WarSclerotic

U.S. ‘closely consulting’ with Israel over Iran nuclear program – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

State Department says failure of UN nuclear watchdog mission to Tehran a ‘disappointment’; White House spokesman chides Iran over lack of progress in talks.

State Department Deputy spokesman Mark Toner said on Wednesday that the U.S. closely consults with Israel over its policy regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

Addressing the failure of the International Atomic Energy Age
ncy’s mission to Tehran this week, Toner said, “This is a disappointment. It wasn’t all that surprising, frankly. But, you know, we’re going to look at the totality of the issue here and the letter and what we think is the best course of action moving forward”.

	A nuclear facility under construction inside a mountain located about 20 miles north northeast of Qom, Iran.
	Photo by: AP

“let’s be very clear that we consult very closely with Israel on these issues,” he added. “We are very clear that we are working on this two-track approach. We believe, and are conveying to our partners, both Israel and elsewhere, that this is having an effect.”

Also on Wednesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney criticized Iran over the failure of the IAEA mission’s failure, saying it again showed Tehran’s refusal to abide by its international obligations over its nuclear program.

“We regret the failure of Iran to reach an agreement this week with the IAEA that would permit the agency to fully investigate the serious allegation raised allegations, rather, raised in its November report,” said Carney.

“Unfortunately this is another demonstration of Iran’s refusal to abide by its international obligations,” he added.

Carney also said the United States was continuing to evaluate Iran’s intentions after it sent a letter to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton last week, raising hopes for the prospects of renewed talks with world powers.

“This particular action by Iran suggest that they have not changed their behavior when it comes to abiding by their international obligations,” Carney told reporters, expressing U.S. regret that the IAEA mission had ended in failure.

Herman Nackaerts of the International Atomic Energy Agency said his team “could not find a way forward” in attempts to persuade Iran to talk about suspected secret work on atomic arms.

Nackaerts said the talks in Tehran were inconclusive, although his mission .approached the talks “in a constructive spirit.”

An IAEA statement published overnight already acknowledged the talks had failed.

Iran denies it has experimented with nuclear arms programs but has refused to cooperate with an IAEA probe on the issue for nearly four years.

Lieberman: U.S., Russian warnings against Iran strike will not affect Israel’s decision – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Israel’s foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, says in TV interview that Israeli decision is ‘not their business’; says security of Israel’s citizens is ‘Israeli government’s responsibility.’

By The Associated Press and Reuters

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said in an interview on Wednesday that Israel will not bow to U.S. and Russian pressure in deciding whether to attack Iran.

Speaking on Channel 2 news, Avigdor Lieberman rebuffed suggestions that American and Russian warnings against striking Iran would affect Israeli decision making, saying the decision “is not their business.”

	Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.
	Photo by: AP

He said “the security of the citizens of Israel, the future of the state of Israel, this is the Israeli government’s responsibility.”

Russia warned Israel not to attack Iran over its nuclear program on Wednesday, saying that military action would have catastrophic consequences.

“Of course any possible military scenario against Iran will be catastrophic for the region and for the whole system of international relations,” Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said.

“Therefore I hope Israel understands all these consequences … and they should also consider the consequences of such action for themselves,” Gatilov said at a news conference.

This week, the U.S.military chief said an Israeli attack would be “not
prudent.”

Meanwhile, a top UN nuclear official said on Wednesday his team could “could not find a way forward” in attempts to persuade Iran to talk about suspected secret work on atomic arms.

Herman Nackaerts of the International Atomic Energy Agency says the talks in Tehran were inconclusive, although his mission approached the talks “in a constructive spirit.”

Nackaerts spoke to reporters at Vienna airport shortly after returning from the Iranian capital.

An IAEA statement published overnight already acknowledged the talks had failed.

Iran denies it has experimented with nuclear arms programs but has refused to cooperate with an IAEA probe on the issue for nearly four years.

Kremlin: Russia, Iran oppose fore… JPost – Diplomacy & Politics.

