PUBLICATIONS - Dr. Ali Fathollah-Nejad • Official Website - Page 7
-1
archive,paged,category,category-publications,category-4,paged-7,category-paged-7,theme-stockholm,qode-social-login-1.1.3,stockholm-core-1.1,woocommerce-no-js,select-theme-ver-5.1.7,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-6.0.3,vc_responsive

German Media Censorship on Gaza? Merkel’s Will

PRAISE

»Pretty grim scene« (Prof. Noam Chomsky)

»Fabulous« (Prof. Michel Chossudovsky)

Germany’s most prominent political debate TV program “Anne Will” had announced to run a show on Gaza on 11 January, but in what many observers believe to be an unprecedented step canceled the topic only three days earlier. The talk show is broadcast every Sunday night by the country’s foremost public-service broadcaster ARD while attracting on average 3.6 million viewers. The “Anne Will” show which in the fall of 2007 succeeded the successful primetime talk hosted by Sabine Christiansen – who is now anchoring CNBC’s “Global Players” series – is named after the presenter.

Official Germany Adopts Israeli Propaganda

On the evening of the second day (28 December) of the Israeli attacks on Gaza, the German government’s spokesperson said that in a telephone conversation German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert “agreed that the responsibility for the development of the situation in the region clearly and exclusively lies with Hamas”. The same further outlined the official version of the conflict according to the Berlin government which assembles the Christian-Democratic (CDU/CSU) and Social-Democratic (SPD) Parties: “Hamas unilaterally broke the agreement for a ceasefire, there has been a continuous firing of […] rockets at Israeli settlements and Israeli territory, and without question – and this was stressed by the chancellor – Israel has the legitimate right to defend its own people and territory.”[1] The Italian newspaper La Stampa commented “that with this outright German backing for Israel the policy of velvet gloves has ended with which German diplomacy was used to approach this region. It seems as if the Chancellor […] had decided to choose this moment and this topic of tremendous importance to let Germany return to the stage of grand foreign policy”.[2]

Along with the United States, Germany is fully backing Tel Aviv in its anew massive recourse to arms. Thus, unlike Britain and France where the political leaderships have to be attentive to avoid the explosion of outrage voiced particularly by their Muslim communities, German officials have to fear much less political ramifications resulting from protests that however occurred to a much lesser extent than e.g. in major U.S. and European capitals. This is due to two factors: One, compared to Britain’s and France’s Arab communities, it seems that German Turks – after all almost three million – are less politicized, especially when it comes to the Arab/Palestinian issue; second, as they are largely excluded from the political process due to the country’s comparatively harder path to gain citizenship, the responsiveness of political authorities tend to be on a lesser degree than in traditional ius soli countries.

What is more, the German media overwhelmingly and across the political spectrum represent the interpretation from the Israeli leadership, i.e. that the “Jewish State” would fight a defensive war against rocket-throwing Hamas terrorists with the noble cause of defending Western enlightened democracies, such as Israel, in the “war on terror” against Islamism. Those views are echoed in conservative-right papers such as Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Die Welt, in “liberal” ones such as the weeklies Der Spiegel and Die Zeit, up to “liberal-left” ones such as Süddeutsche Zeitung and Frankfurter Rundschau. The only German newspaper that has consistently and extensively covered the Gaza tragedy is the left-wing junge Welt – but which only has small readership.

“Anne Will”’s Promising Selection

Differing from this general media and political patterns, those considered to be invited to the “Anne Will” show would have proposed a more accurate interpretation of the situation. It is widely suggested that the following guests should have appeared:

· Avi Primor, former Israeli ambassador to Germany (1993–99), relieved from that office by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon due to his critical remarks toward the right-wing Israeli Shas party. Primor, who is a member of the Club of Rome, at an “Anne Will” appearance on 23 September 2007 said: “War is raging, a world war. The war against world terrorism is a world war – a world war against the West.”[3] Despite statements close to those made by Israeli governments, Primor is known for his advocacy of an Israeli–Palestinian understanding.

