The Associated Press: Iran’s currency falls to record low against dollar.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran’s currency hit a record low against the U.S. dollar in street trading, the semiofficial Mehr news agency reported Sunday.

Mehr says the rial dropped nearly 7 percent in a single day, to 24,300 rials to the dollar. Street traders say the rial rose slightly later on Sunday to around 23,900 rials to the dollar.

The collapse of the currency is a sign of the effect of Western sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program. The West suspects Iran is aiming to build nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies.

On July 1, the European Union banned import of Iranian oil, and the U.S. tightened sanctions against Iran’s banks.

On Friday, Canada cut diplomatic relations with Iran over its nuclear program, support for Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime and the country’s poor record on human rights issues.

Governor of Iran’s central bank, Mahmoud Bahmanai, said the plunge of the rial was the result of a rush on the market by buyers seeking to obtain the dollar, rather than other economic reasons.

The current official rate is 12,260 rials to the dollar, used only for special purposes such as importing food and medicines.

Last week, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran faced “barriers” to transfer its oil revenue into the country because of the sanctions. Crude export account for about 80 percent of Iran’s foreign currency revenue.

Also Sunday, lawmaker Ahmad Tavakkoli criticized the government for allegedly failing to provide enough hard currency. He said that for the past two weeks, the Ahmadinejad administration refused to supply the market with hard currency.

Pulse touted as safe way to cripple Iran | The Australian.

U.S. Worries on EMP Strike Began with Arutz Sheva – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

(I guess I don’t qualify as an “official.” _ JW )

Jericho III Missile

Courtesy of Israel Aerospace Industries

An August 6 opinion article by Dr. Joe Tuzara on Arutz Sheva (Israel National News) regarding Israel’s possible use of an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) bomb against Iran has triggered a chain reaction, allegedly influencing U.S. intelligence sources who have since been quoted in several publications, including the New York Post. The latest in the chain of news outlets to quote the report is the London Sunday Times.

The intelligence sources reportedly believe that the Arutz Sheva article was more than an innocent op-ed by a physician, and that it “reflects official Israeli government thinking about a possible preemptive response to Iran’s expected emergence as a nuclear weapons state in the near future.” This, according to the Washington Free Beacon‘s Bill Gertz, who reported on the U.S. intelligence agencies’ concerns August 29.

“It was the first time the issue of a nuclear EMP attack by Israel had appeared in a mainstream Israeli press outlet,” wrote the Beacon.

“U.S. officials also suspect the article was written by someone in the Israeli government who favors such a strike. Another theory among analysts is that the Israeli government, at a minimum, encouraged publication of the article,” it reported.

“If Israel chooses one of its Jericho III missiles to detonate a single EMP warhead at high altitude over north central Iran, there will be no blast or radiation effects on the ground,” Dr. Tuzara wrote in his original article.

“Coupled with cyber-attacks, Iranians would not know it happened except for a massive shutdown of the electric power grid, oil refineries and a transportation gridlock. Food supply would be exhausted and communication would be largely impossible, leading to economic collapse. Similarly, the uranium enrichment centrifuges in Fordo, Natanz and widely scattered elsewhere, would freeze for decades.”

It is not clear why the intelligence officials appear to believe the op-ed was an official Israeli message to Iran, rather than simply being the writer’s opinion.

Arutz Sheva is a private publication and is usually very critical of the government’s policies, especially regarding Judea and Samaria. However, it is probably the only Israel-based publication that consistently and exclusively features op-eds by thinkers who do not let the “politically correct” stream cloud their reasoning. In other words: many of the articles that appear on Arutz Sheva simply make sense. This could be have something to do with the U.S. analysts’ belief that the article reflects an official position.

Google Translate.

(This story has been up since this morning in Hebrew but debka has yet to translate it into English.  The Google translation is not great but one can decipher the content with a little work. – JW )

Military and intelligence sources of DEBKAfile

Netanyahu and Barak: Will they continue to walk together on Iran?