Division Over Iran? | JewishPress.

It seems like only yesterday that the Obama administration missed no opportunity to declare its solidarity with Israel regarding the threat of a nuclear Iran.

As we noted in a Feb. 10 editorial, President Obama had just declared that the U.S. and Israel “have closer military and intelligence consultation between our two countries than we’ve ever had. We are going to be sure that we work in lockstep as we proceed to try to resolve this – hopefully diplomatically.”

And other world leaders were equally resolute about not allowing Iran to become a nuclear power, even if a military solution was what it would ultimately take..

So we were dismayed by some recent statements on the part of senior American military and intelligence officials seemingly designed to draw a line in the sand between Israel and the U.S. on the issue of military action against Iran.

Appearing on CNN this past Sunday, General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, urged Israel not to attack Iran; among the reasons he gave were that a military strike would only amount to a temporary setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions and that it would invite retaliation and be a “destabilizing” factor throughout the Middle East.

He went on to say that “It’s not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran.” He cautioned, however that “I wouldn’t suggest, sitting here today, that we’ve persuaded [Israel] that our view is the correct view and that they are acting in an ill-advised fashion.”

National Security Adviser Tom Donilon delivered a similar message to Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak at a recent meeting.

Also, Joe Cirincione, of the State Department’s International Security Advisory Board that provides the State Department with independent advice on security and diplomatic issues, said it is unclear whether an Israeli attack on Iran “would do enough damage to actually do much more than delay the program for a year or so.”

Cirincione said a strike would doubtless be the beginning of either a greater war or a large-scale containment effort to try to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb.

American officials aren’t the only ones who seem to be distancing themselves from Israel. On Sunday, British foreign secretary William Hague called on Israel to give the internationally imposed sanctions against Iran more time: “Israel, like everyone else in the world, should be giving a real chance to the approach we adopted – very serious economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure, and the readiness to negotiate with Iran.”

To be sure, not everyone has to agree with Israel’s approach to Iran and there may indeed be valid arguments for taking a cautious, give-sanctions-a chance approach. But what rankles is the public venue chosen for the expression of disagreement.

What possible policy requirement dictated a public statement that the U.S. was opposed to an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities? What would have been lost if the Obama administration had privately communicated to Prime Minister Netanyahu that it was opposed to a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities at this point in time? As the Wall Street Journal editorialized:

In a single sound bite, Gen. Dempsey managed to tell the Iranians they can breathe easier because Israel’s main ally is opposed to an attack on Iran, such attack isn’t likely to work in any case, and the US fears Iran’s retaliation….If the U.S. really wanted its diplomacy to work in lieu of force, it would say and do what ever it can to increase Iran’s fear of an attack. It would say publicly that Israel must be able to protect itself and that it has the means to do so. America’s top military officer in particular should say that if Iran escalates in response to an Israeli attack, the U.S. would have no choice but to intervene on behalf of its ally. The point of coercive diplomacy is to make an adversary understand that the costs of its bad behavior will be very, very high.

West abandoning Israel in face of Iran threat?.

Western powers have for years made grand pronouncements regarding their commitment to Israel’s security in the face of the Iranian nuclear threat. But now that Iran is drawing so close to being able to field a nuclear weapon, America and Europe appear to be backing off and leaving Israel to the wolves.

The most damning evidence that the West would not, contrary to the promises of US President Barack Obama and others, do everything necessary to protect Israel came when NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen suggested this week that an early-warning radar system in Turkey would not provide Israel with advanced warning of an Iranian missile launch.

Speaking to reporters in Turkey, Rasmussen insisted that “data is shared within our allies, among our allies. It’s a defense system to protect the populations of NATO allies.”

After being further baited by Turkish reporters, Rasmussen again stressed that “it is a NATO system and the data within the system will not be shared with third countries.”

While Rasmussen was reluctant to single out Israel as one of those “third countries,” Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davuto knew exactly what his nation’s press wanted to hear: “Especially if it’s about Israel, our view is clear.”

