Ein bewaffneter Angriff auf ein Mitglied der NATONorth Atlantic Treaty Organization gilt als Angriff auf alle NATONorth Atlantic Treaty Organization-Mitglieder. Das besagt Artikel 5 des Nordatlantikvertrages, der die gegenseitige Beistandspflicht der Bündnispartner im Verteidigungsfall festhält. Dass der gegenseitige Beistand kein Lippenbekenntnis ist, zeigen die multinationalen NATONorth Atlantic Treaty Organization-Verbände an der Ostflanke der Allianz.
Archiv: Pläne / plans
Europe ready to lead ‘multinational force’ in Ukraine as part of US peace plan
In a statement, the leaders of the UK, France, Germany and eight other European countries said troops from a “coalition of the willing” with US support could “assist in the regeneration of Ukraine’s forces, in securing Ukraine’s skies, and in supporting safer seas, including through operating inside Ukraine”.
US Needs Troops in Syria to Stop ISIS Comeback, CENTCOM Nominee Says
(June 24, 2025)
The U.S. and the SDF stayed clear of Syria’s civil war, which led to the overthrow of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who fled to Russia.
The country’s new president is Ahmed al-Sharaa, who led the Islamist rebel group Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) that swept to power last December and has vowed to establish a tolerant, multi-ethnic state.
After months of deliberation, the U.S. has thrown its support behind the new Syrian leader. President Trump announced last month that he would lift sanctions on the country, a decision he made with encouragement from Saudi Arabia while Trump was in the Middle East.
US rebuffed Israeli demands to keep more US troops in northeast Syria, sources say
(April 23, 2025)
US President Donald Trump’s Middle East chief at the National Security Council, Eric Trager, rebuffed Israeli and northeast Syrian officials in the last several weeks, saying that the US is transitioning from a “military to political role” in northeast Syria and that the drawdown of US troops would continue, the sources told MEE, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive discussions.
“Israel is opposed to the US withdrawing from northeast Syria,” one former US official told MEE. “They want to see the US extract concessions from Turkey on demilitarisation before any American boots leave Syrian soil.”
US military said poised to slash troops in Syria; Israel seeks to limit reduction
(April 16, 2025)
Israel has been kept in the loop about plan that could see US troop presence shrunk from 2,000 to 1,000; Jerusalem fears it will increase Turkey’s ‘appetite’ to control Syria.
(…)
Trump announced a full withdrawal of US troops from Syria during his first term but never followed through completely. Then too, Israel opposed the move, expressing concern that an American withdrawal would create a power vacuum in the region, allowing Tehran to expand its military entrenchment near the Israeli border.
US military poised to slash troops in Syria, officials say
(April 16, 2025)
The U.S. military has about 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria across a number of bases, mostly in the northeast. The troops are working with local forces to prevent a resurgence of Islamic State, which in 2014 seized large swathes of Iraq and Syria but was later pushed back.
One of the officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that consolidation could reduce the number of troops in Syria to about 1,000.
USA wants clarity on deal by Christmas – Zelenskyy
„There were no specific ultimatum dates. The fact that everyone wants to finish as soon as possible is a fact. The United States wants to finish faster – we hear that from them. I think they really wanted, or maybe want to have a full understanding of where we are with this agreement by Christmas,“ Zelenskyy said during a meeting with journalists on Thursday.
Witkoff To Moscow. Zelenskyy Is Wary. A Phone Call Leaks. A Ukraine Peace Plan Coalesces.
“I know what it’s going to take to get a peace deal done: Donetsk and maybe a land swap somewhere,” Witkoff reportedly said.
Bloomberg did not say how it obtained the recording, which was likely made by US intelligence agencies who routinely monitor and eavesdrop on foreign officials’ conversations.
Ukraine: Was ist der Stand bei den Verhandlungen zum Kriegsende?
