>> rose: welcome to the program. tonight, the prime minister of israel, benjamin netanyahu. >> we don't object to the route. if there's anybody who objects about nuclear weapons it's us. if we can resolve this diplomatically. the question is what is a deal that does it. john kerry said a bad deal is worse than no deal. i guess my point is that a partial deal is a bad deal. we were there for 2000 years before the arab conquest. now, i have a deep attachment to these places. they're in the bible, i've worked there with my feet. it burns my soul. i mean it's etched in my heart. in the heart of any jews is history. i said on this land there's another people so we have to get

some arrangement. it's true we preceded them by thousands of year but it's true we're here. >> rose: we conclude with the appreciation of american novelist tom clancy who died on test at age 66. >> writing the most miserable form of work. the thing is you have to 12eubg with it. if you don't write the book, the book ain't going to get written. you can't sit there and talk about it or ruminate about it or dream about it, you have to put words on paper. >> rose: the prime minister of israel and remembering tom chancey when we continue.

captioning sponsored by e from our studios in new york i know when it doesn't sound like -- but when it comes to iran's nuclear weapons program, the only difference between them is this. ahmadinejad was a wolf in wolf's clothing with -- is a wolf in

sheep's' united states. on monday he met with president obma he is what he said. >> when he was iran's chief negotiator between 2003 and 2005, he master minded the strategy which neighborhood iran to advance its nuclear weapons program behind a smoke screen of diplomatic engagement and very soothing rhetoric. >> rose: his speech follows speeches by president obama and president hassan rouhani. i spoke with him today. so here we are wednesday afternoon. >> it's good to see you again charlie. >> thank you, good to see you. i look forward to this. >> so do i.

>> rose: you clearly have come here with something to say. in new york, at the un and in this conversation. so the president spoke of iran, the president of the united states spoke and the prime minister of israel has spoken. where are we at the end of the week in understanding this negotiation with iran and what the implications are for israel. >> first of all i would say the implications for the world because if you are in pursuit of nuclear weapons succeeds then the danger is not really to my own country but the dairpg is to the united states. look, iran has been expanding an enormous amount of effort, money, pain, sustaining pain to get nuclear weapons. they're developing icbm, ballistic missiles, not for us but for you to reach the

american mainland. you can only arm these with a nuclear payload, not tnt. they're developing these underground bunkers, secret bunkers not to produce civilian energy but to produce uranium and rich uranium for bonds. there's a heavy water reactor to pursue a plutonium use not for use but for bombs. iran is going through this route of enormous sanctions by taking the iran economy to get a bomb. they're pretty close. >> rose: how close. >> well, they are close to the point where they want to be in a situation where they have enough in rich uranium at lower levels but to be able to punch through and enrich it very rapidly within a tt of weeks to get high rich uranium they can use for a bomb. >> rose: are they close. >> they are getting close. they didn't go for high enrichment. instead they built a lot of

piles of rich union annual but added centrifuge to high enrichment just like that. we've been working today the united states and israel and other countries have put place very forceful sanctions saying if you continue in this path those sanctions will collapse your economy. and there's been a credible military option by the u.s. perhaps by israel even if the sanctions don't work, there will be ways to take out your program. the combination of strong military sanctions and a credible military threat has produced -- >> rose: economic sanctions and a military -- >> correct. this has produced, remember iran is governed not by ahmadinejad or rouhani or the presidents who came before them but the person they call aptly by the way in

this case, the supreme leader. that's ayatollah khomeini. he said do heart things with hard works. he got to where he is but he also got the sanctions. when he says do hard things with soft works that way we can go over the line or very close to it without incurring the sanctions. that's why he got elected within this limited slate of candidates eliminated 99% of the candidates of the regime and left 1%. seven out of 700 and he was elected in order to relieve the sanctions. he came here to relieve -- >> rose: maybe he was elected because the iranian people wanted change. >> are you kidding. if they were given an open slate of candidates they would take these people out in a second all of this regime who want to mead

