Indeed, the comments from Bolton fall in line with Bolton’s former colleague in the George W. Bush Administration, former CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden, who warned recently that bombing Iran may give Tehran an inducement to pursue a nuclear weapon. Bolton told Fox News this afternoon:

BOLTON: They [Israel] may attack now but not really break Iran’s control over the nuclear fuel cycle which is a very unfortunate circumstance. We’re running out of time. Israel’s running out of time. Nobody can calibrate exactly when Iran will get the bomb.

Watch it:

While Bolton and his fellow hawks are quick to refer to Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions as a foregone conclusion, neither senior U.S. intelligence officials now the IAEA have concluded that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. The IAEA has expressed concerns over a possible military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program and Director of National Intelligence Jame Clapper emphasized that U.S. intelligence sources believe Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has not yet made a decision whether to pursue a nuclear weapon.

Last month, Clapper told Members of Congress that economic pressure from sanctions could effect Iran’s “cost-benefit analysis” and dissuade Tehran from taking the steps necessary for constructing a nuclear weapon.

The hawkish Senators’ lack of success is noticeable as the three men are seen as as some of the most influential Senators on foreign policy and national security. But their efforts to roll out a piece of bipartisan legislation pressuring the White House’s hand on diplomacy with Iran has found few allies across the aisle. Sens. Bob Casey Jr. (D-PA) reportedly signed onto the legislation and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) is rumored to be on board. But Senate Democrats are concerned that the resolution “would be seen as creeping toward an authorization of military force against Iran,” reports The Hill’s Alexander Bolton.

A Senate aid denied that characterization of the legislation and emphasized that it is not an authorization of military action and leaves the option of further negotiations.

However a statement last month from Graham and Lieberman stated, in no uncertain terms, that they would support a bipartisan resolution explicitly opposing containment. The statement read:

When it comes to addressing the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, all options must be on the table — except for one, and that is containment. [...] Containment is failure, and failure cannot be an option.

Neither U.S. intelligence officials nor the IAEA have concluded that Iran has decided to pursue a nuclear weapon.

Indeed the IAEA has stated concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program but senior U.S. intelligence officials have expressed support for ongoing sanctions and diplomacy.

Efforts to press Obama to employ the “military option” continue to be discussed in Washington but the partisan divide between those urging action — be it in Congress or outside pressure groups — and those pursuing diplomacy and sanctions is becoming increasingly distinct as Republicans seek to portray the President as weak on national defense and foreign policy.

Rudy Giuliani with MEK leader Maryam Rajavi on January 20, 2012

Former CIA official and visiting Georgetown professor Paul Pillar, citing the U.S. government’s definition of terrorism, observed that “with or without confirmation of details of this story, the assassinations are terrorism.” But numerous right-wing pundits and politicians here in the United States — many of whom regularly decry the use of terrorism as a means to political ends — have celebrated the MEK’s alleged attacks.

Appearing on Fox News on Sunday, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani declared that the MEK should be the Time Magazine “person of the year” if they were behind assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists.

An editorial in Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post said on Friday that the MEK deserves a Nobel Peace Prize:

Let’s be frank: Were the MeK to play the critical role in derailing an Iranian bomb, it would be far more deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize than a certain president of the United States we could mention.

And Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin justified the MEK’s action and Israel’s alleged role in financing, arming and training the group:

To those who say it is immoral to use those who have employed terrorism, the only reply can be that it would be far worse for Israel’s government to allow such scruples to prevent them from carrying out actions that might stop the Iranians from going nuclear.

Noticeably, the MEK’s defenders chose not to address the NBC report’s other major disclosure. The MEK reportedly worked with Ramzi Yousef, the terrorist behind the first attack on the World Trade Center, to bomb an Iranian shrine, killing at least 26 people.

The NBC report did not go on to substantiate any direct links between the Israeli government and the assassination campaign, and the MEK denied any involvement in the attacks.

Indeed, the MEK’s American supporters find themselves in the increasingly difficult position of lobbying to remove the organization from the State Department’s terror list while openly celebrating the group’s involvement in terrorist attacks.

According to the former Pennsylvania senator, because the Obama administration rejected the Keystone pipeline, it “knows” America will need oil. And where will the U.S. get that oil? Iran. And how will the U.S. get access to Iranian oil? According to Santorum, Obama will throw “Israel under the bus” and allow Iran to get nuclear weapons:

SANTORUM: They know that oil is drying up. And they know that not building that pipeline we’re not going to have access to oil reserves. And they know they’re going to be more dependent upon OPEC and so what are we doing? We’re throwing Israel under the bus because we know we’re going to be dependent on OPEC. We’re going to say ‘Oh Iran, we don’t want you to get a nuclear weapon, wink, wink, nod, nod, go ahead just give us your oil.