Carsten Kühntopp berichtet aus dem ARD-Studio Washington, dass mehrere Formulierungen des Papiers tatsächlich wie direkte Übersetzungen aus dem Russischen ins Englischen klingen. Das US-Außenministerium dementierte jedoch: die Russen und Ukrainer hätten lediglich Input für den US-Plan geliefert.
Hochrangige Mitarbeiter in Außenministerium und Nationalem Sicherheitsrat erfuhren laut Kühntopp von dem Plan allerdings erst aus der Presse. Die Verwirrung um die Herkunft des Plans spreche entweder für ein chaotisches Vorgehen der Regierung oder für einen Machtkampf zwischen Rubio, Witkoff, Vizepräsident JD Vance und anderen um den richtigen Kurs gegenüber Russland.
U.S., Ukraine agree to change draft of peace plan that appeased Russia
Negotiators in Geneva had been working off an earlier proposal that bipartisan lawmakers say would further destabilize global security by rewarding Russia after its 2022 invasion.
USA und Ukraine überarbeiten Entwurf für Friedensplan
Das Treffen in Genf hat offenbar Fortschritte gebracht: Vertreter der USA und der Ukraine haben gemeinsam einen überarbeiteten Entwurf für einen Plan zum Ende des Krieges erstellt. Eine erste Version hatte vor allem den Interessen Moskaus entsprochen.
U.S. senators say Rubio told them Trump’s Ukraine peace plan is Russian ‘wish list’
Rounds said „it looked more like it was written in Russian to begin with.“
The senators said they spoke to Rubio after he reached out to some of them while on his way to Geneva for talks on the plan. Independent Maine Sen. Angus King said Rubio told them the plan „was not the administration‘s plan“ but a „wish list of the Russians.“
The bipartisan group of senators, who are veteran legislators and among those most focused on foreign relations, stood together at the press conference as they relayed Rubio‘s message on the call.
Rubio facing scrutiny after telling US senators that 28-point plan is a Russian proposal passed along to Ukraine
The U.S. bipartisan Senate delegation attending the Halifax International Security Forum had received a phone call from Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
In it, Rubio was quite frank.
According to Republican Senator Mike Rounds, Rubio told senators that the 28-point peace plan drawn up by Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and his Russian counterpart, Kirill Dmitriev, was actually a Russian plan that the U.S. had agreed to pass along to Ukraine.
Operation Northwoods
(March 13, 1962)
c. Commence large scale United States military operations.
3. A „Remember the Maine“ incident could be arranged in several forms:
a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to „evacuate“ remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.
4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.
The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.
Declassified Papers Show Anti-Castro Ideas Proposed to Kennedy
(19. November 1997)
“We could blow up a US warship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,“ the memorandum said.
“We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,“ it continued. “The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated).“
The records show that on March 13, 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff endorsed these ideas as “suitable for planning purposes.“ No evidence exists that they were carried out.
DER 11. SEPTEMBER: Duplikat, Drone, Plan
(12. September 2014)
Bereits vor Jahrzehnten entwickelte das Militär der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika den Plan ein eigenes ziviles Passagierflugzeug in der Luft gegen eine unbemannte „Drone“ auszutauschen, um diese dann selbst zur Explosion zu bringen und einen Abschuss vorzutäuschen. Ebenso wurde der Plan einer „Terrorkampagne“ in der eigenen Hauptstadt Washington, sowie die Versenkung eines US-Kriegsschiffes autorisiert. Ziel war es, diese Vorfälle einer feindlichen Macht zu unterstellen, vor der Weltöffentlichkeit das Opfer zu spielen und nachfolgend eine Invasion starten zu können.
Jahr der Entwicklung des Plans: 1962. Zielobjekt: Kuba.
LIVE: Trump and Netanyahu hold a press conference
Streamed live 7 hours ago #netanyahu #trump #live
Netanyahu accepts Trump proposal to end war in Gaza
An „International Stabilization Force“ (ISF) would be set up in tandem with „Arab and international partners“ that is in charge of establishing control and stability in the enclave, similar to earlier plans discussed of an Arab or regional „peacekeeping“ force.