in a medieval theocracy. they want the majority of iranians. they are the two most pro americans and western populations in the middle east israel. and iran give them blue jeans, beverly hills, you know, the works. >> rose: the internet. >> everything. but they don't. i mean rouhani uses the twitter here in new york but he doesn't let the population there in iran tweet. they don't use facebook. they're putting on a nice show here. >> rose: will the prime minister of israel believe that the iranian regime can change and can say whatever we were trying to do. >> yes. >> rose: we're prepared to change. the sanctions were -- >> well the first thing is understand what is going on in iran, and i'm not guessing, this is not a guesstimate, this is very solid information. >> rose: do you have sources. >> yes, a few. there is a very clear distinction between rouhani and

ahmadinejad. rouhani says we can get to nuclear weapons with a smile ahmadinejad says we can get to nuclear weapons with frown. because the sanctions are about to take a devastating blow on the iranian economy that's already been badly hit. rouhani is giving him a chance. go ahead try to get me a lifting of the sanctions without giving up the essential. >> rose: you come in town. >> i said, just to complete, i can't give up this line. i worked so hard to get it. rouhani is a wolf. i said that ahmadinejad was a wolf in wolf's clothing and rouhani is a wolf in sheep's clothing. but we cannot let them pull the wool over our eyes. so the answer to your question is can there be a real change? maybe yes, maybe not. but the only way we can find out is to insist on an agreement that truly dismantles iran's

program. >> rose: the prime minute actual of israel is worried that the president of the united states will not insist on as proper demands as the prime minister would like to see. and he worries that israel will be left alone. >> first of all i can tell you everyone shares the worry i have. three hours of conversation yesterday with president obama. this is on a day when the u.s. goes into shutdown. so you can think that he's had other things on his plate and we had, i appreciated the fact that he gave us the time. and i tell you we share a common concern. how to stop iran from developing nuclear weapons. it was an open conversation with open minded people. i don't think this crystallized that's why i appreciate the opportunity we had. if we work together i think we can get to a common policy. the policy should not not to let iran. it's in no one's interest not ours or the u.s. not to let iran

wiggle away from a partial deal in which they make cosmetic sanctions. you lift the sanctions or part of them. once you do that the sanctions collapse. >> rose: this is an important point. where is it that the united states and israel difference on having negotiations with iran. the president has said clearly we have to see deed not rhetoric. >> absolutely right. >> rose: you've been there with the president for three hours and had a frank -- where are you different. >> i didn't say frank i said an open and good exchange. that's diplomatic double speak saying we had a can confrontation. we had a conversation between two leaders achieving a common goal. >> rose: what do you differ on. >> i don't know we differ on anything. we don't object to testing the diplomatic route. if there's any country on earth that is struck with an annihilation from iran's nuclear weapons it's us. if we can resolve this diplomatically.

the question is what is a deal that does it. john kerry said, senator kerry said a bad deal is worse than no deal. i guess my point is that a partial deal is a bad deal. because when you lift the sanctions for some minor stuff that they do or partial thing that they do, it takes years to put the sanctions in place. i've been involved with this years, but when you remove them for concessions that the iranians could reverse within weeks, you may not be able to put them back in place. there's a lot of countries, i'm not going to name them. i'm the foreign minister so i will be diplomate diplomatic. >> rose: i know that. there are >> there are a lot of countries that could collapse. then iran gets up the ropes and gets to -- and we lost. >> rose: i hear -- >> that's not in our interest -- >> rose: you had a full conversation with the president of the united states and you

pretty much agree on everything. and you have full confidence that the president of the united states understands israel's fear and reservation and clearly has your confidence that he will do the right thing. >> i think we both now in a real exchange trying to work this out because i think from an american point of view, not only an israeli point of view, and from you know, our point of view, significant european countries point of view. the last thing we want is to let iran wiggle away with a smile campaign, to have us, you know, be very happy. in north korea everybody celebrated the great deal, you know, was widely celebrated but people were doing it. you want to see this thing work out. and then a year later after this celebrated deal, north korea exploded its first nuclear device. but you see iran is a lot worse

than north korea. >> rose: you said it's 40. >> 50, 50 north korea because iran seeks our destruction because iran sends terrorism to just in the last three years to 25 countries, 25 cities across the globe because iran is participating in the mass murder in syria. because iran is trying to undermine these regimes. this is a dangerous regime. you don't want this regime armed with nuclear weapons. >> rose: but you're not answering this question. are the demands that you would make on the iranians to prove that they are real and credible, the same demands that the president will push forward in the negotiations with the iranian foreign minister. you have to know that. >> we have to see -- >> rose: we know your demands. >> but the united states was formulating its demands. what i did is that iran has no natural right to a rich you're

