Will Israel attack Iran or will the US?

The same events continued to happen in 2007; futile predictions and empty threats, either by those who were involved in the conflict with Iran or those who did not have a role.

On January 24, 2007, on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum, the Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa told Reuters that there was a possibility of the US attacking Iran: "It's a 50/50 proposition, and we hope that it won't happen. Attacking Iran would be counterproductive."

The atmosphere created by the United States and its allies was so imposing and impressive that it had influenced everyone, from the most pragmatic, down-to-earth journalists to the most adventurous, overconfident politicians.

Quoting the Kuwaiti paper Arab Times, John Pilger wrote in a New Statesman article dated February 5, 2007 that Bush will attack Iran, and also gave the military details of the attack according to the statements of a Russian military official: "The well-informed Arab Times in Kuwait says that Bush will attack Iran before the end of April. One of Russia's most senior military strategists, General Leonid Ivashov, says the US will use nuclear munitions delivered by cruise missiles launched from the Mediterranean."

Untruthfulness and falsehood pervaded the mainstream media: they failed to take seriously the possibility of losing their reputation as a result of their unrealistic, improbable and pointless predictions. They were only after serving the interests of their governmental owners and trumpeting a non-existing war which was, apparently, about to be waged against Iran.

On March 5, 2007, the Reuters AlterNet quoted analysts that there could be a chance for a possible military strike against Iran. This time, the attacker was destined to remain unspecified: "Risk analysts say there could be an up to one-in-three chance that the United States or Israel will attack Iran by the end of this year, and markets may not be doing enough to hedge against the impact." This employment of the "United States or Israel" was the newest psychological operation tactic; spreading uncertainty and ambiguity to overawe and subdue Iran.

In 2008, the most entertaining charade of the game was initiated by John Bolton, a politician who seemed to be enormously interested in playing the role of a new Nostradamus. His prophecy was that Israel would attack Iran before the new US President was sworn in. The magnificent foretelling by Mr Bolton was grandiloquently featured by the Daily Telegraph in a report titled: "Israel 'will attack Iran' before new US president sworn in, John Bolton predicts".

Anyway, the new US President Barack Obama was sworn in and nobody attacked Iran.

The war threats against Iran have been renewed several times since John Bolton publicised his prediction. The famous adage of "all options are on the table" was uttered by the successor of George W. Bush - Barack Obama - the same man whom we once trusted in for good and who deceived us with his promise of change.

Mr Bolton's newest forecast has been released recently: Israel has until week's end to strike Iran's nuclear facility. The psychological warfare machinery is being activated again - each newspaper and website represents one arsenal.

Jeffrey Goldberg is taking steps to become the Judith Miller of war against Iran; and the world once again watches the advertisement of “human rights” by those who are massacring "humans" in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, while getting prepared for a new bloodshed in Iran.

The thing is not that Israel will attack Iran but rather that Israel won't dare attack Iran. But its unremitting propaganda won't cease.