The plan categorically states that „Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza“, but it leaves the window open for a lot of interpretation and puts the ball in Israel‘s court to withdraw from the strip. It says that Israel will withdraw troops based on „standards, milestones and timeframes linked to demilitarisation“ that Israeli forces, the ISF, guarantors and the US agree to.
It adds that Israeli forces would „progressively hand over the territory it occupies“ to the ISF according to an agreement with the transitional government, „save for a security perimeter presence that will remain until Gaza is properly secure from any resurgent terror threat“.
Trump would head Gaza ‘board of peace’ in new postwar plan
As chair of the “transitional” body, Trump would oversee the framework and funding for redevelopment of the Gaza Strip until a time when the Palestinian Authority, the governing body in the West Bank, has met conditions to assume governance in the Gaza Strip. Israel’s military would slowly scale back its presence.
“This body will call on best international standards to create modern and efficient governance that serves the people of Gaza and is conducive to attracting investment,” according to the plan.
Postwar Gaza authority potentially led by Tony Blair ‘would sideline Palestinians’
The draft for the so-called Gaza International Transitional Authority (Gita) puts substantial flesh on reporting of the ideas that Blair and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner are reported to have been circulating, including that Blair “wants” the role of running Gaza.
Palestinian critics who have seen the proposal – and who have long viewed Blair with suspicion – warned that Gita would be a “disaster” for Palestine, creating an alternative jurisdiction in Gaza to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
Zum Völkermord gezwungen?
Der Vernichtungskrieg gegen die Hamas und Gaza sei alternativlos und aus Notwehr erfolgt, behauptet Israels Ministerpräsident Netanjahu. Was aber, wenn sich der Terroranschlag vom 7. Oktober 2023 hätte verhindern lassen? Vieles spricht dafür, dass seine rechtsgerichtete Regierung die Dinge hat geschehen lassen. Müsste die Geschichte dann nicht umgeschrieben werden, fragt sich Ralf Wurzbacher.
Operation Northwoods
(March 13, 1962)
c. Commence large scale United States military operations.
3. A „Remember the Maine“ incident could be arranged in several forms:
a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to „evacuate“ remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.
4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.
The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.
Declassified Papers Show Anti-Castro Ideas Proposed to Kennedy
(19. November 1997)
“We could blow up a US warship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,“ the memorandum said.
“We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,“ it continued. “The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated).“
The records show that on March 13, 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff endorsed these ideas as “suitable for planning purposes.“ No evidence exists that they were carried out.
Israel Knew Hamas’s Attack Plan More Than a Year Ago
(November 30, 2023)
The document circulated widely among Israeli military and intelligence leaders, but experts determined that an attack of that scale and ambition was beyond Hamas’s capabilities, according to documents and officials. It is unclear whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or other top political leaders saw the document, as well.
(…)
Last year, shortly after the document was obtained, officials in the Israeli military’s Gaza division, which is responsible for defending the border with Gaza, said that Hamas’s intentions were unclear.
“It is not yet possible to determine whether the plan has been fully accepted and how it will be manifested,” read a military assessment reviewed by The Times.
Trump and Netanyahu‘s 2-state vision: Gaza war‘s end, Abraham Accords expansion
They reached consensus on these fundamental principles in general terms. They plan rapid implementation, beginning with Gaza warfare termination.
1. Gaza hostilities will conclude within two weeks, ending conditions will encompass four Arab nations (including Egypt and the United Arab Emirates) to administer the Gaza Strip, replacing the murderous Hamas terrorist organization. The remaining Hamas leadership will face exile to other countries, while the hostages gain freedom……
Netanyahu, Trump discussed ending war on Gaza with major stipulations: Report
Per Israel Hayom, the five points discussed were as follows:
1. Wrapping up the war on Gaza within two weeks and allowing for Egypt and the UAE to administer Gaza, replacing Hamas. Israel‘s remaining captives in the strip would also be released during this time.