· Joschka Fischer, former German Foreign Minister (1998–2005), and a founding member and chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR). In an interview with Germany’s weekly Die Zeit on the current conflict, the former long-year head of the Green Party claimed: „Hamas has declared the end of the truce and has resumed the shelling of Southern Israel with rockets. These are facts on which there is international consensus.”[4]

· Daniel Barenboim, the renowned Jewish pianist and conductor, is known for his commitment to peace between Israelis and Palestinians. In 1999, together with Edward Said (who died in 2003) he created the West–Eastern Divan Orchestra in which Palestinian and Israeli musicians have come together.[5] Since 1992, he has led the Berlin State Opera.

· Sumaya Farhat-Naser, a Christian Palestinian professor and peace activist, is particularly committed to dialogue between Palestinian and Israeli women.

· Rupert Neudeck, founder of the refugee NGO Cap Anamur in 1979 and now chair of the 2003-founded NGO Green Helmets. In early 2008, he visited the Gaza Strip.[6] His organization is installing a 5 kilowatt solar plant between Beit Jala and Hebron, planned to become operational by mid-March.

Until Thursday, 8 January, the Gaza topic could be seen in TV program announcements, but disappeared the day after without any explanation. Apparently, the invitees learned only by Thursday early afternoon about the decision to cancel the show. Instead, the topic of suicide figured as replacement.

Disinvited Invitees

On 11 January, Neudeck, who was helping the installation of a solar plant in Ruanda for the Nelson Mandela Education Center and who had his flight from Johannesburg to Berlin already booked by the ARD, asserted in an article published on the “Green Helmets” website titled “Cowardice of Politics, Cowardice of the Media: A Humanitarian Interjection”: “We in Germany, from top (Berlin) to bottom and from Left to Right, are simply holding the standpoint of the Israeli Government for the only possible one.”[7]

Farhat-Naser, who is lecturing at Birzeit University north of Ramallah and therefore needed two days to reach Amman airport in order to fly out, had already arrived in her Berlin hotel when she learned about the program’s cancelation. In an e-mail sent to her friends, she shared her deep disappointment and said she did not know how to explain back home that the TV program had been canceled as the topic had not been considered important enough.

As a consolation, Farhat-Naser was given the opportunity to speak a few minutes during the pause of Barenboim’s orchestra concert which was broadcast in a live extra program by the German-Austrian-Swiss public TV network 3sat on 12 January. In an interview with the same channel a week earlier, Barenboim voiced criticism saying that while Israel had the right to defend herself, this could not be done by force.[8]

Protesting Initiative

This abrupt change of the 11 January program on Gaza led to speculations about political pressures being exerted as well as to worries about the country’s debating culture.

An open protest letter,[9] dated 12 January, authored by Mohssen Massarrat, a retired Iranian-born politics and economics professor, to the ARD chief editor, Thomas Baumann, the chief editor of the responsible regional broadcaster and producer NDR, Andreas Cichowicz, and the show’s anchor Anne Will herself, declares “outrage” at the cancelation of the Gaza show. The letter notes: “We do not know about the circumstances that led to the cancelation of the planned program. As a result, this decision by the editorial staff is a hard blow to the freedom of press and democracy in Germany – this is even more unacceptable if the ARD acted upon political pressure.”

After only 20 hours of the letter being dispatched, it attracted at least 250 signatures by persons and organizations from a wide range of professional backgrounds in Germany, but also from individuals in France, Austria, Denmark, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Yemen, Iran and Nicaragua. Prominent figures endorsed the letter, such as the British–Pakistani historian and author Tariq Ali[10], the renowned expert on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict Norman Finkelstein[11], Yale scholar Immanuel Wallerstein[12], Columbia professor Hamid Dabashi[13] and SOAS professor Gilbert Achcar[14]. Ten days later, the open letter counts more than 700 signatories.

The letter also reads: “Mr. Barenboim, Ms. Farhat-Naser and Mr. Neudeck belong to those outstanding personalities who admirably commit themselves to the Palestinian–Israeli dialogue and who make sure that the still existent thin thread of human relations between the two peoples does not rupture.”