rain annual given that -- >> rose: you don't doubt they have the right to have peaceful nuclear energy. >> so does canada and mexico and 17 other countries, 15 other countries. 17 am together that have civilian nuclear energy without enriching urainium. that's to erin rich it to 90 percent. that's enrichment virtually means that a country that possesses this capability is able to produce so he says nuclear weapons. so if you want civilian nuclear energy, you don't need to enrich. the only reinyou need to enrich is not for nuclear energy is to enable you to build nuclear bombs that's why canada and mexico don't need enrichment, that's why sweden and

switzerland don't need enrichment snivment do you -- >> do you think you can prove that to iranians and then be prepared to make a deal. >> and prove it? no, i can't prove it much these people are very cynical. look at what -- was saying in the u.s. we are for democracy the tragedy in syria, we are against terrorism. come this, this isn't serious. it isn't a question of proving to them it's to lining up the -- >> rose: you seem to be saying we should go forward with the negotiations and see if we can find a better route than having them try to have a nuclear weapon become, have the ability and be close to the ability within weeks so that you believe israel or the united states will have to strike. >> the question is can you negotiate with somebody who is not trustworthy. of course you can you do all the time. >> rose: that's what you have to do, you negotiate with your

enemies. >> you negotiate in a clever way. you're not blinded by them. you remember reagan said trust and verify. i say distrust, dismantle and verify. you can do that but then you've got to put the right pieces in place and not allow them to fool you. and the second point is yes you should keep a credible military option all the time because ultimately that is what got the sanctions to work. >> rose: there's nothing in your dna that would allow you to be prime minister of israel when iran has the capacity under no circumstances would you allow that to happen. >> that's correct. >> rose: does israel today have the capacity to stop it. some people say yes the united states does but israel cannot. all israel can do is delay. >> do you know something, i'll give you a state secret here on the charlie rose show.

the u.s. has a stronger military than israel but don't short change israel either. i wouldn't go beyond that. i never do, i'm about the only israeli that talks about our military capability. but i think it's very important to make sure that the regime, you know, i represent a people that is glued for almost 4,000 years. we've had great periods and we've had our awful periods and we went right into the abyss of destruction. when the nations of the world did not believe about a radical dick tearship that spoke about our annihilation. when people say they're out to kill you take them seriously but above all prevent them from a getting the weapons to kill you,

the weapons of mass death. when these radical regimes ends with the jews it doesn't end with the jews. it didn't happen before and it doesn't happen now. there's a cult that controls iran. they come and they sound reasonable and they are reasonable up to the paint where they'll get the weapon. i always give the example somebody who is totally unreasonable with a wild ideology that until they get to the point where they can actually use that power, they appear very sensible. that's a suicide bomber. we've had a lot, the suicide bomber as he's driving on his way to board the bus he obeys the traffic laws and says the right things. once he gets on the bus. i think we've learn that radical regimes that are intent on global domination and wide

ideology and apocalyptic ideologies. once they get to the point of power all bets are off. we cannot be in that position. therefore i say not negotiate. yes, negotiate but be very tough. don't do partial deals that allow them to get the weapons. >> rose: you worry that you're being at this moment while negotiations are under way to frighten in your language. >> no. >> rose: secondly. >> being very truthful. >> rose: no negotiations are under way, you can't launch an attack against iran. >> very brilliant. i wanted to talk about that. i just formulated the principle. >> rose: what's wrong with what i just said. you can not attack the time they're negotiating, can you? >> you know, i never talk about that but i did and do say what has been said time and time again including by president obama. israel is threatened with annihilation by iran. and israel had the right, i would say the duty to defend

itself by itself against any threat. i hope, i hope that this proposition doesn't have to be tested, charlie. the way it wouldn't be tested is to get a successful dismantling, a complete dismanhattan ling -- dismantling of the nuclear weapons. >> rose: do they have to convince you. >> it's not a question of convincing. it's not what they say it's what they do. it's not their words which is a double talk. >> rose: do you -- because of your own intelligence sources about the iranian state of mind than president obama and his intelligent sources and other nations and their intelligent sources. you, because of what you think this reading along with a believe your sources of information about them and their intent are better than anybody elses. >> we have superb intelligence. but here's the thing i would comment on. it's not their state of mind,