Opponents of the Israeli attack Iran over the weekend found a new encouraging sign indicating that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even more isolated in its decision to attack Iran. Political armrest – his main military attack decision – ie, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, according to their version, Barak does not support more Israeli attack on Iran.
Why?
Ehud Barak was impressed, so this theory claim holders, especially last week during a visit to Israel’s armed deputy U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral James Bienenfeld Admiral James A. Winnefeld, the U.S. military preparations to attack Iran are extensive and serious.
Political use attack opponents ‘discovery’ This is ridiculous.
Defense Minister Barak, the Israeli public did not have to wait for the visit of Deputy Chiefs armed Americans to understand the seriousness of American preparations. They could read exclusive details about it for the last four months, starting in June, DEBKAfile.
The following main points: the U.S.” in coordinated for three aircraft carriers with their air assault forces against Iran.
In addition, all combat fleet of British and French, are also placed against Iran.
” U.S. air forces in large coordinated hundreds of fighter planes – the bomb, which two squadrons of stealth F-22, the countries of the Persian Gulf.
U.S.” in concentrated on the two islands closest to the Persian Gulf, Bsoktra Yemen and Oman delivery, large assault forces now numbering at least 50,000 soldiers.
These two islands are now, as of this writing American military controlled almost completely, become a kind of two aircraft carriers and U.S. forces, with forces stationed them there is only one purpose is to attack Iran. In other words, in terms monument to American forces, Iran has not only placed three aircraft carriers, but at least six aircraft carriers and their strike forces. Again we mention that this is a sense of the size of the U.S. force stationed with Iran.
U.S. operational modus Aofrandi always held that to go to war in the Persian Gulf against Iraq in the past, and against Iran in the future, should the United States” in concentrate in at least six to seven aircraft carriers and their strike forces. Concentration of American troops already stationed in Iran.
But the origins of the Ikdbka Washington reported that there is only a problem ‘little’ with this concentration.
President Obama instructed to concentrate the power not to attack Iran, but to convince Iran that it must return to the negotiating table” from the political with the six world powers, and accept the terms Shen pose on the Iranian nuclear program.
This firm position of Obama, so far, is the main reason why the political elite Iranian military refuses to be impressed by this concentration of American forces, and why Iranians do not believe that the Americans would attack them. This is why Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and a host of American circles, now pressed Obama to set “red lines”.
What do the ‘red lines’ are?
‘Red lines’ are to determine exactly when what steps Iran would continue to make its nuclear program, Obama shoots mighty forces these Americans attack Iran.
As at A 9.9, Obama refuses to establish such lines. As an American presidential refusal, the Iranians refused to stop enriching uranium levels very close to their military rank, which gives the hands of nuclear explosives.
This is why the new version of Israelis oppose attacking Iran, the defense minister, Ehud Barak, broke left, glamorous shallow.
Today, there are four military timers ticking against Iran:
One. U.S. equity timer controls Obama. President directed the forces necessary to attack, but we refuse to use them. He also refuses to set “red lines”.
Second. Timer Netanyahu and Barak says that until the last week of September will be Iran enough enriched uranium to allow it to produce nuclear explosives, and must not allow Iran to cross this red line.
3. Timer former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy, who on August 2, said that ‘if I Irani, I was most concerned in 12 weeks. Out of these 12 weeks, five weeks have passed, there are still seven weeks. Less than two months. That is, until the end of October!
4. Timer Hanegbi, who last week ruled, that 50 days will be crucial for the future of Israel, no less than the Yom Kippur War. Other words clocks of Ephraim Halevy and Hanegbi, plus or minus, are those clocks.
When the countdown four clocks, one American, three Israeli persists, do the opponents of Israeli Iran strike, supported by external factors, an effort to add another clock Ehud Barak.
The more complex way these circles, political and personal enemies harshest of lightning. Now they are suddenly willing to make him a political alliance.
Look if they succeed?

Israel Defense | Lowering the Price of Oil.

Yoel Guzansky

3/7/2012

Netanyahu and Barak climbing down.

Amir Rapaport

7/9/2012

The more the date gets closer, it becomes clearer that these are the most important elections in the history of the state of Israel – the election campaign taking place far beyond the sea, in the United States, of course.