Earlier this month, Israel’s military intelligence chief, Maj.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi, said that intelligence suggests Iran already has enough nuclear material to build four atomic bombs. Kochavi told the annual Herzliya Conference that if Iran decided today to build a nuclear bomb, it could do so in less than one year.

With the situation clearly reaching a critical junction, talk of the possible need to launch a preemptive strike has reached fever pitch in Israel. The consternation of Israelis has been further exacerbated by recent calls from within Iran’s religious leadership to attack and destroy Israel no later than 2014.

In a document published by Iran’s Alef news agency, the chief strategist of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Alireza Forghani, argued that “in the name of Allah, Iran must attack Israel by 2014. All our troubles are due to Israel!”

Alireza insisted that even in the absence of a preemptive Israeli strike, Iran was still perfectly justified in striking the Jewish state over its “occupation” of “Palestinian lands.”

And it is precisely at this moment that the US, Britain and other European powers are showing themselves most apathetic and incapable of facing down the Iranian threat.

Almost completely ignoring the history of the Iranian nuclear crisis up until now, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton last week expressed hope that negotiations with Iran would reopen after Ashton received a moderately-worded letter from Tehran.

Such letters and talk of negotiations has been used repeatedly by Iran to stall Western efforts to curb its nuclear program.

Days after Clinton and Ashton were taken in by the Iranian letter, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, cautioned Israel to back off any preparations for a preemptive strike on Iran. Dempsey’s interview with CNN effectively signalled Israel that if it strikes Iran at this time, it will do so without American support and backing.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague issued a similar warning on Sunday, and demonstrated the same type of selective memory that plagues Clinton and Ashton when he insisted that negotiations must be given “a real chance” before military options are seriously considered.

U.S. General’s Iran Comments Sharpen Rift With Israel | The Jewish Week.

Tel Aviv — U.S. National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon was here this week to confer with Israel’s leaders, the latest in a series of high-level bilateral talks as anxiety builds over a possible Israeli preemptive strike against Iran’s presumed nuclear weapons program.

The U.S. is clearly concerned that Israel may be preparing a military strike against Iran, something the Obama administration believes is “premature.”

Jack Lew, the White House chief of staff, acknowledged to a group of 50 Jewish leaders in New York last Friday that there is disagreement between the U.S. and Israel “on the timetable relative to Iran,” according to Janice Shorenstein, a former president of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, who chaired the meeting.

Donilon’s visit comes weeks after meetings here with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey. Later this week, James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, is expected to arrive for still more talks.

Gerald Steinberg, a political science professor at Bar-Ilan University, called such talks “unprecedented.”

“At all levels there’s an intense discussion focusing on Iran,” he told The Jewish Week. “When the Obama administration says there’s never been such close security cooperation, this is evidence of that.”

Steinberg asserted that reports of friction between the allies over Israeli plans to go it alone were merely “spin” by the same political activists who sought to blame Israel for the U.S. decision to invade Iraq in 2003. He suggested that the close coordination between the U.S. and Israel is being used in the effort to deter Iran from building a nuclear weapon.

But the recent criticism of Israel by Obama administration officials, as well as recent leaks to the media about how Israel might carry out a military attack, are said to have rankled senior Israeli officials. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz said that both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak believe Dempsey’s Sunday television interview “served Iran’s interests.”

“I don’t think a wise thing at this moment is for Israel to launch a military attack on Iran,” Dempsey told CNN, adding that such a strike “would be destabilizing” and “not prudent.”

He added that the U.S. was still meeting with Israeli leaders because Israel thus far is not convinced that the U.S. assessment is correct. In addition, he said any Israeli military strike would not permanently destroy Iran’s nuclear program.

Dempsey’s comments came under attack Tuesday from the Wall Street Journal. In an editorial, the paper questioned whether the Obama administration is more concerned about Iran getting a nuclear bomb or that Israel may use military force to prevent that. Dempsey’s remarks, it said, suggested the latter.

