"

Indeed numerous Iranian media pointed that out right away.  That is why I support the idea of including ""Jewish"" at the beginning of that sub-section of the article.  It is not to ""single out"" Pilz because he is jewish per se, it is because both Iranian media as well as officials from Foreign Ministry have called it a part of the on-going Zionst smear campaign against Iran.   Pilz' ""early anouncements"",  had claimed that both final candidates of the Iranian presidency were mentioned in his ""extraordinarily reliable Agent D"" report.  So no matter which candidate won, he would have smeared the winner.   He had anticipiated that Rajsanjani wins (like most people expected) so he had initially put the focus more on Rafsanjani.  As an Iranian, I also feel this is coordinated. It is indeed hard to explain how the major Western media would be so quick to report all those allegatoins (which so far have turned out to be false) without even a cursory investigation. How could for example, AP, Reuters and AFP all three make the same mistake at the same time? And it wasn't even on just one allegation, it was on multiple.  So multiple News Agencies, making multiple mistakes that a pro would hardly ever do, all at the same time?  And I have seen a pattern like this for years on numerous other anti-Iran smear reports.  Also, you might notice how so many people involved in this very article are Jews or at least their edit history clearly shows their pro-Zionist stance.  I don't think that is accidental either, they are voluntary ""contributors"" to the same  smear campaign because they view Islamic Iran as a threat to Zionism.  The same people also have an ""interest"" on the Rafsanjani article and probably many other Iran-related articles.  "