although we know about that a great deal. it's the state of their capabilities. and the biggest mistakes that countries have made, i think in ancient times and modern times is not to focus on their adversary's capabilities. we want to make sure they don't have the capability. whether or not they have the state of mind is a different question. if they don't have the weapons to carry out their ambitions it's less important. >> rose: i've had one secretary of defense after another say they have not yet made a decision to build a nuclear weapon. >> there are two aspects. one is the biggest thing, the most difficult thing in getting a nuclear weapon is to get enriched, the material. that's the stuff you put in the bomb. that's 90% there when you got it. the last 10% is coating that ball of material with an

explosive device. that's not very hard to do that. so when they say they haven't yet made a weapon -- >> rose: they have not made a decision -- >> they haven't taken a ball wrapped it around a detonator. >> rose: or they don't have the capacity yet to do it. once you have the capacity you can make decisions. >> you have to make sure -- by the way, iran, charlie, would not be interesting in having one bomb or two bombs. they're giving up their infrastructure for 200 bombs. and they're not developing those icbms for us. they can reach us for what they have. it's for you, it's for you. >> rose: you clearly told the president that, didn't you. >> i didn't have to tell him that because the american intelligence knows as well as we do that iran is developing icbms not to reach us -- >> rose: i'm going to ask you one more time. is there any space between you and the american president because much has been written and said about differences between the prime minister and the president. are you saying after this three

hour conversation we're on the same page there's no difference, we have the same go-ahead momentum. >> i think that at this stage what i can say is we have a common goal, we've had it for many years. >> rose: that's always been true. that's not something -- >> i think the president said something very important publicly and he repeated it private see. he said we have to see steps, actions, not words. >> rose: that's good enough for you. >> what we're talking about right now is what are meaningful actions. >> rose: do you agree on that. >> we're talking about that right now. >> rose: let's turn to syria. again through the russians, conversations with the syrians. they'll give up chemical weapons and the united states will not launch an air strike. in the thd act. that's why these regimes should not be allowed to have these

weapons. chemical weapons kill people in the thousands. nuclear weapons kill people in the millions. and rogue regimes should not be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction. through the threat of military force and an effective dismantling. you don't say to syria take off a few real weapons and we release the sanctions. you say a full dismantling. that's a good model for iraq. >> rose: do you believe that assad can find a way to stay in power if he dismantles the chemical went ips. >> i don't think his power is based on gunning down opponents with machine guns, attack helicopters, artillery in the neighborhoods. look, i take care of israel's secure interest carefully but there's a humanitarian crises in

syria that is reaching monumental proportions. >> rose: let me tell you -- >> millions displaced. probably 110, 120,000 killed already. >> rose: tragic. >> a lot of children. this is beginning to mount as a huge tragedy and i think we have to think about what it is we do about it. i spoke about this with the president yesterday. >> rose: and what was the conversation. >> he agrees with that. how to do it? that i think is important that we keep off the charlie rose even the charlie rose show for now. >> rose: how to do it. >> yes. >> rose: most people always believed that there would be some cooperation between the united states, israel, jordan and others in the region. >> i think there's a common concern in the region. there's a real question of, you know, there are two book ends to this problem. the first is you don't want iran hezbollah and assad to win because that's a terrible thing. that's the iranian access group. that's the if you are thing.

the second thing is you don't want al-qaeda and israel winning. i happen to think that there might be a third way. >> rose: what's the third way. >> that's your next show, charlie. >> rose: come on. >> it is serious. >> rose: this is the point of this, sort of some understanding of how you find an appropriate avenue to avoid war and tragedy of more than 100,000 people dead and more than two million refugees. what's the way that you think might work? >> i have some ideas. >> rose: just give me one. >> not yet. this is exactly as you say, it's more serious than it appears, and you know in some matters of achieving a resolution, of a conflict or achieving peace, i

make an amendment to woodrow wilson. sometimes it's open covenants secretly arrived at. this is one of those areas where you wanted to have a solution that the whole world can see but you don't necessarily have to publicize it. >> rose: is it on the table now? >> well, it's the preliminary thought that i have. >> rose: a moment of history. it is said that you were part of the negotiations with the syrians working in order to do damage to the iranians and their avenue to hezbollah. you were prepared to negotiate with the syrians. >> there were a lot of ideas what's been put. >> rose: this is written about. >> there are a lot of ideas proposed by both parties. you can never get the syrians to accept the kind of arrangements