“In a single sound bite, General Dempsey managed to tell the Iranians they can breathe easier because Israel’s main ally is opposed to an attack on Iran, such attack isn’t likely to work in any case, and the U.S. fears Iran’s retaliation,” the Journal wrote. “It’s as if General Dempsey wanted to ratify Iran’s rhetoric that the regime is a fearsome global military threat.”

Netanyahu is slated to meet with President Barack Obama in the White House March 5 to discuss the matter directly. Just one day earlier, Netanyahu is slated to address the annual gathering of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, where he could be expected to spell out his concerns about Iran.

Netanyahu recently said the sanctions imposed by the West on Iran’s central bank and oil exports are important but have thus far failed to deter Iran from moving ahead with its nuclear weapons program. He cited as proof the guided tour Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad conducted of centrifuges at a Tehran research reactor; Iran insists the nuclear program is strictly for peaceful purposes.

Despite Lew’s assertion to Jewish leaders last week that sanctions against Iran are working, the Guardian newspaper in England reported Monday that key members of the Pentagon and State Department “are increasingly convinced that sanctions will not deter Tehran from pursuing its nuclear program, and believe that the U.S. will be left with no option but to launch an attack on Iran or watch Israel do so.”

The sanctions, according to the paper, will principally be used to delay Israeli military action and to reassure Europe that all steps are being taken to avoid an attack.

Shmuel Rosner, a fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute, said that Israel has already scored tactical points by creating a credible threat of an attack. In Iran, that threat prompted a drill of anti-aircraft defenses, and in Europe, leaders are also calling on Israel to back down. The intensified speculation is also what is behind the flurry of consultations with the U.S.

“It’s like we need a preschool teacher to hold our hands at all times so we won’t jump into the busy road when no one is paying attention,” he said. “It’s like a young child: the hand is held to prevent us from doing something foolish.”

Rosner noted however, that it’s still unclear what signals the U.S. are giving Israel, such as how firm is the U.S. red light.

“We have a saying in Israel: ‘When you say no, what do you mean?’” he said. “Is it a, ‘No, not now,’ or a ‘No, never,’ or is it a ‘No, but we’ll understand.”

But meanwhile the Obama administration, by “publicly confronting Jerusalem” over its threatened military action, is taking the wrong approach, according to Larry Haas, a visiting senior fellow at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute.

He said he believes that only by “making it clear to Tehran that there is no daylight between Washington and Jerusalem” in their “determination to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent Tehran from going nuclear” will Iran be stopped.

“Only if Iran thinks its regime will be threatened from a popular insurrection or military action from outside will it possibly be convinced to change course,” Haas told The Jewish.

He pointed out that a recently published report of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s (BPC) National Security Project recommended that Congress approve delivery of 200 GBU-31 bunker-buster bombs and three KC-135 aerial refueling tankers to Israel “to help bolster its capacity to strike Iran’s nuclear installations, if necessary, and help convince the Iranians that a diplomatic solution serves its best interests.”

“Our report does not advocate an Israeli military strike,” emphasized former Sen. Charles Robb, co-author of the report. “But we believe a more credible Israeli threat can only increase the pressure on Iran to agree to shut down its nuclear weapons program peacefully.”

Haas said it is clear that Israel wants to launch a military strike “before Iran has the combination of technology and the know-how” to build a nuclear bomb.

♦

But Patrick Clawson, deputy director for research for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said it is “unrealistic” for the U.S. and Israel to see eye-to-eye on Iran because Israel believes that with its acquisition of a nuclear bomb Iran would become an existential threat; the U.S. disagrees.

In addition, he said the U.S. has not been happy with reports that Israel was behind a series of covert actions, including the assassination of at least four Iranian scientists who worked on the nuclear project.

“The U.S. approach to military action is the Powell Doctrine, which says force is to be used for definitive results,” Clawson told The Jewish Week. “The Israel Defense Forces say it is like mowing the grass — it is something that is not going away” and must be tended to.