Watch it:

While Santorum’s accusations that the president is allowing Iran to develop a nuclear weapon at Israel’s expense is a serious allegation, Obama’s track record on Iran sanctions and Israel simply don’t match up with the former senator’s harsh rhetoric.

Neither the IAEA nor U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that Iran has decided to pursue a nuclear weapon and last week, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Members of Congress that economic sanctions were the best strategy to weaken the government in Tehran. The IAEA and the Obama administration have expressed concern over possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.

And on Monday, Obama tightened sanctions, freezing assets of any entities that do business with Iran’s central bank.

Indeed, a nuclear weapons possessing Iran would pose a security threat to Israel but accusing Obama of being a weak ally to Israel has become a right-wing talking point as Republican presidential candidates struggle to attack the administration’s national security track record, which includes killing Osama Bin Laden and participating in NATO operations that brought the end of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s 42 years in power.

While Santorum may claim that Obama “threw Israel under the bus,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference in May that Obama made an “iron clad commitment to Israel’s security. [...] And he has backed those words with deeds.”

Obviously, this sampling of shows is a bit too small to use to draw conclusions about what American and Israeli audiences have in common, or why Israeli story templates work here. Americans have complicated relationships to and feelings about Israel, but none that translate into pop culture as easily as thinking that British people and their accents are inherently cool, that MI-6 makes for an excellent action setting, or generalized royalty and aristocracy nostalgia. An LA Times article from earlier this year offered some theories, both psychological and structural: “Some others: Israeli television’s gallows humor fits with post-9/11 American anxiety; Israelis are preoccupied by some of the same subjects as American network executives (‘the country has more psychologists per capita than anywhere else in the world, and that leads to psychologically complex stories,’ said David Nevins, Showtime’s president of entertainment); a U.S. business that has grown restless with traditional sources; Israeli shows are relatively cheap; and Israeli TV’s small budgets birth creative storytelling.”

In a sense, I regret that we’re really only going to be able to remake Israeli shows rather than rebroadcasting them directly. Our national conversation about Israel is bigger than this, but it might be healthy to keep the setting so audiences here can see the country the same way we see England: as an ally, a place of both great natural beauty and sometimes-prosaic urban design, where some people are involved in existential struggles against security threats and others are consumed with the prosaic business of everyday life and everyday jobs.

Wreckage of an Iranian scientist's car after a deadly bomb blast

The State Department designates the MEK as a “foreign terrorist organization,” though the group’s supporters have mounted an aggressive lobbying effort aimed at getting delisted through claims it laid down arms in the early 2000s.

The NBC story cited two U.S. officials linking the MEK to the recent spate of assassinations, and a third who neither confirmed nor denied the allegation:

Two senior U.S. officials confirmed for NBC News the MEK’s role in the assassinations, with one senior official saying, “All your inclinations are correct.” A third official would not confirm or deny the relationship, saying only, “It hasn’t been clearly confirmed yet.” All the officials denied any U.S. involvement in the assassinations.

The group, through its political wing (which was also added to the State designation), denied any involvement in the latest attacks. A “representative” of the group in Washington also denied involvement.

The NBC report also claimed that Israeli intelligence services “financed, trained and armed” the MEK, though the story did not go on to substantiate any direct links between the Israeli government and the assassination campaign.

The U.S. denial of involvement last month, after the latest killing by a bomb blast in Tehran, was unequivocal: “I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran,” said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, condemning the attacks.

Founded in the mid-1960s as an armed revolutionary group, the MEK fought against the Shah and his U.S. backers — allegedly killing Americans — in the 1970s, but then split with Iran’s clerical leadership in the early 1980s. Eventually, the group ended up based in Paris and Iraq, where, from the latter location, it was helped by Saddam Hussein to raise arms against Iran during the war between the two countries. Since 1997, when such designations were introduced, the MEK has been considered a “foreign terrorist organization” by the State Department. As many as 3,400 members of the group, which it claims are former fighters who laid down their arms in the early 2000s, are still based in Iraq.