that israel will be always able to defend itself. >> rose: do you think the soviets, the russians want to keep assad in power or do they care? >> well, what president putin says you don't want al-qaeda to win, it's true. but you don't want iran and hezbollah and us to win either. so i guess so far the alternative has been additional blood letting, endless bloodletting. and again i think from a human point of view, just a tragic consequences of this, there's a point in which the human cause such levels that we can't in good conscious allow this to repeat. these got to be, i don't know if there are other ways but i think we have to look for other ways. >> rose: there's also on the table and negotiations taking place now again under the initiative of secretary kerry

and israelis and palestinians. he seems to believe that he has an operative idea and plan that can do something in the next nine months. >> i hope so. >> rose: do you believe he has a credible plan that can deliver some kind of agreement between israelis and palestinians having to do with incredibly complex issues, having to do with the border, having to do with refugees, the right to return. having to do with jerusalem, having to do with a whole range of things that are at the core, you know. >> it's tough when there's no question. six israeli prime ministers and myself included didn't succeed. >> rose: is there something different about what john kerry is trying to do that gives it a chance. >> i think the test will be not in america's intentions, however well meaning and they are and sincere and he's working very tiredlessly. i think it's a question whether we're going to get finally

palestinian leadership that will understand that in addition to israeli concessions, they will have to make concessions. like the people for accepting the jewish state. i gave this speech at the university, a religious university and i said we're going to have to have two states for two people a did he militarized palestinian state and a recognized jewish state. i chose my words very correctly. mull triesed palestinian state and a recognized jewish state. >> rose: are you the only one in your party that believes in the to state solution. >> there are a lot of parties across the political spectrum. we gave up territory, we gave up gaza. we tore up the settlements that was displaced 10,000 people ruinedded their lives and we said if we get peace that's fine. but we got charlie we got 10,000 rockets, we got iran to take over gaza with hamas and islamic jihad and he this fire rockets

into israel. we don't want a replication of that. show me the palestinian leadership that recognizes the jewish state that enables the kind of security of iranians on the ground that israel will have, that israel will defend itself by itself. and defend the palestinian authority and keep the stability in place. if we have that, then i think we have the makings of a deal. i don't think it's wise in this case. again i'm a wolfian amended. secret, open covenants secretly arrived at. we should try. but the jury's out, i don't know. >> rose: about the kerry issue, is it different so that it might be a secret covenant that could reduce real results openly arrived. >> it will be an open covenant. >> rose: no, openly covenant secretly arrived. is it different that's what i'm trying to ask. >> is it different? i don't know we'll see. >> rose: because everything

else failed as you know. >> it failed but the reason it failed for the same reason for the last, why is this conflict here since the 1920's. before there were territories, before they were settlements. why is this opposition? i mean they were offered the palestinians were offered a palestinian state in 1948. they oppose it because they didn't want a jewish state. why did they fight the jewish population in 1920's and the 1930's because they opposed a jewish state. why do they continue to fire at us from gaza after we left because they are opposed to a jewish state. i'm not saying it's equivalent to gaza, he stopped. but face your people give what i call the speech the way i gave the university speech. >> rose: you were in favor of two state solution recognition of a jewish state. >> that's it, a jewish state. you got it. let's see that they get it. and even if they do that, given

the level of incitement, state control media we don't have that by the way. d their textbooks and so on. i don't know that this top down recognition of the jewish state will stick. so we have to have real robust security arrangement to protect the peace and protect israel in case the peace fails. if we have those two things, recognition of the jewish state and a ream addressing of israel's security needs. >> rose: you can't make the case that settle ments which you have continued in your government are central for the security of the jewish state. the argument is made do damage to the security of a jewish state because they stand that way of some very successful agreement and two state solution but it's in the interest of the

