There is a fresh sign that an attack on Iran is in the cards. The New York Times has put Michael A. Gordon on the bomb-Iran beat. Gordon, you will remember, co-wrote with Judith Miller a bunch of the false Iraq-WMD pieces. But unlike Miller he was not fired and lately his task has been to write Petraeus schmooze pieces from Baghdad.
But now he writes about an attack on Iran and the NYT editors put the baloney on page A01:
Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
...
Shaul Mofaz, a former Israeli defense minister who is now a deputy prime minister, warned in a recent interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot that Israel might have no choice but to attack. “If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack,” Mr. Mofaz said in the interview published on June 6, the day after the unpublicized exercise ended. “Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable.”
Only nine paragraphs later does Gordon find the space to somewhat hint that Mofaz's assertions are wrong. Iran does not have a 'program for developing nuclear weapons'.
Gordon also has this false line:
In late May, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran’s suspected work on nuclear matters was a “matter of serious concern” and that the Iranians owed the agency “substantial explanations.”
The 'serious concern' the IAEA expressed (pdf) related to the false accusations the U.S. made towards Iran, not to Iran's work on nuclear matters.
The alleged studies on the green salt project, high explosives testing and the missile re-entry vehicle project remain a matter of serious concern.
The 'alleged studies' are a matter of concern for the IAEA, not 'Iran's suspected work'. A small but important difference.
Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner wrote a study about the propaganda build up towards the War on Iraq: Truth from These Podia Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence, Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic Psychological Operations in Gulf II.
Gardiner is now writing at Spinwatch and recently put up this graph:
Gardiner notes:
The volume of English language articles on Iran has increased by over 50% in the past few months. The President has used his trips as a way to magnify the Iran message.
All of this looks and feels like we are being set up for military operations against Iran in the same way we were set up for the invasion of Iraq.
Recently Israel agreed to a ceasefire with Hamas, started negotiations with Syria through Turkey and even offered talks with Lebanon. Obviously Olmert wants to pull the teeth that might bite back in the case of an attack on Iran. These preperations, propaganda about Iran's involvement in attacks in Iraq, the general increased message volume on Iran and Michael Gordon's assignment to his new beat are signs that some campaign is likely to happen.
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2008/06/micheal-gordons.html