“So the U.S. believes there is no point in bombing because it will only set it back and Israel disagrees. There is a different strategic culture.”

Asked if he believes whether the U.S. will come to Israel’s aid with aerial refueling tankers should Israel launch military action, Clawson replied: “No, I don’t think so. It will just say it was unfortunate Israel had to do this.”

But he did say the U.S. might quietly help Israel in any search-and- rescue missions should Israeli aircrafts be shot down.

“There might be a quiet agreement to let Israel use our air facilities if a pilot goes down or to help find the guy — quiet things like that,” Clawson said.

Eitan Ben Eliyahu, a former air force commander, said in an interview with Israel Radio that few expected Israel’s air force to deliver a knockout blow to Egypt’s air force in the Six-Day War in 1967. The wild card, he explained, was creativity in planning.

“Beyond the data that can be read in the newspapers and in the literature and in Wikipedia, there is a lot of sophistication and a lot of cunning in any military operation,” he explained. “A lot of imagination and a lot of things can be done to change some of the parameters and to turn things upside down.”

According to Haaretz, the U.S. is especially concerned that Defense Minister Ehud Barak is leading a “hawkish” line in favor of a strike. But despite his emphatic push for a strike, many question whether Barak’s chatter is mere bluff.

The defense minister was mocked on a recent edition of the satire show “Eretz Nehederet,” in which a skit portrayed two Iranian nuclear scientists chatting on a break at a reactor.

“The problem is we’ve got business with an irrational leader,” said one scientist holding up Barak’s picture while invoking a common Israeli description of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. “He’s capable of anything.”

Haaretz said the U.S. believes Netanyahu hasn’t yet made up his mind about a military strike. Indeed, many Israeli analysts doubt whether the Israeli prime minister, when faced with such a risky operation, will follow through with an attack.

“There are going to be repercussions all over the place and I don’t think [Netanyahu] is prepared for that,” said Mitchell Barak, a Jerusalem pollster and former Netanyahu staffer. “You have to have the relations with world leaders to pull this off. I think you have to be on good standing to pull this off, and I don’t think he is.”

Barak said, however, that talking about Iran gives the prime minister a boost.

“It’s a good electoral issue, and Israelis want to hear about it,” he said. “They like to hear about scientists blowing up.’’

Other Israeli analysts point out that Netanyahu has been careful to avoid violent conflict, save for a decision in 1996 to open a tourist tunnel in Old Jerusalem that sparked several days of Palestinian riots that left many dead.

Ofer Shelach, an Israeli political analyst, said Netanyahu takes a “religious,” approach to the Iran threat by comparing the regime in Tehran to the Nazis on the eve of World War II. Still, the Israeli prime minister will be very cautious before going out on a limb and ordering a preemptive strike, he said.

Joshua Mitnick is an Israel correspondent; Stewart Ain is a staff writer.

Iran Moves Warplanes to Protect Nuclear Sites – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

A-Jad Goes Nuclear

Reuters

Iran announced Monday it had deployed warplanes and missiles in an ‘exercise’ to protect its nuclear sites from attack.

Tehran also warned it could cut oil exports to more European Union nations unless sanctions were lifted. On Sunday, Iran cut oil sales to Britain and France.

French foreign minister Alain Juppe responded by mocking Iran, saying Tehran’s threats “made one smile.” He added that Iran was “very creative” in its attempts to “provoke” its fellow nations.

The European Union had already voted to halt imports of Iranian crude oil as of 1 July 2001. The EU has also imposed heavy sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank.

EU sanctions closely mirror those imposed by the United States and are intended to force Iran to abandon its nuclear program, which is widely suspected of seeking nuclear weapons.

Late last year, the International Atomic Energy Agency published a 13-page report accusing Iran of systemic obstruction of inspectors at its nuclear facilities and seeking nuclear technologies of a military nature.