security of the jewish state. >> i think the settlement is going to be in the negotiation. >> rose: they are. most people want to ask is why is it necessary. because it's not done -- >> let me tell you. that's the first thing. you ask me and this is the issue of settlement settlement. >> rose: i know you took a chance at the beginning. >> no, no, no. i did something else. i launched these negotiations. the reason these negotiations were launched is because i was will knowledge to do something that no leader was willing to do. i released terrorists killers. >> rose: you said that was a very hard thing for you. >> well only for me very difficult, personally, i fought terrorists, my brother died in the battling of terrorism. i myself was wounded. releasing israeli hostages from the hijack airplane i nearly died there. yes, it's very hard to release terrorist business. by the way 95% of the jewish public of israel think this was a mistake. i made some contribution to

launching these talks because i want a solution. but i want a real solution. it's like iran -- >> rose: i still don't understand why you think building settlements in jerusalem is necessary. >> now let me tell you something. >> rose: you find a solution when the world believes it stands in the way. >> the world believes a lot of things but the world doesn't get it. >> rose: i think the american president believes that. >> let me tell you what i think is the issue and then you can judge whether you agree with me or not and the same thing i say to everyone in the world. the settlement and the territories are not the cause of the conflict. >> rose: nobody says that but they stand in the way of a solution. >> here's the way you get a solution. they don't stand in the way either. 90% of the jewish population is clustered in -- the west bank is clustered in a tiny fraction of that land. it's not an issue. it's a bogus issue. it's about as big an issue as people said you know the whole conflict in the middle east is centered on the palestinian.

>> rose: here's the question. >> that one died. i'm telling you that we can walk away. suppose we just walk away from every settlement. we dismantle everything. we walk away the way we did in gaza. >> rose: that was a different prime minister who had the courage. >> and what happened. >> rose: the courage to walk away. well it turned out it didn't work out. they came in and hamas continued. >> how do we know it doesn't happen again. >> rose: the lesson. >> charlie you're not going to escape this. i got you. >> rose: no you don't have me. the question with gaza is you can never do what. >> the lesson of gaza is the settlements we tore it up disentanque verde -- disenterred them from their draifs. it was taken away in two seconds by huh model and iran and they continued to fire 10,000 rockets to us. the settle is obviously their presence or lack of presence there wasn't the cause of the

conflict. this conflict is not about that. it's also about -- >> rose: what is this conflict about. >> the jewish state, period. in any border in any territory. >> rose: there are many people who will say if you're not prepared to give up the west bank, you are giving up some great probabilities about the jewish state because you will create a state that cannot stip it as a democracy. this is not a new argument for you but this is an argument that has resonance among people in israel, including some former prime ministers. >> well first of all it resonates with me too. i don't want to buy national security. >> rose: exactly. >> and that's why i think way have to work out a deal. >> under the kerry initiative kind of thing. >> under negotiations with hamas and we welcome american help. i've been talking to john kerry, not a lot, every two days or so. sometimes three times a day. we talk. >> rose: that's good. >> it is, actually.

but here's the thing. i think that there are two posts to this. one you one you don't want to buy a national state. the second is you don't want any territory that you vacate. that's what happened with gaza. we got out of gaza and iran walked in. we got out of lebanon and iran walked in. one time with hezbollah and the other with hamas. we can't let thet happen to third time. we can't have another 10 thousand rockets on the airport in which you land. >> rose: the occupation because there's a great fear what happened in gaza would happen in the west bank is that what you're saying. >> that is across the board in israel but i'll tell you something else. you say what are we doing there. what do you mean we've been there for 4,000 years. not quite abraham came -- >> rose: you were not there pre-- >> in some areas, we were kicked

out by the jordannian assault. we were massacred after thousands of years. we were there for 2,000 years before the arab conquest. now i have a deep attachment to these places. they're in the bible, i've walked there with my feet, it burns my soul. i mean it's etched in high heart. and in the heart of any jew is history. you recognize in this land, there is another people. so we have to get some arrangement. it's true we preceded them by thousands of years but it's true also that they're here so we have to somehow i would say adjust or make amends for the focus we have a deep attachment and parts of it we'll have to make an arrangement in order not to have a bi-national state. how do you create that. so you don't get the worse you leave the land that is