While neither the IAEA nor U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that Iran has decided to pursue a nuclear weapon, the IAEA has expressed concern about military dimensions of the Iranian nuclear program. But right-wing hawks — from GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney to Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens — are repeating talking points that the Israelis are on the verge of unilaterally attacking in the face of an “existential threat” from Tehran.

Today, former Israeli intelligence chief Meir Dagan slammed Netanyahu’s government for representing fringe political positions, adding that Israel does not face an existential threat. The AP reports:

Meir Dagan, the former head of the Mossad spy agency said he does not believe Israel faces an existential threat from Iran, a view that contrasts with Israel’s prime minister and other leaders. [...]

At the launch of an electoral reform movement he chairs, he observed, “I don’t think there is an existential threat.” He did not specifically mention Iran, but the use of the phrase “existential threat” in Israel generally refers to Iran.

Dagan is joined by the current Israeli intelligence chief Tamir Pardo who reportedly told a gathering of Israeli ambassadors in December that Iran doesn’t pose an “existential threat” and “the term existential threat is used too freely.”

Last week, retired Israeli Lt. Gen. Amnon Lipkin-Shahak told The Independent that the Israeli military’s leadership does not support a strike on Iran and the Associated Press reported that Israel’s new air force chief, Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel, is “less enthusiastic about a possible attack on Iran” than his predecessor.

There is no doubt that Iran’s nuclear program, if weaponized, is incredibly worrying and constitutes a threat to nuclear non-proliferation efforts as well as Israel’s security. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said recently that Iran can be dissuaded from nuclear weapons through diplomacy and economic sanctions.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI)

Rogers, commenting on Washington Post columnist David Ignatius’ report that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes “there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June,” told Crowley:

MIKE ROGERS: [...] My argument is this is too important for us not to get this right. If Israel does a unilateral strike this could be a real problem for the national security interests of the United States.

CANDY CROWLEY: Well it lights the Middle East on fire basically.

ROGERS: Absolutely.

Rogers defended diplomatic and economic efforts to persuade Iran to cooperate fully with U.N. nuclear inspectors:

ROGERS: [The sanctions] seem to be working. The financial pressure right now on Iran is devastating. [...] It’s effecting every sector of their economy. [...] Our argument is can we work with the Israelis on this and other programs to try to delay or stop this program by bringing Iran to the table. That to me is a better outcome than inflaming the Middle East.

Watch it:

Rogers is not alone in voicing misgivings about an Israeli unilateral attack. In January, George W. Bush’s CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden disclosed that the Bush administration concluded that attacking Iran “would guarantee that which we are trying to prevent — an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon.” Speaking last June, retired Israeli spy chief Meir Dagan warned that an Israeli attack on Iran was “the stupidest thing I have ever heard” and the fallout from such an attack would pose an “unbearable” security challenge. A recent Council on Foreign Relations report highlighted one of the immediate consequences of a military escalation with Iran: a sudden oil price shock (about $23 per barrel in the first days) following an Israeli strike.

Last week, retired Israeli Lt. Gen. Amnon Lipkin-Shahak told The Independent that the IDF leadership doesn’t support military action at this point and Panetta told reporters, “Israel has indicated they are considering this, and we have indicated our concerns.”

Rogers’ worries about blowback from an Israeli strike may also be shared by Israel’s new air force chief, Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel. The Associated Press reports that Eshel is “less enthusiastic about a possible attack on Iran” than outgoing air force chief Maj. Gen. Ido Nehushtan.

Former Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Moshe Ya’alon, speaking at the Herzliya conference on Thursday, boasted that all of Iran’s nuclear facilities “can be hit, and I speak from experience as the IDF chief of staff,” and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, speaking at Herzliya later in the day, warned that there is a consensus among many nations that “a nuclear Iran will be more complicated to deal with, more dangerous and more costly in blood than if it were stopped today.”

While Panetta’s reported views, along with those of senior Israeli officials speaking at Herzliya, were interpreted by many as evidence of an emerging consensus that Israel will attack Iranian nuclear facilities before June — when Iran enters what Israelis describe to Ignatius as a “‘zone of immunity’ to commence building a nuclear bomb” — U.S. and Israeli officials are not in agreement on the inevitability of an Israeli attack.

Panetta, speaking in Brussels yesterday, refused to comment on Ignatius’s column but told reporters that “Israel has indicated they are considering this, and we have indicated our concerns.” The Associated Press reported Panetta’s comments in an article emphasizing that “Israel’s major allies in the West are working hard to talk it out of a unilateral military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, arguing forcefully that an attack ultimately would strengthen, not weaken, the regime in Tehran.” And in a seeming effort to deter an attack, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey reportedly warned Israeli leaders last month that the U.S. would not participate in a war against Iran initiated by Israel.