The open letter further says: “We deeply regret the cancelation of the program. Precisely because of Germany’s special responsibility toward Israel and Palestine, the German public is entitled to obtain comprehensive and sophisticated information about the war in Gaza, the more so as the German mass media predominantly does not meet their obligation to cover the current conflict objectively, and informs the people here only one-sidedly. The firstly planned and then canceled program of the ARD program ‘Anne Will’ would have been a first and urgent effort to resolve a little this grievance of a one-sided coverage as to a most pressing and current war.” It ends by urging the responsible persons to revive the idea of an “Anne Will” program on Gaza.

Contradictory Responses and Open Questions

ARD chief editor Baumann in a long phone conversation with Massarrat did not rule out that “soon a program would be broadcast on the issue” while emphasizing that in this case ARD was not under pressure nor would it act under pressure. Likewise those in charge of the program broadcast repeatedly claimed that there was no outside interference in the decision-making and the decision was not based upon political, but “purely upon journalistic considerations” (Cichowicz). Further, Anne Will’s spokesperson said that the topic of suicide had a “greater relevance for the people in our country”. As a reaction to such statements, the junge Welt tauntingly raised the question: “What are 1000 lost lives by Israel’s war against [the one of] a rich German?”[15]

Cichowicz in a response to lead complainant Massarrat said that different topics would be prepared for each week with a final decision being made on Thursdays.[16] Contrastingly, NDR spokesman Martin Gartzke said that the final decision on the weekly topic of the “Anne Will” show would be made Fridays at noon as it had happened in the given case.[17] Still presenting a different time table, Ms. Will’s spokeswoman Nina Tesenfitz was quoted as saying that the program’s editorial team had decided upon the suicide topic by midweek.[18] However, as noted earlier, at least two of the invitees had learned about the cancelation on Thursday.

Whatever the exact procedure may be, it is highly astonishing that such high-profile guests had been invited, but disinvited on a short notice, Massarrat replied to an e-mail sent by Ms. Will on 12 January.[19] Not to mention the journalistic duty not to ignore such a brutal military assault on defenseless people, but to provide a fair and free forum on this important incident whose perpetrator Israel is accused of violating a host of international laws, including committing war crimes.[20]

Israeli Pressures or Self-Censorship: Raison d’Etat à l’Allemande

Considering the overall one-sided German (and more broadly Western) media coverage of the situation in Gaza,[21] the political statements voiced by German officials, and the recent cancelation of the “Anne Will” Gaza program, it can be suggested that the German “Israel Lobby” or the Israeli government pressured the broadcaster to cancel the show. The Israeli Embassy declared that this was “complete non-sense”.[22]

In an e-mail on 10 January, Massarrat had written: “One seems to be forced to suggest that it was Israel’s government that pushed for the cancelation of the program. Thus, in the most important German TV network, the new Israel war cannot be discussed freely and critically. […] The German raison d’Etat vis-à-vis Israel is obviously including press censorship […].”[23] It has been widely reported in the media that as a “lesson” to the 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, this time Tel Aviv had in advance prepared a sophisticated propaganda and public-relations campaign[24] – which might well have affected German media outlets’ decision-making.

The alternative explanation implies that the editors themselves acted in self-censorship because of the quasi-taboo in Germany when it comes to any kind of critique vis-à-vis Israel.[25]

“Prescribed Discriminatory Terminology”

In the meanwhile, there has been a sequel of the correspondence between the program authorities and Professor Massarrat, which was also forwarded to the German Press Council that oversees the freedom of press (see also the German Press Code). Replying to Mr. Cichowicz and Ms. Will’s rejection (the latter in an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung)[26] of the claims put forward by the open letter that political pressure was exercised and that the German media coverage was one-sided, Massarrat reiterated in an e-mail on 22 January the above-mentioned open questions while providing examples of the pro-Israeli Gaza coverage by public broadcasters.[27]

He especially condemned the incessant journalistic usage of the attribute “radical Islamic” when it came to Hamas, whose “subtle demonization” would provide the audience with the “necessary pre-condemnation” exterminating any empathy when Israeli bombs fell upon Palestinians – “according to the motto, whoever is supporting an extremist organization, is responsible for the consequences”. Against the background of German history – Jewish demonization and Germans’ immunization toward Jewish suffering in the Nazi period – as well as the manipulation of public opinion in the current crisis, he urges that the “prescribed discriminatory terminology” be revoked.[28] And indeed, there is hardly any journalist in German mainstream media who does not attribute “radical Islamic” or “terrorist” to Hamas, while “Zionist” or even “state-terrorist” is never being attributed when describing Israel.

