I only put a portion of the quote in the search text to not exclude variations in punctuation between sentences. I wasn’t pointing to the string of characters in the search bar, but the results it yielded. The full quote is in the search results, including the threat on European capitals.

I’m not sure how you can continue to say this policy doesn’t pass the sniff test. The only context in which I have heard Samson option discussed is in regards to Israel taking out everyone with them. There’s been literally books written on the subject, showing Israel’s intent and capability (see the sources in the Samson option wiki page for the books).

They absolutely have the capability. Even without their many aircraft capable of carrying nuclear bombs and fleet of nuclear-missile-carrying submarines, their Jericho III missiles have a range of 11,500 km. From that wiki page:

According to an official report that was submitted to the U.S. Congress in 2004, it may be that with a payload of 1,000 kg the Jericho III gives Israel nuclear strike capabilities within the entire Middle East, Africa, Europe, Asia and almost all parts of North America, as well as large parts of South America and North Oceania.

Regarding the Martin van Creveld quote, check this out.

Here’s another article which contains more quotes from the same book Wikipedia cites:

This doctrine is still in place today, as journalist Kit Klarenberg noted, “Dutch-born Israeli military theorist Martin van Creveld boasted in September 2003” that “We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets…We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under”.

https://the307.substack.com/p/the-samson-option-how-israel-not

Edit regarding your question: Yes, Isreal has multiple delivery options.

Officials confirm that the nation can now launch atomic weapons from land, sea and air.

Sure, it would include countries which threaten them directly, but it is not limited to that. As per the quoted section, Israel’s government has already threatened to nuke the USA if we did not continue supplying them with military aid. There is a reason this policy is not just called MAD. It’s something entirely different.

The Samson option is far worse than mutually assured destruction. Instead of retaliatory strikes against the sole country which launches nukes first, Isreal plans to nuke major cities all around the globe if they are ever nuked. They have already used this threat to coerce other countries into supporting them.

In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Arab forces were overwhelming Israeli forces and Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized a nuclear alert and ordered 13 atomic bombs be readied for use by missiles and aircraft. The Israeli Ambassador informed President Nixon that “very serious conclusions” may occur if the United States did not airlift supplies. Nixon complied. This is seen by some commentators on the subject as the first threat of the use of the Samson Option.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option