NEWS BRIEF: "Israel rules out strike on Iran - for now: IDF Chief of Staff makes announcement", Al-Jazeera News, Thursday 29 December 2005

"General Dan Halutz, Israel's chief of staff, has ruled out the prospect of a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear installations in the near future. 'I don't think that a military intervention against Iran's nuclear installations should be necessary in the short term', Halutz told army radio on Tuesday. 'There is no threat to the existence of the state of Israel as long as Iran does not possess nuclear arms'."

"... Israeli fears were heightened when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, in October called for the Jewish state to be 'wiped off the map' ... Meir Dagan, the head of the Mossad overseas intelligence agency, had told MPs earlier this week that Iran would be able to build an atom bomb within two years. Halutz, however, said he did not believe Iran would actually complete manufacturing a bomb 'before the start of the next decade'."

This last statement is quite powerful, don't you think? The IDF Chief of Staff is now on record as stating that he and his IDF do not believe that Iran can "actually complete manufacturing a bomb" before the start of the "next decade". That statement is not only powerful in its own right, but also powerfully refutes American concerns which have been fueling a rain of military threats against Iran since the Summer, 2003 -- fully 2 1/2 years ago.

Of course, Cutting Edge readers and subscribers know that this rhetorical attack on Iran is purely propaganda nonsense, for a Russian general revealed in April, 2002, that Iran already possessed nuclear warheads, but just lacked the necessary missile capability which with to threaten Mother Russia (Read NEWS1660 for full details).

Furthermore, Cutting Edge has always correctly maintained that it is ludicrous to believe that each Islamic nation desiring nuclear weapons capability would have to launch an indigenous program to develop nuclear weapons technology so they can build their own nukes, when Pakistan has owned and deployed nuclear weapons for almost 2 decades! Pakistan has always been controlled by militant Muslims, both in their Army and in their Intelligence service; she has also experienced consistent cash flow problems. Therefore, Pakistan would be very willing to sell nuclear warheads "off the shelf" to any Islamic country who wanted them.

Indeed, Western intelligence has long suspected that Pakistan has sold nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia and Iran -- both oil-rich countries. Rumors have even swirled that Pakistan swapped nuclear warheads to North Korea in exchange for modern, accurate ballistic missiles.

Nevertheless, "Rumors of Wars" continues to swirl concerning a Western attack on Iranian nuclear facilities -- which are protected by state-of-the-art Russian defenses. Even though the IDF Chief of Staff said Israel did not believe Iran could actually build a nuclear warhead before the next decade, the CIA floated war plans.

Click on thumbnail above for larger image.

NEWS BRIEF: "CIA Chief Tells Turks To Prepare For Attack On Iran", By Kurt Nimmo kurtnimmo.com, Rense.com, 12-26-5

"You'd think the fact Porter Goss, head broom sweeper at the CIA, recently told the Turkish government the United States plans to attack Iran and Syria would be headline splashing news in the New York Times and the Washington Post. But although the news was carried in the Turkish press, it elicited hardly a murmur here in America, with the exception of United Press International and Reuter ... PHX News was more specific and noted the lack of attention the story: "In an overlooked story, the Turkish press reported last week that CIA Director Porter Goss went to Ankara recently and informed the Turkish government that Iran already has nuclear weapons and they should be ready for 'a possible US air operation against Iran and Syria.'"

"Goss also asked Ankara to be ready for a possible US air operation against Iran and Syria ... Diplomatic sources say that Washington wants Turkey to coordinate with its Iran policies ... The CIA argued that Iran was supporting terrorism, the PKK and al-Qaeda."

This author then got to his bottom-line conclusion:

"Goss and Mueller were sent by the neocons to shop around an 'air operation against Iran and Syria' in Turkey in exchange for a hardline against the Kurds and using the unestablished 'fact' that Iranians have nukes and the desire to use them ... As I have written here for months, the neocons are determined to attack Iran and Syria, if only with airstrikes. Of course, if this is accomplished it will stir up even more chaos and strife, precisely what the neocons want, regardless."

Given this American pressure on the Turkish government -- whose Prime Minister is a fundamental Muslim -- we are not surprised at the next story in this continuing saga. Notice that the article, above, mentions an attack on "Iran and Syria" in one breath.