U.S. defense officials are not alone in expressing serious misgivings about an Israeli attack. While Ya’alon, Barak and Panetta’s comments dominated news coverage yesterday, The Independent reported that almost the entire hierarchy of Israel’s military and security establishment is concerned about the consequences from a premature Israeli attack on Iran, according to Lt. Gen. Amnon Lipkin-Shahak. Lipkin-Shahak, in comments starkly contrasting with Ya’alon and Barak’s hawkish warnings at Herzliya, warned that there had been little analysis of what happens the “day after” Israel strikes Iran and “It is quite clear that much if not all of the IDF [Israeli Defence Forces] leadership do not support military action at this point.”

Earlier this week, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper advocated that economic pressure could dissuade Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon and CIA Director David Petraeus urged policymakers to examine the current and upcoming IAEA reports to determine Iran’s nuclear intentions. The IAEA has said it has concerns about military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program and inspectors returned from a monitoring trip to Iran this week. But with reports of inspectors not receiving full access to sites mentioned in the IAEA’s November report, Tehran will be under heightened pressure to cooperate with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency during its next trip to Iran later this month.

But Romney’s attacks are based on wholesale fabrications of President Barack Obama’s track record as a close ally of Israel for the past three years. Romney charged:

This president went before the United Nations and castigated Israel for building settlements. He said nothing about thousands of rockets being rained in on Israel from the Gaza Strip.

The smear may have garnered applause from the debate audience but a National Jewish Democratic Council fact check found that Obama’s September 21, 2011 U.N. speech had explicitly addressed the issue of rockets fired into Israel. Obama said:

Let us be honest with ourselves: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses.

Romney went on to charge the White House with “[throwing] Israel under the bus” by “defining ’67 borders as a starting point for negotiations” — a position also held by the George W. Bush and Clinton administrations — and accused Obama of “[disrespecting] Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — Bibi Netanyahu.”

Watch it:

Following Obama’s U.N. speech in September, Netanyahu said to President Obama:

I think that standing your ground, taking this position of principle… I think this is a badge of honor and I want to thank you for wearing that badge of honor.

And last May, Netanyahu praised Obama’s commitment to Israel’s security, telling the audience at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference that Obama had made an “ironclad commitment to Israel’s security” and “[has] backed those words with deeds.”

Israel and discussion of U.S Middle East policy is one of the few foreign policy topics to emerge as a wedge issue for the GOP presidential candidates. Indeed, in the previous GOP debate three days ago, Newt Gingrich also made false claims about Obama’s policy toward Israel. But Obama’s track record of close cooperation with Israel requires critics like Romney and Gingrich to resort to outright fabrications to smear Obama as a weak ally to the Jewish state.

I do think the path we’re on — the economic sanctions and the diplomatic pressure — does seem to me to be having an effect. I just think that it’s premature to be deciding that the economic and diplomatic approach is inadequate.

Neither the latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency nor the most recent reported estimate of the U.S. intelligence community concluded that Iran has made a decision to build a nuclear bomb. And Haaretz reported last week that Israeli intelligence concurs with this view.

The Obama administration has pursued a dual-track approach so far of pressure and engagement, including a leveraging global diplomacy against Iran’s nuclear program — a record the President spoke about in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, expressing a continuing preference to resolving the crisis diplomatically. Facing the toughest sanctions yet from the U.S. and the European Union, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday signaled Iran was ready for nuclear talks.

In his interview, Dempsey “made clear he believed an approach involving military force wasn’t warranted at this point and could carry unforeseen risks,” National Journal reported, adding that Dempsey’s comments “represented the first time senior Pentagon officials weighed in” on the issue.

Gingrich — supposedly a historian in his own right — disregarded the well-reported facts of an event that occurred less than two weeks ago and brought swift condemnations from both the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) and the Washington Post’s “Fact Checker,” Glenn Kessler. Gingrich, responding to a question from debate moderator Brian Williams about a military escalation if Iran attempts to close the Strait, told the audience:

And I would say that the most dangerous thing, which by the way, Barack Obama just did, the — the Iranians are practicing closing the Strait of Hormuz, actively taunting us, so he cancels a military exercise with the Israelis so as not to be provocative?