It was supposed to have been different: Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu received an important statement from US President Barack Obama in May 2010, according to which “Israel has a right to defend itself on its own.” However, statements and reality differ. The US actually finds it inopportune  for Israel to launch an independent attack operation in Iran at this time.

How did we reach a situation where Netanyahu spoke this week about ‘red lines’ that would allow Israel to avoid an attack in Iran in the coming months (while arranging an awkward ladder for himself and for Ehud Barak so they can descend from the tall tree they climbed up on)? To understand this, one needs to return to the start of the summer.

The tension discussed in Israel towards a possible attack in Iran was authentic. The round of appointments planned in the General Staff was delayed, even though the summer is the season for role exchange. Thus, for example, Maj. Gen. Ya’akov Ayash remained as head of the Operations Branch, and was not replaced by Maj. Gen. Yoav Har Even, who was intended to replace him. In addition, Ayash did not depart for his next role as IDF attaché in Washington).

Throughout the past few weeks, Netanyahu and Barak fanned the media flames on the issue of an Iranian strike. There were illegitimate purposes to that (Netanyahu apparently believes that a defense agenda is preferable to an economic one near an election year) and legitimate ones (pressuring the US and the West to act with greater determination against Iran’s nuclear program and Iran itself – to halt the race towards a bomb).

Did Netanyahu and Barak seriously consider an attack in the coming fall? It’s possible that they didn’t know themselves, but in any case, like many other past sophisticated efforts by Ehud Barak, this one went wrong as well.

The snowball that brought about a severe tear in the relations between Israel and the US began rolling due to the firm background debriefing given by Ehud Barak to Nachum Barnea and Shimon Shefer of Yedioth Aharonot and several other journalists. The Americans were not fond of the voices coming from Jerusalem, to say the least (the US embassy itself was busy throughout the last summer, debriefing Israeli journalists to convey through them the message that Israel has no reason to attack, and that it has someone to trust). One way or another, when the US is angry, the ground trembles. The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of defense and embassy persons delivered firm messages to Israel against the attack. The US-Israeli strategic relations seemed as though they were taking a beating. This is how instead of pressuring the US, the pressure is primarily discernible in the prime minister’s bureau in Jerusalem.

Red lines?
What is the significant of the red lines that Netanyahu talked about this week? In truth, there is no such line, not on a timeline, and not in some geographic point. To keep the issue as vague as possible, his people spoke in Jerusalem this week of how if Barack Obama would vocally commit to the US not allowing Iran to become nuclear; if the economic sanctions are intensified (they suddenly remembered in Jerusalem that the sanctions are pressuring the Ayatollah regime in one way or another); and if the threat of a US attack would become tangible to Iranian eyes – then Israel will not have to attack in the coming months.

It was also recalled that in 2003, Iran’s nuclear program was frozen for two years against the backdrop of the US invasion of Iraq and genuine concern that Iran would be next in line to be dealt with by the US in the framework of the “Axis of Evil.” The words of the Israeli officials primarily created anticipation towards President Obama’s speech at the Democratic party convention this week.

Another fact: There is nothing to actually build upon true red lines. The US is neck-deep in its elections, and only wants to shake the Israeli nuisance until after November. No matter how you look at it, Israel is simply folding, unless everything isn’t as it seems (which is also an option).

Cabinet
The reports about Netanyahu’s resolve to investigate the leak from Tuesday’s cabinet meeting which discussed the Iranian issue should also be read cautiously. As a rule, any word regarding Iran is suspected of disinformation, so the focus should be directed at what is certain: the Israeli government has never discussed the possibility of an attack against Iran. It has not been presented with all the possible options for an operation and their various significances. The intelligence organizations view this forum as less classified than off-the-record background meetings with media representatives.

Speaking of the intelligence organizations, the reports about disagreements surrounding the Iranian issue are correct. The differences in approaches are ‘natural’. They all see the overall picture in a fairly similar manner. Disagreements, even personal ones, between the members of the military echelon and the members of the political echelon have always existed, and will apparently also continue to exist. Netanyahu is guarantied a majority in the cabinet forum (approximately 19 ministers) for any decision found appropriate, so long as it is supported by the IDF.