NEWS BRIEF: 'Turkey Would Not Allow Israeli Maneuvers': Turkey Disallowing Israeli Exercises Along Turkish Border To Iran", By Anadolu News Agency (aa), Cihan News Agency, Wednesday, December 28, 2005

"As a sovereign territory, Turkey will definitely not allow a foreign state to conduct military exercises along the borders of its neighboring countries', said Turkey’s Ambassador Halit Bozkurt Aran to Tehran. Aran paid an official visit to the Persian News Agency ... There is no truth to the allegations that Israel will conduct some military exercises along the border of Turkey to Iran, said Aran. 'Turkey will definitely not allow a foreign state to conduct military exercises along the borders of its neighboring countries'."

If a Western plan to attack Iran with military air strikes is truly underway, it is reasonable to believe that Israel might need to fly either alongside Turkey's border or over her territory in order to reach Iran. In this map, above, you can see where Beirut and Damascus are located, in the extreme southern portion of the map; Israel is just south. Therefore, you can see why it might be necessary for Israeli strike planes to fly over Turkish territory to attack Iranian targets. Given the natural curvature of the Earth, flying over Turkey might be the shortest route to Iran.

Israel certainly would be refused permission to fly over Syria in order to attack Iranian targets.

I find it very interesting that Turkey is denying Israel's right to "conduct some military exercises along the border of Turkey to Iran". If the Israeli request really did specify that she wanted permission to fly all the way to Iran, she undoubtedly tipped off her ultimate plan to Turkish authorities.

An Israeli request of this magnitude may be what triggered the Russian warning, shown below.

NEWS BRIEF: "Russia to take Syria's side if conflict with U.S. arises", Rian.ru.Russia, 12/20/2005

"MOSCOW, December 20 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will take Syria's side if charges against Syrian officials with involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri cause a conflict between the United States and Syria, two Russian parliamentary members said Tuesday. 'If Russia is to choose between its two strategic allies, it will undoubtedly take Syria's side', said Shamil Sultanov, a coordinator of an inter-faction association, Russia and the Islamic World: A Strategic Dialogue. Nikolai Leonov, a member of parliament's security committee, who had recently visited Syria along with Sultanov and other MPs, said it was primarily beneficial for the U.S. to accuse Syria of murdering Hariri. 'Indeed, Syria is an excellent oil corridor with access to deep-water Mediterranean ports. Besides, this is a good pretext to distract the world community's attention from the events in Iraq', the MP said."

In diplomatic circles, this statement would be naturally taken as a Russian warning against any Western state threatening Syria. The concluding statement from this Russian Minister of Parliament is startling and definitive:

"Leonov said earlier that he was concerned that Syria could face the Iraqi scenario."

In other words, the Russians are concerned that American forces might physically invade Syria -- probably from Iraqi territory. If this is the case, then President Bush must order the Syrian invasion before he pulls troops out of Iraq, for a withdrawal from Iraq will deprive American war planners their current "jumping-off point" for a Syrian attack.

Now, let us return our attention to Iran.

America's allies continued their aggressive plans to help Iran develop her oil resources, thus greatly complicating plans to attack the country.

NEWS BRIEF: "Japan to develop Iran oilfield: Europeans and Chinese also keen to develop Iran's oil potential", Al-Jazeera News, Thursday 29 December 2005

"Japan will start to develop a massive oilfield in Iran next year despite opposition from the United States about the investment in the Islamic republic ... Japan had signed a $2bn-deal with Tehran in February 2004 to develop the massive Azadegan oilfield in southwestern Iran to try to ensure stable oil supplies for the resource-poor Asian nation ... European and Chinese firms are also interested in acquiring shares in the Iranian oil development ... The company has already begun preparing for constructing drilling and other facilities with an environmental assessment approved in July ... Ever since the 1973 oil crisis, Japan, which imports nearly all of its oil needs, has developed its own diplomacy with key oil producers in the Middle East, often putting it at odds with the United States, especially over Iran. Initial production in the field is seen at 50,000 barrels per day (bpd) within 40 months, rising to 150,000 bpd after 52 months and 260,000 bpd in eight years."

China has already inked agreements concerning Iranian oil fields, in an amount which dwarfs the Japanese agreement.

Iran is developing firm ties both militarily and economically with many key nations in the world whose leadership could very well prove pivotal in dissuading America and Israel from actually striking Iran and Syria.