Massarrat further criticizes ARD correspondents covering the Gaza assault from Tel Aviv, who – as he proves – would present Israeli positions in response to questions on what Germany might do to contribute to a ceasefire, reflecting Israeli demands for a ceasefire which would enable her to continue the “illegal blockade policy of the Gaza Strip”. He concludes by warning that “foe images and demonization of the other psychologically pave the way for violence and war”. Instead, he urges the “spirit of cooperation and respect for other cultures” to be promoted by the media.[29]

The Left’s Paralysis

When it comes to the Left, the political strand most inclined to oppose colonial and imperial ambitions, it has found itself in quite a paralysis – except for the anti-imperialist daily junge Welt. Also the stances of the German Left Party were far from unanimous in condemning Israel’s illegal endeavor. While the party’s spokesperson in foreign policy matters, law professor Norman Paech, found that “[n]o political goal, no right to defense or self-defense may justify such a war. A mockery of the UN Charter, a barbarity under the eyes of states that hide their weakness and cowardice behind a mild criticism, which signals rather approval than rejection”,[30] the chairman of DIE LINKE’s parliamentary group Gregor Gysi, who in spring 2008 had called upon his party to bury anti-imperialism and anti-Zionism for the sake of German raison d’état,[31] wrote: “Israel’s war was conducted as a reaction to the ongoing firing of rockets from Iran-supported Hamas on Israeli cities and villages, which also led to dead and injured among the civilian population, and [as a reaction] to the unilateral revocation of the truce by Hamas.”[32]

The broader German Left has lacked displaying solidarity with the brutally bombarded Gazans, as Pedram Shahyar, a member of ATTAC Germany’s Coordinating Council, points out. The Left’s “blockade” was due to the “real problem that in the course of conflicts in which Israel is involved, anti-Semitism is lurking. The leftists in this country have a historically-conditioned sensibility. […] The danger exists that because of the crimes of the Jewish State a climate arises, in which reactionary forces grow and emancipatory forces lose relevance”. But, he argues, the Left should acknowledge the simple historical truth that “[i]t is the West which since decades has covered the Middle East with war and occupation. It is the West which has all around installed military bases and puppet governments. In this Western bloc and its imperial policies the acts of the Israeli state are embedded. So long as this foreign rule and dominance do not end, there will be no peace.” As a result, if the Left failed to oppose the “imperial project” of “colonial racism”, it would lose its “moral center” to stand by the oppressed, Shahyar rightly concludes.[33]

Jewish Voices Against Israel

One of the rare publicly heard voices opposing the invasion of Gaza was Professor Rolf Verleger, former chairman of the Jewish Community in Schleswig-Holstein (the northernmost of sixteen German states) who also serves on the board of directors of the Central Council of Jews in Germany. In an interview with the German public radio Deutschlandfunk (DLF), he criticized the Central Council’s backing of the Israeli assault as being “shortsighted and amiss” since what was happening “in the name of Judaism” was and would be a problem for Judaism itself: “Judaism once was called ‘the religion of acting charity’, wasn’t it? When I say that today, no one is going to believe me. Today Judaism is a religion which justifies land seizure and oppression of Arabs. This cannot be true! The Central Council of Jews in Germany must see this as a problem which must be confronted.”[34] The Central Council is known for its unconditional support for wars conducted by Israel.

