The Guardian and The Observer are in the middle of a remarkable series of articles about Iran and the chances of an American attack on Iran, the latest of which is here (or here). All of them follow the Miller/Gordon style made famous in the NYT series of lies about Iraq (of course, Gordon is continuing the tradition by lying for the NYT about Iran). The style is hard to miss: the articles rely on a single-source anonymous tipster from Washington, i.e., a Zionist working for the Lobby, to spread an obvious pile of horseshit, with the fine-print qualifications in the articles not reflected in the headlines. The most recent relies solely on a “well-placed source in Washington”. It backs this up with a quote from a London thinktanker, who says (emphasis in red):

"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact.”

This pattern of deception in The Guardian about Iran has become so obvious that it is creating a controversy of its own, with the paper receiving the worst insult in journalism, being compared to the New York Times.

As I’ve said before, the point of ‘Iran talk’ has nothing to do with an actual attack on Iran, but is a Zionist invention intended to increase Sunni-Shi’ite dissension, dissension which is being successfully exploited by Israel to work on building the Zionist Empire. Everybody who repeats ‘Iran talk’, whether lies about Iran or lies about the upcoming supposed American attack on Iran, is a Zionist fellow-traveler, as evil as Pipes or Dershowitz or Kristol or Perle.