Another fact: the political-security cabinet has held dozens of closed deliberations on the Iranian issue (not including “the discussion”, the one where the operational options will be inspected). There are usually no leaks from this forum, which includes about eight ministers. There is a tie in this forum, as of today, on the issue of the possible attack: four on the supporter’s camp, led by Barak and Netanyahu, and the objectors, led by Benny Begin, Dan Meridor and Moshe Ya’alon, which number four as well.

Russia Renounces
Sometimes it happens that news of significant, far-reaching historic and defensive significance vanish from the media’s attention. It is possible that in retrospect it will turn out that Russia’s call for its citizens to leave Syria this week will turn out to have such a significance.

The reason that elements within the defense establishment attribute considerable importance to this call is the fact that Israel and the West have been expecting for months now to see when Russia will renounce Bashar al-Assad. Each day where Russia continues to support a regime that massacres its citizens results in strategic damage to Russia’s relations with the rest of the Arab world and with the future regime that will be established in Syria. Russia is aware of this, but on the other hand, it is important for it to show the whole world that it does not abandon its allies (like the quick US renouncement of Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt, for example).

Intelligence elements in Israel anticipated seeing when Russia will initially begin to evacuate its military advisors from Syria, and when it will clear its forces from the Tartus port (the only port where it has a friendly pier in the Mediterranean Sea). This may a clear sign to the fact that Bashar Assad’s regime is over and done with. These steps have not yet happened, but the call for the civilians to leave Syria might soon turn out to be a clear indication towards Russia’s renouncing of Syria.

Given this, the reports that Assad is organizing a shelter for himself in Russia towards the day he relinquishes the regime seem considerably authentic. The scenario that Assad might leave to Russia is certainly logical.
Bedrock of our existence
And now, without a shred of cynicism: There are governmental ceremonies that cause quite a bit of excitement, and in my opinion, such is the ceremony held each year in September on the lawn of the President’s house in Jerusalem, where the Israeli defense awards are granted.

Thus, on Monday, when dozens of the award recipients stood upon the stage of honor to receive the award, I was exited for them, and a thought crossed my mind; how lucky are we that while tens of thousands of people invest their efforts towards unfounded hatred and pointless discussions on whether or not the defense budget is a waste of money, we have several thousands of people who are the technological basis for Israel’s military might.

The explosion of IQ on the stage at the President’s residence on Thursday was tremendous. The winners received the award from the president, the ministry of defense and the chief of staff, with the picture of Eliyahu Golomb, the IDF’s first force builder, in the background. The media gave its full attention to the only award winners whose contribution to Israel’s security could be mentioned: those involved in the technologically unprecedented project which transformed an active defense system against missiles in a record time of less than two and a half months.

However, additional development persons from IAI were also on the stage, as well as several geniuses from the IAF and the Intelligence branch who were involved in other projects – all of which could be said about them is that they have had a tremendous contribution to Israel’s security, and that those involved in them displayed tremendous daring and rare creative originality. It can only be guessed that they are projects connected to the Iranian issue.

One last note about the Iron Dome project, the great star of the Israeli defense awards. The chairman of the prize committee, Maj. Gen. Danny Yatom, rightfully reminded the contribution of Amir Peretz, who insisted on advancing the project during his term as minister of defense. In retrospect, the fact that the project only started in 2008 cannot be considered as less than stupidity. A reminder – the rockets already began landing in Israel’s southern region in 2000. In 2004 there was a main headline in Ma’ariv by this writer about a secret project for developing a system against missiles (the project was so confidential that it was denied by elements in the ministry of defense who weren’t even aware of it). Even though the technological feasibility was already given in 2004, the project only started during Peretz’s term, and without the active support of the IAF, which preferred investing the money in more offensive measures.

This is presented as food for thought for those who object to any project out of a short-sighted budgetary view (after all, the project to establish the fence at the Egyptian border could have originally started years ago were it budgeted in time, instead of being carried out at record speed and greater cost today).

Syria transferred chemical weapons to port city, raising alarm bells, report says | The Times of Israel.

