Just ask Dan Shapiro, the US envoy to Israel who reportedly broke protocol to remonstrate with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for misrepresenting President Barack Obama’s Iran policy at a meeting last month. Shapiro publicly denied the report as “a very silly story,” only for the third man in the room — Representative Mike Rogers — to declare that there was “a very sharp exchange.”

Ordinarily [Mr] Shapiro, and his Washington counterpart, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, would expect their work to be sensitive, demanding, and extraordinarily important — but not hugely controversial. They are, after all, the representatives of two profoundly allied countries, partners committed to democracy and freedom.

But these are not ordinary times. Iran, a common threat, is progressing relentlessly with its nuclear program. If Israel doesn’t use its military capacity soon, it will no longer be able to impact that program. But the United States is urging Israel to hold its fire — to give more time for diplomacy and sanctions. Extraordinarily fateful decisions are being weighed. Perhaps inevitably, tensions are fraying even between these firmest of allies.

And the diplomats — along with the politicians and the security chiefs — need to be acutely careful about what they say and do. Every word and deed comes under the microscope — whether it is US military chief Martin Dempsey’s use of the word “complicit” to denounce the notion of an Israeli attack; or [Mr] Netanyahu’s assertion that it is not “moral” for those who are not setting red lines for Iran to seek to prevent an Israeli strike; or the resonant failure of the presidential schedulers to find a time-slot for an Obama-Netanyahu tete-a-tete during the prime minister’s admittedly brief visit to the US at the end of this month.

The reported meeting is to take place as 25 countries deploy warplanes and warships in the Persian Gulf (Strait of Hormuz) in annual maneuvers, in the largest exercise ever. If a Netanyahu-Obama meeting takes place, it could be a saving political grace for both political leaders. A direct discussion presumably would shelve the public differences between Israel and the United States for the rest of the presidential campaign, even to the extent of [Mr] Netanyahu’s private promise to stop issuing hints of an attack on Iran.

A Netanyahu-Obama meeting also would be a face-saver for President Obama. The president’s refusal to meet [Mr] Netanyahu during the Prime Minister’s visit to New York next week was officially ascribed to ”scheduling” problems. It would be the first time ever that an American president has not met with a visiting Israeli Prime Minister. [Mr] Obama has been facing heavy criticism from pro-Israel Americans and from Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who has fiercely attacked the administration’s foreign policy.

“The Iranians understand this and are not crossing the line ... of implementing and building a nuclear bomb, not because they are merciful toward us, not because they like us, but because they fear a military response or another response," said Amos Gilad. Speculation that Israel might attack Iranian atomic research sites soon has soared in the last few months as the dispute between Washington and Tel Aviv deepened over how much time to give economic sanctions and diplomacy before taking military action.

The Fed initially disappointed some investors on Thursday when it said it would buy $40 billion of mortgage-backed securities each month. That is far less than the $75 billion a month it bought in its second round of bond-buying, or the more than $100 billion monthly tab for its first round. But this time, the Fed has promised that "if the outlook for the labor market does not improve substantially," it won't stop buying and could ramp up its spending further.

Depending how the Fed defines "substantially" and how long it takes to get there, it could end up buying bonds for several years, adding $1.7 trillion or more to its balance sheet, analysts say. By comparison, the Fed's initial round of quantitative easing, first announced in November 2008 as the US economy slumped into a deep recession, totaled $1.75 trillion.

"They've clearly committed to do what it takes to get unemployment down where they want it," said Pierre Ellis, an economist at New York-based Decision Economics. "There's no limit."

Philippe Even, former head of the Necker Hospital in Paris, and Bernard Debré, doctor and member of parliament for the UMP party, recently co-authored a book titled ‘The Guide to 4,000 Useful, Useless or Dangerous Medicines.’ The book claimed that France could save up to ten billion euros a year by halting social security reimbursements for drugs that are hazardous or have no health value.