The psychologist further noted that he sometimes had the feeling that German politicians were quite appreciating that “the Jews” and Israel become delinquent, which would be contributing to the “discharge” of Germany. “This is not responsible”, concluded Verleger. To be responsible meant to signal Israel that it had to act according to international rules.[35]

European Jews for a Just Peace (EJPJ) Germany took out an ad in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, the country’s highest-circulation newspaper of liberal couleur, headlined “German Jews say NO to the murdering by the Israeli army”, which read: “We are appalled by this inhumanity. […] Do German politicians really believe that it is a compensation of the murdering of our Jewish kinsfolk that Israel can now […] do whatever crosses her mind?” It further notes: “Hamas is using terrorist methods, but this is also what the elected representation of Israel does, in fact hundredfold more effective.”[36]

In the same vein, Evelyn Hecht-Galinski, a Jewish–German activist and a daughter of the former president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany Heinz Galinski, writes: “Not the elected Hamas government, but the brutal occupation force, namely the government of a radical-Jewish state has to be taken to the The Hague war tribunal.”[37] She had previously called the Central Council acting as “mouthpiece of the Israeli government in Germany”.

The online edition of the Süddeutsche Zeitung interviewed German-born Israeli peace activist and founder of “Gush Shalom” Uri Avnery, in which the 85-year old laid out that Israel had not been showing any interest to cut a peace deal with the Palestinians over the past years.[38] These were indeed by and large the only voices dissenting from publicized mainstream opinion, severely attacked by neoconservative and pro-Zionist circles such as the blog Die Achse des Guten (“Axis of the Good”)[39].

Merkel’s Media? Hardly Fair

Despite ongoing attacks on Gaza and the rising number of casualties, last Sunday, 18 January, the Gaza topic was again circumvented by the “Anne Will” show. While the competitor political talk show “Maybrit Illner” (named after the anchor and broadcast by ZDF – the “Second German Television”) also hushed up the Gaza tragedy, the third major political talk show “hart aber fair” (“hard but fair” – also broadcast by ARD) covered in its 19 January program the topic of “Bloody ruins in Gaza – How far does our solidarity with Gaza go?” In a poll posted on its website in the run-up to the program, the question was raised whether one should refrain from criticizing Israel. Almost 70 percent negated the question.[40]

As the leading scholar on the Israel–Palestine conflict Norman Finkelstein pointed out when laying down the sliding support for Israeli policies among Americans, “the propaganda edifice is beginning to fall apart. It’s falling apart for many reasons. But I think the main reason is: More and more people know more and more of the truth about what’s happening. It’s due in part obviously to the alternative media”. He added that “the challenge for all of us is to tell the truth”, while advising “Tell no lies, stick scrupulously to the facts, claim no easy victories” and by doing so “we can win over public opinion to this cause”.[41]

It can be suggested that the massive Israeli propaganda efforts are a reaction to those seemingly important shifts in Western public opinion. In an online poll conducted by Germany’s leading conservative newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on whether Hamas or Israel were right, the results had been largely manipulated after the Israeli representation at the United Nations in Geneva had sent out an e-mail entitled “We need your votes”, which led to the result of over 70 percent declaring solidarity with Israel.[42]

The discussants appearing on the above mentioned “hart aber fair” show were Michel Friedman, a former vice-president (2000-03) of the Central Council of Jews in Germany and former chairman (2001-03) of the European Jewish Congress, Rudolf Dressler, a former German ambassador to Israel (2000-05), Ulrich Kienzle, a veteran journalist specialized on the Middle East, Norbert Blüm, a former German Minister, and last but not least Udo Steinbach, former long-year director of German Institute for Middle East Studies (1976–2006), known as the German Orient Institute, being one of the country’s most respected Islam and Mideast expert.

Steinbach, known for his candid analyses, had at the outset of the war on Gaza appeared on the country’s prime daily TV news magazine ARD “Tagesthemen” as well as ZDF “Morgenmagazin” (a prominent morning news magazine), in which he denounced Israel’s “brutal undertaking” in the first 36 hours of the attack with a death toll of 350, which was “simply immoral”.[43] His successor at the German Orient Institute, Gunter Mulack, harshly criticized Steinbach for his indeed accurate comments and instead blamed Hamas for the crisis, though suggesting Israel’s actions were “disproportionate”.[44]

Instead of discussing the current conflict, the “hart aber fair” program focused on the issue of latent anti-Semitism. Correctly, Steinbach lamented the debate slipped off to “side scenes” instead of paying due attention to politics. However, noteworthy political remarks had been voiced. While Friedman emphasized Israel’s right to defend herself against “Hamas terrorists”, Kienzle replied that the problem in Germany was that while Palestinians killing civilians were considered terrorists, Israelis doing the same were conversely called self-defenders. Blüm, a Christian believer who when criticizing Israel was repeatedly defamed as an anti-Semite, pointed to the continuous hardship under which Palestinians have been suffering. Steinbach emphasized the decades-long illegal occupation of land by Israel and the shortcomings of Western and Israeli policies to contribute to a peaceful settlement of the conflict.