Russian and US warnings came after reports that embattled regime moved weapons

An IDF drill simulating an attack on Israel with chemical weapons, 2008 (photo credit: Gili Yaari / Flash 90)

The Syrian regime transferred chemical weapons from a storage base near Damascus to the port city of Tartus last month, sparking American and European concerns that the weapons could fall into the hands of Hezbollah in Lebanon or other extremist organizations inside Syria, Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai reported Sunday.

On August 20, US President Barack Obama declared that the US would consider military intervention if Syria deployed or used chemical weapons in its possession. British diplomatic sources told the Kuwaiti daily that Obama issued the strongly-worded warning following the transfer of weapons from Damascus to Tartus.

On Thursday, The Washington Post reported that US and Middle Eastern officials were concerned that Syria had dispersed its chemical weapons stockpile, considered to be the third-largest in the world, to 20 sites around the country.

It did not detail where those sites were.

Officials in Israel and the West fear that chemical weapons may fall into terrorist hands in the chaos surrounding Syria’s bloody civil war. They also fear Assad may use the weapons on rebels or transfer them to Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite terror group .

In a speech delivered on September 3, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah declared that his organization does not possess chemical weapons and that such weapons are banned under Islamic law, a claim voiced in the past by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Nasrallah’s reference to chemical weapons may have followed pressure from Syria’s ally, Russia. Lebanese daily Al-Nahar reported Sunday that a Russian envoy recently arrived in Beirut and warned Nasrallah against accepting chemical weapons from Syria. According to the daily, Russian President Vladimir Putin assured Israel that Syria’s chemical weapons will not leave their storehouses. Al-Nahar is staunchly opposed to Hezbollah and aligned with the March 14 movement led by Saad Hariri.

The diplomatic sources who spoke to Al-Rai speculated that the weapons were moved to Tartus as part of the Assad regime’s “plan B” to flee to an Alawite-majority region of Syria if the regime is in jeopardy.

The ancient port of Tartus, along the country’s coast, is one of the country’s few Alawite majority enclaves. In August, Jordan’s King Abdullah speculated that Assad may try to create a mini-state in the area should he lose control of Damascus.

Ten thousand soldiers are on permanent alert to take over 31 bases inside Syria where chemical weapons are stored, if the West becomes convinced that those weapons may no longer be secure, the British diplomatic sources told Al-Rai.

In conflict with West, Iran stirs war memories at home – Reuters.

By Yeganeh Torbati

DUBAI (Reuters) – Iranian leaders hoping to lift morale at a time of rising prices, food shortages and threats of attack from Israel are drawing on memories of another era when people united against a common foe: Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

But whether the government can rekindle the passion that powered Iran’s huge war effort a generation ago remains an open question.

The 1980-1988 conflict with Iraq, in which hundreds of thousands of Iranians were killed, provides a ready comparison for officials looking to frame Iran’s present isolation over its disputed nuclear programme as an unwarranted aggression.

“Saddam’s war against us was not a war between us and one government; it was an international war against us,” Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in July. “These challenges … are not new for the Islamic Republic.”

Western nations suspect Iran is covertly developing a nuclear weapons capability. Tehran says its nuclear activity is only for peaceful energy and medical purposes.

Memories of the hardships borne by Iranians during the war with Iraq are still seared into the country’s consciousness.

Tens of thousands of civilians died in bombardment of cities. Teenage boys volunteered for the front and were killed in droves. Decades later, thousands of Iranians still suffer the ruinous effects of Saddam’s chemical weapons.

The war, known in Iran as the “sacred defence,” is marked by memorials and large murals of battle scenes. Metro stations and many streets in Tehran are named after war “martyrs.”

Iranian officials say sanctions imposed by the United States and Europe against Iran’s oil and banking sectors to force Tehran to stop its nuclear work amount to “economic warfare.”

Renewed threats by Israeli leaders of a strike on the nuclear sites have contributed to the sense of siege.

Some leaders hark back to the “imposed war” terminology of the 1980s, adopted because the conflict began when Iraq invaded.

Influential cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati invoked the sacrifices of Iranians in an era he compared to the present.