Iran, as a voluntary signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is banned from seeking nuclear weapons and obligated to allow the world nuclear watchdog access to its nuclear sites.

Tehran has frequently accused the IAEA of enforcing a double-standard citing the widely held belief that Israel has a nuclear arms stockpile. However, Israel is not a signatory to the NPT and has no obligations to the IAEA.

Iran’s announcement on Monday marked a hardening of the Islamic Republic’s defiance in the standoff and a potential readying for armed conflict as tensions with Jerusalem and Washington rise.

Israeli officials have made it clear they regard an Iranian nuclear weapon as a potentially existential threat due to Tehran’s repeated calls for the Jewish state’s destruction. Iranian leaders have openly referred to Israel as a “one bomb state.”

The moves came the same day as officials from the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency arrived in Tehran for a second round of talks focused on “the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program.”

Iran’s military said Monday that it has launched four days of maneuvers in the south of the country aimed at boosting anti-air defenses to protect nuclear sites. Missiles, anti-aircraft artillery, radars and warplanes were being deployed in the exercise Tehran dubbed “Sarollah”.

Senior military officials in Tehran also said Iran would not wait to be attacked if it “felt threatened,” indicating potential pre-emptive strikes on Israel or US military forces in the Persian Gulf region.

Iran has also threatened to close the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, which US military officials say would be an “act of war.”

Dozens killed in Syria as top military officer defects with hundreds of soldiers – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Brigadier-General defects from military with 200 soldiers from Idlib; At least 57 people, including tww Western journalists killed by regime forces.

By DPA and Zvi Bar’el

A senior Syrian military officer has defected from the forces of President Bashar  Assad’s regime along with a group of some two hundred soldiers in the city of Idlib, opposition sources reported on Wednesday.

The senior officer has a rank of Brigadier General.

	Syrian military personnel near Idlib, Feb. 2012
	Photo by: AFP

Opposition sources said that a battalion has been established in the city to fightregime forces. Meanwhile, the number of defectors from the Syrian army is growing, and many citizens are joining the Free Syrian Army.

The number of defectors is still not causing the breakdown of the Syrian army, or the breaking of loyalty to Assad within government ranks, however.

Meanwhile, at least 57 people, including two Western journalists, were killedWednesday by government troops across Syria, the opposition Syrian Local Coordination Committee (LCC) reported.

“Most of the deaths occurred in the province of Homs. Others were killed in the provinces of Idlib and Hama,” Omar Idlibi, the LCC spokesman in Beirut, told dpa.

Wednesday’s violence followed shelling by Syrian forces on Tuesday that killed at least 65 people in Homs, activists said, describing the attacks as the heaviest since the start of an assault on the restive city early this month.

Activist Omar Homsi told DPA that more than thirty people were also wounded in the city’s besieged neighborhoods of Baba Amr,Al-Khalidiyeh, and Inshaaat and the region of al-Kussair.

Earlier on Tuesday, the Red Cross called for a daily two-hour cease-fire in Syria so that it can deliver emergency aid and reach people who are wounded or sick.

An Interview With Philanthropist Extraordinaire Sheldon Adelson | JewishPress.

(The attacks on Adelson in the MSM for supporting Gingrich got me interested in him.  I found this interview with him from last winter.  It gives you a good picture of the man.  Though I’m no Republican, Adelson is a man I would be proud to call my friend.  My read?  He chose Gingrich because he’s the most effective talking about Israel.  I think Adelson is spending his money on Gingrich in order to help Israel.  What better way to get coverage for pro-Israel views?  Given the public position of the Obama administration and the MSM, Israel can use all the help it can get with this.  – JW )

In September 2011, Forbes magazine ranked Sheldon Adelson the 8th richest man in America and 16th in the world. He is chairman and CEO of the Las Vegas Sands Corp. with integrated resorts in Asia, Pennsylvania, and Las Vegas where his holdings include The Venetian, The Palazzo and the Sands Expo and Convention Center.