strategically vital to you, the historical cradle of our national existence and you get iran. you don't want that. so i'm trying to work out -- >> rose: that doesn't have to be at the alternative and you know that somehow you get iran if you withdraw from the west bank. >> sorry that's what i got twice. i got it in lebanon when we left we got iran. >> rose: you got iran because of hamas considering hamas being iran. >> it's only supported by iran and they got something hamas hamas -- >> rose: that's the palestinians. >> yes, but charlie without iran, they have nothing. their weapons come from iran, their money comes from iran their training comes from iran. often the directors come from iran. without iran you take away the scaffolding of iran, his blawp classes and hezbollah -- we cannot have it happen a third time in an area that is 20 times the size of gaza that gears our cities and the narrow waste

lines that's israel. we have to have a different arrangement and that arrangement will mean israel will have to have a long term military presence along the jordan river. to prevent this area, this palestinian state from being perforated by iranian agents from jordan or from elsewhere. that is what we have to do. and that will protect us and paradoxically protect jordan. >> rose: an international force won't do it. >> international force you mean -- >> rose: allowing the jordannians -- >> are you serious. look, we have this little battle in syria. so there's a force there called undof. countries are leaving, they haven't been far yet. we've got an international force. we went out of lebanon and it was promised that it would monitor, monitor any rearming of

hezbollah. hezbollah since added 60,000 rockets. do you know how many reports they have filed? not one. zero. okay. we had a european international force on the border of gaza and the sinai when we left gaza. that operated in seven hours. >> rose: okay. >> no, we're not going to and for charlie all the good press in the world i will not compromise in israel's security. >> rose: no one doubts you would compromise on israeli's security. they might quarrel with your definition. >> who is going to define it. the people who are not going to -- >> rose: no people within the step of israel -- >> if you ask them, the overwhelming majority, i'm talking about huge majorities. >> rose: definition of -- >> no, more. tougher. >> rose: this was very nice young men who worked with you

and i promised him i wouldn't go over so this last question. >> charlie it's enough that i wanted to not follow their instructions. why are you following them? >> exactly. >> they don't give us instructions, they work for me. >> rose: you convinced me they don't write your speeches you write your speeches. >> i've had the same speech right for the last 35 years. >> rose: this is a serious question. >> they rejuvenate themselves every time. >> rose: then they get important. then they get appointed ambassador to the united states. >> there are many other positions. >> rose: it's interesting we now have the israeli palestinian. we have the iranian negotiation between john kerry and the more than minister of iran and now we have syria with the mutionz involved. everything is in play in the middle east. that's opportunity. >> some of it is opportunity. i would say the greatest change

that is happening is not fully observed. because what you see is a change that i see in the arab world. in many arab countries that because of the concern with iran, the concern with syria, they say israel's not our enemy israel's not the problem they may be part of the solution. they want in this terrific conversation that's taking place is to make sure that the outcome doesn't threaten them and some of the outcomes that will threaten them will threaten us. for them it will be for the regimes. to us it's a threat to the existence of the state and the people. but it affords perhaps an historic opportunity to get arab countries to join with israel and i would hope with others, to have the basis of a barrager regional security that

advantages stability and one would hope also peace. that's happening, it's not obvious but to me it's obvious. it's not obvious publicly but to me it's obvious that something big can happen here. we just have to make sure that in this state of flux, we do the right things and not the wrong things because we could easily upset the apple cart in a way that we won't be able to put it back together again. we cannot do that. we have to be very responsible, buck the trends. don't go by fashion. if you govern by fashion and if you govern by the kind of editorials you're going to get, you will get good editorials which will be and then you'll get wonderful eulogiez. i would rather have bad press and no eulogiez. better bad press than a good eulogy. my responsibility is to ensure

the survival, computer, longevity of the one and only jewish state. i will do that pursuing peace. i will make and i'm prepared to make project compromises. i will never compromise on israel's security, never. >> rose: mr. prime minister thank you. >> thank you. thank you charlie. >> rose: ronald reagan will always be my president. i will always think of him that way, yes. >> rose: why. >> ronald reagan came to the presidency in 1981 with one mission. he went to destroy the soviet union and to do so short of war obviously and he did that. recalled -- rawnltd reagan moot an end to markism. >> rose: we lost tom clancy who died in baltimore at age 66. he wrote 17 number one new york

