(9. November) As a presidential candidate seven years ago, Barack Obama shook up the foreign policy world by declaring that he favored “direct diplomacy” to reshape U.S. relations with long-standing adversaries like Syria, Cuba and North Korea. Critics, including Hillary Clinton, called him naive, and until now they have proved right. Yet as he heads into the last stretch of his presidency, Obama is doubling down on a bet that in one last case — Iran — his strategy will yield a spectacular payoff.

“France needs to demonstrate its willingness for the deal to be concluded in the next few weeks and use its capabilities in peaceful nuclear energy, aviation, rail transportation and agriculture as leverage with US and Iran to get the economic boost and employment that (it) badly needs,” Nathalie Goulet said in an email interview with the Tasnim News Agency.

She was referring to the nuclear talks between Iran and the Group 5+1 (Russia, China, the US, Britain, France and Germany) with the aim of reaching a lasting agreement on Tehran’s civilian nuclear program.

(14. November) Vor einem Jahr hatten sich die Staaten des „E3+3“ (Frankreich, Großbritannien, Deutschland sowie USA, Russland und China) mit dem Iran in Genf auf einen ersten Schritt zur Lösung des Atomstreits geeinigt. Im Kern geht es um die Frage, wie die internationale Atomenergiebehörde (IAEO) in Zukunft kontrollieren und sicherstellen kann, dass das iranische Nuklearprogramm nur friedlichen Zwecken dient.

…

(17. August 2014) Right now, three Dolphin II-class submarines are under construction at Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems shipyards in Kiel. Once the submarines complete their trials and head towards the Mediterranean, they will become the most powerful Israeli submarines ever.

More than 225 feet long, the diesel-electric Dolphin II class is part attack submarine, part nuclear strike ship and part commando taxi.

(14. Juli 2013) With the sheer volume of crises raging in the Middle East – including Syria‘s civil war and infighting in Egypt, Netanyahu said, „I have a sense that there‘s no sense of urgency“ from the international community in stopping Iran‘s pursuit of nuclear power. „Yet Iran is the most important, the most urgent matter of all… Because all the problems that we have, however important, will be dwarfed by this messianic, apocalyptic, extreme regime that would have atomic bombs.“

(30. April 2012) Diskin bezeichnete Netanjahu und Barak als Personen, die ihre Entscheidungen aufgrund von „messianischen Gefühlen“ treffen würden. Weder in den Regierungschef noch in den Verteidigungsminister könne er Vertrauen haben. Er habe beide aus der Nähe kennengelernt und misstraue ihren Fähigkeiten, wird der frühere Shabak-Chef zitiert:

„Sie sind keine Personen, denen ich persönlich vertrauen kann, dass sie Israel zu einem Ereignis solchen Ausmaßes führen könnten und dies auch durchführen“

(29. April 2012) Diskin proceeded to pull out a sheet of paper that contained a biblical quote from the Prophet Zachariah. The former Shin Bet chief read out the text, a description of the characteristics of a messiah.

Looking up from the paper, Diskin asked the audience, “Is this how you see our two ‘messiahs?’ One from [the] Akirov [Towers luxury residential building in Tel Aviv, where Barak lives]… and one from… Caesarea [where Netanyahu has a home], are these really messiahs?” “I’m telling you, I’ve seen them from up close, and they’re not messiahs.“

(4. November 2012) The report cited sources close to Ashkenazi and Dagan – who since stepping down from their respective posts have both been outspoken in their opposition to a strike on Iran – to the effect that as the two men were leaving the meeting, Netanyahu “matter-of-factly” instructed them to initiate the “P Plus” code, which is essentially a readying of the military to imminently launch an attack.

Ashkenazi and Dagan reportedly vehemently objected to the order.

(5. November 2012) The request, delivered to the top seven security officials but not to the full security cabinet, angered Dagan and Ashkenazi, leading Dagan to reportedly say that Netanyahu and Barak “tried to steal a war –- it was as simple as that.” To Dagan, the meeting betrayed standard protocol for launching a war. “You may end up going to war based on an illegal decision. Only the security cabinet is authorized to make such a decision,” he said.

(19. März 2012) Head of Christians United for Israel, largest pro-Israel lobby in U.S., compares PM to Moses and King David.

(17. April 2006) One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ” (…)

“There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action, the House member added. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.” (…)

One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.

(9. April 2006) Israel is preparing, as well. The government recently leaked a contingency plan for attacking on its own if the United States does not, a plan involving airstrikes, commando teams, possibly missiles and even explosives-carrying dogs. Israel, which bombed Iraq‘s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 to prevent it from being used to develop weapons, has built a replica of Natanz, according to Israeli media, but U.S. strategists do not believe Israel has the capacity to accomplish the mission without nuclear weapons.

(22. Februar 2006) he United States will make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force – including potentially nuclear weapons – to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies.” … (NSPD 17)

(27. Januar 2006) Im Augenblick befindet sich das JFCCSGS in einem Zustand „erhöhter Bereitschaft“, militärische Handlungen auszulösen, die gegen den Iran oder Nordkorea gerichtet sind. Die operative Umsetzung eines solchen Vorgehens trägt den Code-Namen Concept Plan („Conplan“) 8022 – das Planungstableau für strategische Szenarien, die Kernwaffen einbeziehen. „Conplan 8022“ ist speziell auf die so genannten neuen Bedrohungen zugeschnitten, womit nicht nur Iran und Nordkorea gemeint sind, sondern auch andere potenzielle Produzenten von Atomwaffen und Terroristen.