He has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to Jewish and Israeli concerns and is the single largest donor to the Birthright Israel program. He and his wife, Miriam, recently presented Jerusalem’s Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial with $25 million – the second $25 million donation made by the couple to Yad Vashem in five years. Their total contribution is the largest ever received by Yad Vashem from a private donor.

The Jewish Press: Let’s start at the beginning. Where were you raised?

Adelson: As far as I was concerned, we lived in a Jewish ghetto in Boston. I used to call it the slums. The best you could say about it was that it was a dense, impoverished area. My parents had few material things and the moneylender came to the house so often that I thought he was an uncle, like he was part of the family, because he would show up at every family affair.

What was it like growing up so impoverished?

For several years the whole family – my parents, two brothers, and my sister – lived in one bedroom. The living room was a storefront where my mother ran a knitting store. Besides that, there was a little sitting area, a bathroom, and a kitchen. But there was always this blue and white pushke on the kitchen table. My dad, being a cab driver, always came home with a lot of change in his pocket, so he would take all the change in his pocket and put it into the pushke.

One day I asked him what he was doing and he said, “I’m filling the box.” I asked him what happens when it gets full and he said, “I take it down to the place,” which turned out to be the Federation office. “They empty it and give it to poor people, then give it back to me and I fill it up again.”

I said, “But Daddy, aren’t we poor?” He said, “Yeah, we’re poor, but there’s always somebody who’s more poor and you have to help take care of them.” I didn’t want to believe that, because nobody ever helped me. I had to do everything on my own. He made me promise that I would put money in a pushke every day. I don’t quite do it like that, but I think he’ll forgive me because I do it “in bulk.”

When did you start working?

When I was about nine. I had to work for three years to save $35 to buy a bicycle. I repaired bicycles, shoveled snow, did odd jobs. But then, my first business was at the age of twelve. I bought and sold two newspaper “corners.” The “corner” was like a franchise to be able to sell the local newspapers. It was a right, and I had to buy that right from somebody.

As a boy, were you determined to become rich?

No, I never thought about becoming wealthy. It never crossed my mind. What really motivated me was to try to accomplish something. Achievement is the motivation of entrepreneurs.

Did being Jewish always play an important role in your life?

Oh, yes. My father wasn’t very religious, but he told me his father was – my grandfather, whom I never met. My parents sent their children to Hebrew school, and on the high holidays my father would insist that we go with him to shul.

For my father, when Israel was founded it was a wonderful day. He always wanted to go to Israel, but he could never afford it. When I made enough money so that I could afford to give my parents whatever they wanted, I wanted them to go to Israel, but by then my father was too old and too sick to go.

Were they able to see you go to Israel?

No. My parents died in 1985, may they rest in peace. When my siblings and I went down to clean out their apartment, I saw a pair of his shoes. My father and I had exactly the same odd shoe size. When I used to visit my parents in North Miami Beach, we would go to the Florsheim store in Bal Harbour. It was the only store in the country where I could find more than one pair of shoes in my size. I would try to encourage my father to get shoes, but he’d always say “No, but those shoes that you just bought, take good care of my shoes.” Then in the summer, when he came to spend time with my family and me, he would take the shoes from me because I couldn’t get him to spend any money. My mother, too, was the same way. So when they passed away and we went down to clean out their apartment, I saw those shoes that he had recently taken. I took them back with me.

Sometime later when I was packing to go to Israel, I went into my closet and saw those shoes, and decided to take them with me. I wanted to walk in Israel with my father’s shoes on because my father had always wanted to go, but never made it. When we got there, my Israeli wife Miriam took me to a park where I could walk on the actual earth, the land of Israel, in the shoes of my father.

Speaking of Israel, what are your thoughts on the so-called two-state solution?

