Let's say you are a teacher, and you have an issue with two
students. Rumors are rampant that illicit drugs are kept in the lockers that
belong to one or both students. You get down there and tell the two to open
their lockers so that you may see for yourself.
Student A stalls by invoking his right to privacy, and
refuses to open his locker. But he swears he never had, and never will have
drugs in his possession. Student B produces a fuzzy picture, which he says
proves that A has drugs in his locker. You don't see it that way but ask B to
open his own locker. And this is when the kid starts to play games with you. He
says he may or may not have drugs in his locker, but that's none of your
business because the ultimate judge in this matter will be the principal of the
school who is not here at this moment.
You call the principal on your cell phone and he comes down
promptly. You fill him in on what's going on, and he says yes, it's none of
your business that student B may or may not have drugs in his locker. At this
point, B snatches the picture from your hand and shows it to the principal.
What's that? the latter asks, and B says it is proof that A keeps drugs in his
locker. You interject and ask the student to explain how he can be sure that's
what the picture is showing, but the principal interrupts you, saying that
student A must open his locker or else.
Well, my friend, you must have guessed that this tale is
meant to be an analogy representing something bigger; and you are correct. It
is the story of Iran and Israel , with
the teacher representing the general public, and the principal representing the
American Congress. Iran
says it has no illicit weapons, and never will have them. Israel says it may or may not have them, yet
accuses Iran
of having them and demands that something be done about it. What's that all
about?
It's about the Jewish propaganda machine using the
Anglophile media, including the news agencies, to flood the world with so much
noise as to change the conversation regarding the Iran nuclear deal. The current
round of deception started with the editorial in the Wall Street Journal which
came under the title: “Iran 's
Secret Self-Inspections” and the subtitle: “A report says the IAEA won't have access
to the Parchin nuclear site,” published on August 19, 2015. It speaks of a
bombshell revelation made by the Associated Press about Iran excluding
the IAEA from inspecting its Parchin nuclear site, a revelation that was later
denied by the IAEA.
Still, the noise that was initially created by the false
revelation was enough to make the editors of the Journal start their piece by
linking the event with the anticipated vote in the American Congress on the
subject. Here is how they did that: “Three more Senators have declared against
President Obama's Iran
nuclear deal, and don't be surprised if more follow after [the] bombshell from
the Associated Press.” They go on to make a big deal about the event that never
happened, thus end the piece with this: “Public opposition is also growing. And
it will increase as Americans learn that inspections include taking Iran 's word...”
Later that same day, the audio-visuals were full of talking
heads pouring out floods of speculated opinions about the danger that the revelation
represents – especially to Israel
– and calling on the American Congress to reject the deal. While they were at
it, they also mentioned statistics (put out by the least reliable sources) to
the effect that the public was increasingly coming against the deal. This must
have stimulated the imagination of the print media editors who came out the
next day with similar speculations and similar opinions.
The New York Daily News was one such publication whose
editors spoke their mind under the title: “From bad to worse” and the subtitle:
“A side agreement with Iran
on its Parchin facility makes the nuclear deal look even more dangerous.” They
said this: “The world has learned that the regime in Tehran will use its own inspectors to monitor
its Parchin site, a facility about which Israeli intelligence strongly suggests
the Iranians conducted experiments … This is like having a drug-addicted ex-con
self-certify that he's on the straight and narrow.”