The pharmaceutical industry is “the most lucrative, most cynical and least ethical of all the industries,” Dr Even said. He claims that in order to reduce budget shortfalls in France’s healthcare system, “one simply has to take the dangerous, useless and ineffective medicines off the market.” The book was written in light of a Mediator Affaire report Dr Even and Dr Debré conducted in 2011 for former President Nicolas Sarkozy, where they investigated an incident where some 2,000 people were killed by a prescribed diabetic drug before the medicine was taken off the market.”

Their report stated that the French medical system was in dire need of reform, spurring Dr Even and Dr Debré to write their book. The two made a list of drugs that pose health risks, including cardiovascular, anti-inflammatory and anti-smoking drugs, and contraceptive pills. Statins, drugs taken to lower cholesterol, were just one of the many drugs found to be “completely useless,” Dr Even said in an interview with Le Nouvel Observateur. “[Statins] are taken by three to five million French people, which costs France two million euros per year.”

In Germany, the French and British efforts, initiated in 2010 to reinforce the bonds between their military forces and their arms industries, have long been dangerously underestimated, according to a recent analysis published by the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP). "A new Entente Cordiale," spanning the English Channel, is being created, which will undercut German efforts to set up an EU army and thwart the organization of a unified European arms industry.

The DGAP's choice of calling it an "Entente Cordiale" refers to the Franco-British alliance of 1904, as the German Reich's power was growing menacingly. It was formed to synchronize the two countries' global interests and forge a common defense in Europe against the expansion of German domination. The awareness that European policy is essentially being dictated by Berlin has led to this new Franco-British alliance.

Barroso explained that the European Commission will begin work on the new treaty and the creation of something which he declines to call the United States of Europe, but which can only be that, although it will be considerably less democratic than the United States of America. Apart from a portentous, daft digression into historical mysticism (Barroso said that "Europe has a soul") it was a coherent explanation of what the Eurofanatics are about to do. A continent surely doesn't have a soul. Human beings, theologians, atheists and humanists have been unable to agree, after many centuries of argument, whether or not men and women have souls. But a continent? No, definitely not.

In other respects, Barroso was pretty straightforward. It has long been obvious that the logic of the euro crisis is that there must be political union, to follow the banking union belatedly being established in a bid to correct the design flaws of the troubled currency union. This latest stage of the project looks to me like a doomed rejection of democracy which is at odds with the lessons of European history. But there you go. I thought the single currency was bonkers from the start.

Yet, regardless of what Eurosceptics think or want, Barroso and his fellow leaders are going off down that road, and the electorates of Europe don't seem minded to stop them. For Britain, which doesn't want to go on the journey, this makes it decision time. An EU federation of some sort, which Britain appears to have no interest in joining, is on the way, and relatively soon.

Jennifer Robins, former series producer and current storyliner, insisted that the programme could be compared with the parables of Jesus or the stories of the Old Testament such as David and Goliath or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire and brimstone.

She likened Albert Square to the Garden of Eden and ancient Israel and claimed its main theme was no more than an “age old struggle between good and evil”.

Its long suffering characters such as the chain-smoking Dot Cotton bear the hallmarks of Moses or Job, she claimed. Meanwhile villains such as “Dirty” Den – who was ultimately murdered by his second wife and buried under concrete - could be compared with Satan himself, destined to be “hurled into a pit of fire”.

Addressing the BBC’s “Re:Think:” conference, organised by the team behind programmes such as Songs of Praise, she dismissed claims that the programme was tawdry, sensationalist or immoral. Citing examples of storylines involving paedophilia, a gay Muslim sham marriage and assisted suicide she said the programme was often close to a “morality play”.

She said the programme offered its viewers “hope” and “lessons in how to live” as well as helping make stories from the Bible “relevant” to a younger generation. “Despite the twists and turns of the plot lines all our conclusions are essentially moral: good triumphs, evils is punished and the value of human life is asserted.”