„Es gibt nichts, was sie (die Amerikaner – der Verf.) daran hindert, ›Conplan 8022‹ bei begrenzten Szenarien gegen russische und chinesische Ziele anzuwenden“, schrieb Hans Kristensen vom Nuclear Information Project im Japanese Economic Newswire vom 30. Dezember 2005. Oberbefehlshaber George Bush würde in diesem Fall dem Verteidigungsminister einen entsprechenden Befehl geben, der seinerseits die Stabschefs anzuweisen hätte, „Conplan 8022“ in Kraft zu setzen. Dabei gibt es eine aufschlussreiche Besonderheit:

Bei „Conplan 8022“ ist der Einsatz von Bodentruppen nicht vorgesehen.

(10. Februar 2007) Am Dienstag lud Chirac die Journalisten nochmals zu sich und nahm seine Äußerungen, dass eine iranische Bombe nicht gefährlich wäre, zurück.

Den Angaben zufolge sagte Chirac am Dienstag, seine Bemerkungen vom Vortag seien eine „extrem schematische Verkürzung“ des Sachverhaltes. Er nehme die Formulierung zurück.

(2. Februar 2007) Reportern der „New York Times“, der „International Herald Tribune“ und des französischen Wochenmagazins „Le nouvel observateur“ sagte Chirac am Montag in einem Interview, für sich genommen sei es „nicht so gefährlich“, wenn der Iran eine Atombombe besäße. Gefährlich sei die Proliferation. Denn: „Wohin würde der Iran diese Bombe schicken? Nach Israel? Sie würde keine 200 Meter in der Atmosphäre zurücklegen und Teheran wäre ausradiert.“

(15. Mai 2005) In the secret world of military planning, global strike has become the term of art to describe a specific preemptive attack. (..)

a confluence of events, beginning with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the president‘s forthright commitment to the idea of preemptive action to prevent future attacks, has set in motion a process that has led to a fundamental change in how the U.S. military might respond to certain possible threats. Understanding how we got to this point, and what it might mean for U.S. policy, is particularly important now — with the renewed focus last week on Iran‘s nuclear intentions and on speculation that North Korea is ready to conduct its first test of a nuclear weapon.

(31. Januar 2003) A classified document signed by President Bush specifically allows for the use of nuclear weapons in response to biological or chemical attacks, apparently changing a decades-old U.S. policy of deliberate ambiguity, it was learned by The Washington Times. „The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force” including potentially nuclear weapons ”to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies,“ the document, National Security Presidential Directive 17, set out on Sept. 14 last year.

A similar statement is included in the public version of the directive, which was released Dec. 11 as the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction and closely parallels the classified document.

However, instead of the phrase „including potentially nuclear weapons,“ the public text says, „including through resort to all of our options.“

(Dezember 2002) The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force — including through resort to all of our options — to the use of WMD against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies.

(22. Juli 2006) Dokumentation in zeitlicher Reihenfolge:

(21. Juni 2008) Wie Quellen im Pentagon bestätigten, diente das Manöver dem Üben der Luftbetankung und bestimmter Kampftaktiken. Es seien mehrere Routen über dem Mittelmeer, Gibraltar und Griechenland abgeflogen worden, um die 1600 Kilometer lange Strecke zwischen Israel und der Atomanlage von Natans zu simulieren.

Dabei sollen die Piloten auch den Abwurf taktischer Atomwaffen geübt haben.

EF: Not long after your trip to Gaza, you started using the hashtag #JSIL (Jewish State of Israel in the Levant) on Twitter. Making this kind of comparison between the group Islamic State and Israel is taboo in Germany. Why did you dare to do this?

MB: It is strange that you equate, in Germany, IS with Hamas or describe the entire Palestinian national movement as “heirs of the Nazis,” while there is such an outrage regarding my comparison. It was not a direct one-to-one comparison, but I wanted to point out the hypocrisy behind supporting one religiously exclusive state that forces minorities out of its territory while attacking another.

(24. Oktober 2013) During a panel at Yeshiva University on Tuesday evening, Sheldon Adelson, noted businessman and owner of the newspaper Israel Hayom, suggested that the US should use nuclear weapons on Iran to impose its demands from a position of strength.

(13. Januar 2009) „We must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II,“ Avigdor Lieberman said, according to the website of the Jerusalem Post newspaper.

Japan surrendered in 1945 after atomic bombs were dropped on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

(25. Mai 2010) It is important, too, to remember that Mr Peres would not have had the authority to sell nuclear devices to another country. Ultimately, the minister who would have been in charge of this was the prime minister, and I believe that both the then head of the Israeli nuclear programme, Shalhevet Freier, and Yitzhak Rabin would have opposed the sale of nuclear weapons, not just to South Africa, but to anyone.

…

The Russian official told Reuters that Putin planned to skip a working session on Sunday at the two-day summit in Brisbane and bring forward his departure because he needed to attend meetings in Moscow.