Watch it:

Gingrich’s retelling of events from earlier this month is demonstrably inaccurate. Shortly after news broke of the postponed military exercise, Yahoo News’ Laura Rozen reported that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak requested the joint exercise be postponed.

The Jewish Telegraph Agency’s Ron Kampeas wrote that the exercise was being postponed because of “Israeli budget cuts.”

And Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren told the Jerusalem Post last Wednesday:

Such postponements are routine and do not reflect political or strategic concerns. The United States and Israel remain committed to holding the exercise – code-named Austere Challenge 12 – the largest and most robust in their historic alliance.

The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler called out Gingrich’s misrepresentation of the facts, writing, “Gingrich is repeating a rumor that was strongly denied by Israeli ambassador to the United States,” and the NJDC issued a statement:

Once again in tonight’s Florida GOP debate, former Speaker Newt Gingrich has simply fabricated recent events surrounding the U.S.-Israel relationship while discussing the postponement of a planned joint military exercise between our two countries—all in a deeply unfortunate ploy to smear President Barack Obama’s outstanding pro-Israel record.

Gingrich was seemingly trying to perpetuate the right wing’s false narrative that Obama has been a poor ally to Israel. But Gingrich’s complete disregard for the well established facts surrounding an event that happened less than two weeks ago illustrates the depths that his campaign will sink to smear Obama as hostile to the Jewish state.

Michael Hayden

Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin reports that Hayden, while speaking yesterday at the Center for the National Interest, told a small group:

When we talked about this in the government, the consensus was that [attacking Iran] would guarantee that which we are trying to prevent — an Iran that will spare nothing to build a nuclear weapon and that would build it in secret.

Hayden, reports Rogin, told the audience that the Bush administration concluded that without a military occupation of Iran, a military campaign would be counterproductive.

Hayden’s misgivings about a airstrikes come the same week that Colin Kahl, Obama’s recently retired Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, expressed his own reservations about attacking Iran. He wrote in Foreign Affairs:

[G]iven the high costs and inherent uncertainties of a strike, the United States should not rush to use force until all other options have been exhausted and the Iranian threat is not just growing but imminent. Until then, force is, and should remain, a last resort, not a first choice.

And on Tuesday, Former CIA acting director John McLaughlin told an audience that attacking Iran “would be a very bad option.”

Yukiya Amano, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said this week that what the IAEA knows about Iran’s nuclear program “suggests the development of nuclear weapons” and vowed to “alert the world” about program’s military dimensions. And the Chinese came out forcefully against Iran, warning that it does not tolerate a course toward nuclear weapons. “China adamantly opposes Iran developing and possessing nuclear weapons,” Chinese premier Wen Jiabao said.

Britain, China, France, Russia, Germany and the United States offered new negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program. “We are waiting for the Iranian reaction,” said a spokesperson for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

At the same time, a growing number of retired U.S. defense and intelligence officials, combined with twelve of the 18 living former heads of the three Israeli security branches, are expressing reservations about the rush towards military action against Iran.

Congress and GOP presidential candidates might find short-term political benefits in hawkish rhetoric and turning the discussion “into a political debate and one -upmanship,” as Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) warned on Wednesday, but officials in both Washington and Tel Aviv are expressing strongly worded concerns about the potential dangers of a military strike.

Insignia for the Sunni terror group Jundallah

The latest report surfaced through a U.S. intelligence memo on Mossad’s work to recruit members of the militant group. Foreign Policy learned of the memo, which was prepared at the end of the Bush administration’s tenure, and launched an 18 month investigation.

In what was known as a “false flag” operation — posing as another country’s operatives — the Mossad agents sought to build contacts with Jundallah, which is now designated by the U.S. as a terror organization. Human rights groups have long documented repression of Iran’s Balochi minority, both on the basis of sectarianism (Shia constitute the majority of iran) and ethnicity. Still, the designation of Jundallah, which commits atrocities such as bombings of Shia mosques, bars U.S. contacts.

When President George W. Bush was briefed on the memo about Mossad’s activities, he “went absolutely ballistic,” according to Foreign Policy reporter Mark Perry’s sources. Other current and former intelligence sources corroborated Perry’s report.

It’s not clear whether or not Israel’s relationship with Jundallah persists, and Perry does not disclose Mossad’s involvement in any particular Jundallah attack inside Iran. In 2008, before Jundallah’s 2010 terror designation, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker that the U.S. also had ties to the group: “According to [former CIA agent Robert] Baer and to press reports, the Jundallah is among the groups in Iran that are benefitting from U.S. support.” The U.S. has consistently denied any ties, and Perry cites an incident where a Jundallah leader was shipped by Pakistan to Iran without objection by the U.S.