“During the imposed war, the entire nation was mobilised. Even women were helping behind the front,” he said in a sermon in August, the Fars news agency reported. “The economic crisis is in reality a war which the enemy is waging against Iran.”

Thanks partly to Western sanctions, Iran’s currency has lost about half its value this year, while an estimated 50 percent drop in oil exports compared to last year has cost billions in lost revenue. The government puts inflation at 23 percent, but unofficial estimates put it at double this.

The government has urged Iranians to adopt a “resistance economy”, without specifying what that means beyond preparing for tough times. One cleric has suggested Iranians meet their protein needs with egg soup if they cannot afford meat.

Queues this summer for government-subsidised chicken reminded older Iranians of the war years, when butter and sugar were luxuries and people lined up for hours to buy milk.

“They even used to give coupons for cigarettes in the early days of the (1979) revolution,” said a tweet in Persian. “Today, they said come and get subsidised chicken. Welcome to the past era.”

DEFINING THE ENEMY

But Iran is now a very different place from the Iran of 1980, and the enemy is much less easy to define – and demonize.

“During the war with Iraq, most people including me believed we were oppressed by big powers that were helping Iraq and giving Saddam weapons,” Nasrin told Reuters by telephone. The 43-year-old housewife once sewed sheets and clothing for Iranian frontline soldiers.

“Many young people nowadays are not happy with the government and think the government is to blame for the country’s isolation,” said Nasrin, who like all the Iranians interviewed for this article did not want her full name used.

“I see my own daughters today and I often think how different they are from when I was their age. They are peace-loving people who think it is wrong for Iran to have bad relations with the rest of the world.”

In 1980, the youthful Islamic Republic and its founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini enjoyed a deep reservoir of popular support, said Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-Israeli analyst at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel.

“Ayatollah Khomeini led the people of Iran through the initial stages of the war after leading them through a historic revolution,” he said.

That support will be difficult for Khamenei to replicate, Javedanfar said, especially after the widespread popular unrest that followed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s 2009 re-election. Protesters said the vote, endorsed by Khamenei, was rigged.

“Iran’s young generation is not as passionate as the one during that time (the Iraq war),” said 49-year-old Sotoudeh, an interior designer, also via telephone. “They are disillusioned somehow.

“They want jobs, security and a free environment. They never experienced the social freedoms that we had before the revolution, but nevertheless they love Iran.”

Rising food prices sparked protests in the northeastern town of Neishabour in July in a rare expression of discontent, according to a YouTube video and reports on Iranian news sites.

“They (the government) will certainly attempt to recreate this narrative of Iran versus the world, but at the end of the day far more Iranians care about the price of chicken than they do enriched uranium,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

Several Iranians said they believed people would unite behind the government if Israel struck Iran’s nuclear sites, though perhaps less fervently than during the Iran-Iraq war.

An Israeli attack would probably involve air strikes targeting nuclear sites, rather than the full-scale air and ground invasion undertaken by Iraqi forces, depriving the government of images that could help stir nationalist sentiment.

“In case of an attack, we might not see as many young people volunteering to fight in a battle but I am sure they would not stay indifferent,” Sotoudeh said. “They would put up with harder conditions because they love their country.”

Others say Iranians, now accustomed to relatively high living standards, would not easily tolerate shortages and austerity again. Rising oil revenue in the last decade has enabled an expansion of the middle class. Foreign luxury goods fill shopping malls in major cities.

“The youth nowadays are much more materialistic and don’t give priority to the ideas that dominated our minds back then, such as preserving the Islamic government,” Ali, 53, an insurance manager who volunteered to fight in the 1980s, said by telephone.

“That said, I’m pretty sure these modern young Iranians would surprise everyone if a foreign country attacked,” he said.

“They might be after the latest cars, fashion and rock music but if they felt their country Iran was in danger, they would defend it with all they have.” (Editing by Sonya Hepinstall and Alistair Lyon)

Iran hits out at ‘irresponsible’ talk of more EU sanctions.

Sunday, 09 September 2012

Analysis: Can Israel surprise Iran? Maybe not, but could still strike.