There won’t be a two-state solution; there won’t be a one-state solution. The Palestinians want a “no state solution” for the Jews. They don’t want Jews at all. So all of this balagan about the settlements – it’s not about the settlements. It’s something to delay having to sit down and negotiate over a table that will have to lead to a conclusion that they will never agree to. They will have to agree that this is the end of the conflict and they will have to surrender what they call their “right of return to Israel proper.” They will never do either of those things. They don’t want the Jews or any other religion to be alive, so how are they going to get to the point of peace?

There isn’t a Palestinian alive who wasn’t raised on a curriculum of hatred and hostility toward the Jews. So how can you talk about giving up land? They publicly acknowledge that they have a multi-phased program. They’ll do it in steps: They’ll take the West Bank, then they’ll take a piece of the Galilee, and piece by piece they’ll want the rest of the land of Israel. There’s no chance for peace, and the settlements are just a red herring issue.

Do you think the UN statehood business is just going to fall by the wayside?

No. The UN business is how they’re circumventing the need to sit down and negotiate…. All of this is an excuse to delay coming to the table and negotiating.

Do you think Israel should be a secular, pluralistic country or remain a Jewish state for Jews?

It should be a Jewish state for the Jewish people. It should be the homeland of the Jewish people. Without question.

Why do you think the majority of American Jews have been generally supportive of President Obama?

The Jews are always for the underdog. They don’t realize that Obama is against the interests of the Jewish people and Israel. Politics is not always a transparent discipline, but Obama, like Bill Clinton, believes the objective is to get a written agreement whether or not it’s in the interest of Israel and the Jews. Just get an agreement signed. For Obama, this is just a political issue; for the Israelis, it is its very survival and the survival of the Jewish people. It’s not making or losing political points.

Clearly some of Obama’s actions are mixed, but in the meantime it’s the direction and the trend that really counts, and not just symbolism about Israel.

You established the daily Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom. Why?

It started from my father’s belief that the Israeli people are entitled to get a fair and balanced view of the news. And outside of Israel Hayom, they don’t. We are trying to give a fair and balanced, truthful view of the news.

Do you think it’s had the effect you were after?

Yes. In just three years we became number one – according to the rating service there, we have the largest daily readership and we will continue to grow.

Besides continuing to grow and expand your empire, what do you still want to accomplish in life given the power and influence you wield?

I want to: (1) accelerate my efforts in the Jewish community and pro-Israel matters; (2) expand my backing in the collaborative approach to conducting medical research through the Adelson Medical Research Foundation; and (3) support my political views, in my case, right-of-center Republican views. Not necessarily in that order.

Marcia Friedman is a freelance writer for the The Jewish Press. She can be reached at mlf@marciafriedman.com.

‘Iranian missiles may be able to… JPost – Iranian Threat – News.

By Fars News / Reuters

Iran may develop inter-continental missiles that can reach the east coast of the United States in two to three years, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz said in a CNBC interview Wednesday.

Iran is investing billions of dollars, Steinitz said,  to develop inter-continental ballistic missiles. “We estimate that in 2-3 years they will have the first inter-continental ballistic missiles that can reach the east coast of America.”

“Their aim is clearly not only to be able to threaten Israel and the Middle East,” he continued, “but to put a direct nuclear ballistic threat to Europe and to the United States of America.”

Earlier Wednesday, Russia warned Israel not to attack Iran over its nuclear program, saying on Wednesday that military action would have catastrophic consequences.

“Of course any possible military scenario against Iran will be catastrophic for the region and for the whole system of international relations,” Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said.

“Therefore I hope Israel understands all these consequences … and they should also consider the consequences of such action for themselves,” Gatilov said at a news conference.

Gatilov’s comments came as Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Wednesday that Tehran’s nuclear course would not change regardless of international sanctions, assassinations or other pressures.

The UN nuclear watchdog also said on Wednesday it had failed to secure an agreement with Iran during two days of talks over disputed atomic activities and that the Islamic Republic had rejected a request to visit a key military site.

In the second such trip in less than a month, a senior team from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had traveled to Tehran to press Iranian officials to start addressing mounting concerns that the Islamic Republic may be seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

Reuters contributed to this report