The latest assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist comes as Iran and Western countries, through contacts via Turkey, are on the verge of restarting long-stalled talks on Iran’s nuclear program, which Iran says is for peaceful purposes but the West contends, with some supporting evidence, is aimed at weapons production.

Israeli intelligence chief Tamir Pardo

According to a report in the Israeli daily Haaretz, Mossad chief Tamir Pardo told a gathering of about 100 Israeli ambassadors that, while Iran’s nuclear program does constitute a threat and Israel will continue to do covert work to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions (hand-in-hand with the U.S.), an Iranian nuclear weapon would not necessarily pose an “existential threat” to the Jewish State. Based on the accounts of three ambassadors at the meeting, Haaretz’s Barak Ravid quoted Pardo as saying:

What is the significance of the term existential threat? Does Iran pose a threat to Israel? Absolutely. But if one said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an existential threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop and go home. That’s not the situation. The term existential threat is used too freely.

The remarks stand in contrast to frequent statements from hawkish Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that Iran poses an “existential threat” to Israel. But others have disagreed with the assessment. This year, Defense Minister Ehud Barak was quoted as saying, “I am not among those who believe Iran is an existential issue for Israel.” A former Mossad chief, Ephraim Halevy, also suggested Iran didn’t pose such a threat and issued a warning about the potential consequences of an attack. (That lines up with yet another former Mossad chief’s assessment, as well as other former high-ranking Israeli security officials.)

While Iran’s program does constitute a threat to nuclear non-proliferation efforts as well as Israel’s security — exacerbated by a long history of belligerent anti-Israel rhetoric from among Iran’s top leadership — comments like Pardo’s seem to be pushing back against one casus belli. The U.S. has vowed to not take any “options off the table” for dealing with Iran’s program, and calls an Iranian nuclear weapon unacceptable. The top U.S. military officer recently said he doesn’t know if Israel would warn the U.S. before attacking Iran.

Sands Corporation CEO Sheldon Adelson is based in Las Vegas but has business and political interests in Macau, China and Israel. In Israel, Adelson’s importance stems from his close friendship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ownership of Israel HaYom, a free daily newspaper which supports Netanyahu’s Likud party. Back in the U.S., Adelson sits on the board of the Republican Jewish Coalition and is outspoken about his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

During the George W. Bush presidency, Adelson opposed efforts to jump start peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians and even took sides against the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) when the organization supported peace talks. “I don’t continue to support organizations that help friends committing suicide just because they say they want to jump,” Adelson told the Jewish Telegraph Agency.

Gingrich, who characterized Palestinians as “terrorists” during a December 10th GOP debate and told the Jewish Channel that Palestians are an “invented” people, would seem to be mirroring the hardline positions taken by his early, and cash flush, benefactor.

“Sheldon has always loved Newt. He stuck with him through all of this,” Fred Zeidman, an Adelson friend and major player in the American Jewish community who is backing Mitt Romney told The Daily Beast’s Aram Roston. “He stuck with him when he stumbled. Newt, I think, is very reflective of Sheldon’s mindset. Particularly with Israel.”

While Adelson and Gingrich appear to share the same right-wing agenda on the Middle East, the casino magnate’s business dealings in China have proven a political liability for him at home. Adelson allegedly helped crush a congressional measure by House Republicans opposing Beijing’s Olympic bid. “The bill will never see the light day, Mr. Mayor. Don’t worry about it,” he reportedly told Beijing’s mayor in 2001 after phoning then House Majority Whip Tom Delay. The Sands Corporation went on to receive a lucrative casino license from the Chinese government, permitting them to begin a massive development in the Macau Special Administrative Region (SAR).

Responding to Adelson’s close dealings with the Chinese government, the Christian Coalition of Alabama’s president, Dr. Randy Brinson denounced Adelson for “not sharing our values.” “Where Sheldon Adelson has placed his treasure makes it quite clear where his heart is: in gambling and backing the regime in China that persecutes Christians,” he said.

Gingrich will face his own difficulties in persuading Christian evangelicals troubled by his multiple marriages and extramarital affairs to support his candidacy. But Sheldon Adelson’s noticeable presence in the Gingrich camp may prove another obstacle in winning over the all-important Christian-right.