary degree of deniability! So, this unabashed jerk would break the international law, the United Nations charter and even the American law, and violate America’s own constitutional principles, as long as he could get away with it by plausible deniability!

To make himself an even more ominous anti anything Iranian or Islamic, he has already picked the Zionist slave, John Bolton as his running mate. I am sure his pick for the Secretary of State would be Dennis Ross, and perhaps William Kristol of the Weekly Standard as the White House Press Secretary!

What is even more troubling is that ‘the Newt’ says out-loud what his competitors think but are not as outrageously frank to verbalize.

Newt’s closest rival is Mitt Romney, who prides himself in being a “businessman” and not a career politician. Much as did the now dethroned pizza king, he thinks his successes in business vouch for his ability to cure the nation’s and even the world’s economic ills. Both he and the absent minded Texan, when he doesn’t have his foot in his mouth, have repeatedly pledged their support for the Zionist lobby, which is without doubt an absolute must for any politician who runs for any office in these United States, and have promised to deal with Iran in the strongest possible terms if elected.

Poor Iran!

Then we have the cry baby, Rick Santorum. Oh, he was so visibly hurt when, during a televised debate a few months ago, Ron Paul mentioned something to the effect that perhaps we could put some blame on American foreign policies for the acts of terrorism aimed at us. His voice crackling and appearing so pitifully sad as though his pet canary had just died, his innocently superficial sense of patriotism could not allow him to accept such remarks. He could not even conceive of a case where America would act with any motives other than the most righteous, honorable and noble. The always somewhat sad looking Rick, however, never objected to Newt’s recent remarks about engaging in illegal, unethical and un-Christian acts of sabotage, assassinations and terrorism in Iran, as long as we could lie and deny we were engaged in such acts! Where was your sense of Christian righteousness, Mr. Santorum, when it came to dealing with Iran?

Last but not least is the original Tea Party favorite, Michelle Bachman. Aside from her controversial and rather bizarre positions on homosexuality, what stands out when you think about her continuously more dismal presence in the candidates’ roster are: she hates the “Obamacare” and she is running for the presidency of the Unined States as she pronounces it, not the United States, of America. Her foreign policy credentials and her knowledge of the Iranian issues rival those of Sarah Palin and the discredited pizza man.

Finally, how much better off will we be in a second-term Obama presidency?

When it comes to dealing with Iran, the Administration, whether Democrat or Republican, remains under the thumb of the Zionist lobby’s all pervasive influence; the Republicans eagerly, and the Democrats perhaps begrudgingly.

Obama at least has managed to “keep all options on the table” and not allow those option to leave that table by tilting the pot without allowing the beans to spill over. His latest posturing was asking Iran to return the top-secret American spying drone that was captured by the Iranian military inside Iran. There must be some dry humor in this!

Obama administration is, of course, no less indebted to the Zionist lobby’s influence and money. Joe Biden played his expected role diligently from the very beginning when he announced during a visit to Israel that, even though he wasn’t Jewish, he remained a staunch Zionist to the core.

In my analysis, as long as the indoctrination of the American public to overtly or subliminally favor any policy that supports Israel’s agendas remains effective, no candidate for presidency or a congressional seat could break this bond and survive. Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton know it, and so do the potential nominee of the Republican Party. The motto of candidates for office in the United States should be summarized as, In God We Trust, and On Zionist Lobby’s Support We Depend!

Since it is clear that a war with Iran would not be in anyone’s interest, the hope is that the charade of threats and saber rattling will continue to appease the gullible public and allow Israel to reap the rich harvest with the blessing of American taxpayers, and this way, avoid an expensive and counterproductive new military involvement with potentially catastrophic global blowbacks.

Might the secret American high-tech spying drone recovered inside Iran be a modern Trojan Horse that could pave the way to opening the gate of behind-the-scenes negotiations between Tehran and Washington? Or do you actually believe this scientific marvel simply malfunctioned and landed safely and without any visible damage in the wrong place? If you do, you must be a Nintendo or Play Station addict.



Latest news
Related news