files best sellers. of them like the hunt for red october and clear and present danger also became blockbuster hollywood films. he was a frequent guest on this program. >> another popular novelist john grisham. he thinks the time to kill, his first novel is his best. you don't look at your novels that way do i. >> i would like to think that along the way. i started writing red october in 1992. it's 14 years later and i hope i got better. >> rose: how does one get better after one becomes -- >> do you play golf, charlie. you get better at golf by make golf. >> rose: you get better at golf by practicing and practicing and making sure that your swing is working. >> in the writing business you get better by writing. and the more you do the better you get at it. >> rose: you understand character development and put a sentence together, you understand how to make a page turn. >> the more you do it the better

you get. that's the general idea. >> rose: other than that, what's the best thing you say to people who want to be tom clancy, who want to write a film. >> if they want to be tom clancy, they should set their sites a little higher. the most important talent for a writer is persistence. you have to stake with it. writing is the most moveable form of work i know but it's rewarding if you do it write. the thing is you have to stick with it. if you don't write the book it ain't going to get written. you can't silt there and think about it or ruminate about it, you have to put words on paper. >> rose: you sit down in front of a computer. >> every day. >> rose: you turn out about three pages a day. >> somewhat more than that. anywhere from 10 pages to 30 depends on how hot i'm going. >> rose: are they ever moments of writer's block for you. >> writer's block is a technical term invented by the writing community for being lazy and not

wanting to work today. everybody at least once a week wakes up and says i don't want to go to work today. well writers indicate all with an excuse called writer's block saying well i just can't do any work today. crap. if you show up and you work, work happens. >> rose: why is it still hard for you? >> it's hard because i haven't found an easy way to do it, charlie, i haven't. smith the great sports writer sewed just sit in front of a keyboard and open a vein. that's as good a definition or description of the writer progression anyone has ever done. it's hard because it ain't easy. >> rose: did you have to write. >> remember the first alien movie with weaver.

write is kind of like that. the book is going to explode out of your chest. it may kill you but it's going to get out. >> that's the way it was when you were selling insurance in maryland, their that book. >> i just decided one fine day i guess it was april or so of 1982 that i was going to write one and i did. i wrote red october and it was -- >> rose: is it satisfying. >> it's the most fun you can have with your clothes on. then have you to write a chapter about it which is somewhat more difficult. >> rose: how much do you learn. how much do you know about the some matters that you write about? >> a friend of mine retired from the fbi a couple years ago and his last job was as the sac, special agent in charge of a major field office. and i called down there one day and he was on the phone with somebody else and i spoke to his secretary a gal named nancy. and she goes do you know what the boss says about you.

he says he's a sponge. he's going to remember everything you say. he's a sponge. so in that sense i'm all at work gathering information and filing it away. >> do you go home and write it down or do you just remember it. >> mainly i just remember it. at some points i start taking notes people get really nervous. then they think i won't remember if i don't make notes. i do remember most of it. >> rose: look at this. what does this say when i show this picture. >> it says i have a very long photo shoot a couple years ago and that's one of the pictures they decided to use. >> rose: the uss iowa. is that the tom clancy the way you see yourself right there? >> that's how the photographer saw me wearing my flight jacket and walking on the beach. asking yourself who you are,

that's a metaphysical question, i don't really feel like discussing st. agustine today. >> rose: but you're comfortable with who you are. >> oh, more or less. we're all imperfect and we're all very aware of our imperfections and we try to get better. >> rose: i don't understand what you mean. >> i never want to be completely satisfied. satisfaction is the enemy of progress. i always want to be dissatisfied about something. these always got to be a mountain to climb or a dragon to slay. >> rose: mountain to claim or journey to make. challenge you -- >> you got to wake up in the morning and want to do something. >> rose: what's the tallest mountain for you to climb. >> oh, lord. maybe a book. another book. every book is a tall mountain when you start it. it's a foundation for six kids.

i have a lot of things to keep me busy and they're all interesting to me they all excite me. >> rose: tom clancy dead at age 66. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and susie gharib brought to you in part by. >> thestreet.com, interactive financial multi media tools for an ever changie financial world. our stock advisor guides and generates income during a period of low interest rates. wearethestreet.com. >> i think they should be concerned. >> warning shot, the president has that word of advice to wall street and investors, be concerned. this stalemate is different. even as the president calls both sides to the white house to try to end the standoff, are the markets losing confidence that a deal can get done? >> applying pressure, wall street ceo, failure to raise the debt ceiling would lead to extremely adverse consequences. >> big cha