2. Multiple countries taking in Gaza residents for resettlement.
3. The Abraham Accords expanding to include Saudi Arabia and Syria, and potentially other neighbours.
4. Israel declaring its „willingness for future Palestinian conflict resolution“ under the „two-state solution“ concept, contingent upon reforms of the Palestinian Authority.
5. Washington acknowledged Israel‘s „limited“ sovereignty over the occupied West Bank.
Israel fordert atomaren Angriff auf den Iran
(July 22, 2006)
„Washington Times“, 31.01.2003,
Bush genehmigt Einsatz von Atomwaffen
Im geheimen „National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 17“ Dokument genehmigt die US-Regierung den präventiven Einsatz von Atomwaffen, explizit zum Ausschalten unterirdischer Anlagen oder falls Alliierte mit chemischen oder biologischen Waffen angegriffen würden, so die Washington Times.
(…)
Boston Globe, 25.01.2005,
Der Chef des Mossad, Meir Dagan, sagt, daß der Iran an der Schwelle zur Anreicherung von Uran steht und innerhalb von 2 Jahren Atomwaffen produzieren könnte.
Dazu Dick Cheney:
„Wenn die Israelis wirklich zu der Überzeugung gelangt sind, daß der Iran Nuklearkapazitäten hat,… dann könnten sie entscheiden zuerst zu handeln und den Rest der Welt sich darum kümmern lassen den diplomatischen Scherbenhaufen hinterher wegzumachen.“
(…)
New Yorker, 08.04.2006 (Anm.: 17. April 2006 später vermerkter Erscheinungstermin), Seymour Hersh:
Laut Hersh plant die Bush-Administration und das Pentagon den Einsatz von atomaren B61-11 „bunker busters“ gegen Iran´s unterirdischen Einrichtungen wie in Natans (Natanz). Anders seien Anlagen, die wie Natans unter 75 Fuß Erde und Gestein liege, nicht zu zerstören.
Kommentar eines Air-Force-Planers: „Es ist eine harte Entscheidung. Aber wir fällten sie in Japan.“
Die Entscheidung zur Option eines Atomkrieges rief offenbar größte Unruhe im Generalstab der US-Militärs hervor, einige Offiziere hätten mit Rücktritt gedroht, es wurde verlangt diese Option vom Tisch zu nehmen.
Doch das Weiße Haus habe das zurückgewiesen. „Was wollt Ihr denn? Die Option kam doch von Euch.“
Ein früherer Regierungsbeamter berichtete, die Bush Administration ginge von der irrwitzigen Annahme aus, daß das iranische religiöse Regime durch eine schwere Bombardierung zusammenbrechen und von der Bevölkerung gestürzt würde.
The Iran Plans
(April 9, 2006)
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. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. (…)
The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.”
Netanyahu in 1993: Iran will have bomb by 1999
(04.03.2015)
The prime minister has been warning for over 20 years that Tehran is close to achieving its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Joint donor statement on humanitarian aid to Gaza
(May 19, 2025)
Israel’s security cabinet has reportedly approved a new model for delivering aid into Gaza, which the UN and our humanitarian partners cannot support. They are clear that they will not participate in any arrangement that does not fully respect the humanitarian principles. Humanitarian principles matter for every conflict around the world and should be applied consistently in every warzone. The UN has raised concerns that the proposed model cannot deliver aid effectively, at the speed and scale required. It places beneficiaries and aid workers at risk, undermines the role and independence of the UN and our trusted partners, and links humanitarian aid to political and military objectives. Humanitarian aid should never be politicised, and Palestinian territory must not be reduced nor subjected to any demographic change.
(…)
The Foreign Ministers of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK.
The EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission, the EU Commissioner for Equality, Preparedness and Crisis Management and the EU Commissioner for the Mediterranean.