After all, the “hart aber fair” program was hardly fair as it turned to ignore the Gaza conflict, but instead focused on the “if” and “how” criticism towards Israel should be voiced. This is a tactic frequently utilized in Germany to circumvent any facts-based debate on Israel–Palestine or even issues pertaining to Islamic countries, such as the Iran conflict. After all, Blüm made a statement which seems the most accurate one when it comes to Germany’s judeocidal past and present Israeli crimes: “Our responsibility out of the terrible crimes of the Nazi era done to the Jews – incomparable crimes – … my conclusion that I draw from that, my kind of Vergangenheitsbewältigung [a notion referring to a struggle to come to terms with the Nazi past—AFN], precisely because we have made ourselves guilty in such a way, to work for a world in which no longer people are being tortured, killed, oppressed, no matter where they are coming from. This is true for Israelis and Palestinians alike. […] Human rights apply to everyone.”

In sum, it can be concluded that most of the German media are indeed complying with Chancellor Merkel’s will – it was not only Ms. Will.

Ali Fathollah-Nejad is a German–Iranian political scientist focusing on the international relations of the Middle East. For the open letter, he gained the signatures of prominent figures outside of Germany.

[1] Agence France-Presse (AFP), “Germany’s Merkel Blames Hamas for Gaza Violence”, 29 December 2008.

[2] La Stampa (Turin), 30 December 2008.

[3] Cited in: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avi_Primor#Zitate (accessed 19 January 2009).

[4] Joschka Fischer interviewed by Jörg Lau & Patrik Schwarz, “Krieg in Nahost: ‘Das ist Obamas erster Krieg’”, Die Zeit, No. 3/2009 (8 January 2009). Further, the weekly’s online edition featured an interview with Harvard law Professor Alan Dershowitz in which the well-known advocate of Israeli policies claimed – in utter contradistinction to respected international legal authorities – that Israel’s military assault was “commensurate [angemessen]”; Dershowitz interviewed by Jan Free, “Gaza-Krieg: ‘Israels Vorgehen ist angemessen’” [“Gaza war: ‘Israel’s action is commensurate’”], Zeit Online, 15 January 2009.

[5] See also Edward W. Said & Daniel Barenboim, Parallels and Paradoxes: Explorations in Music and Society, Pantheon Books, 2002.

[6] Rupert Neudeck, “Gaza schreit vor wütendem Hunger und Not. Zu einem erschütternden Bericht eines Gaza-Journalisten“ [“Gaza cries out of furious hunger and misery. On a staggering report from a Gaza journalist”], 7 December 2008, Green Helmets website.

[7] Rupert Neudeck, “Feigheit der Politik, Feigheit der Medien. Ein humanitärer Zwischenruf”, gruenhelme.de, 11 January 2009.

[8] “Interview mit Daniel Barenboim” [“Interview with Daniel Barenboim”], ‘Kulturzeit’, 3sat, 5 January 2009.

[9] The letter is posted on http://www.steinbergrecherche.com/09rundfunk.htm#Will (accessed 22 January 2009).

[10] See also Tariq Ali, “From the ashes of Gaza. In the face of Israel’s latest onslaught, the only option for Palestinian nationalism is to embrace a one-state solution”, guardian.co.uk, 30 December 2008. [11] See also “Former Amb. Martin Indyk vs. Author Norman Finkelstein: A Debate on Israel’s Assault on Gaza and the US Role in the Conflict”, Democracy Now!, 8 January 2009; for an edited extract of his remarks at the latter appearance, see Norman Finkelstein, “Seeing Through the Lies: The Facts About Hamas and the War on Gaza”, CounterPunch, 13 January 2009; Norman Finkelstein, “Foiling Another Palestinian ‘Peace Offensive’: Behind the bloodbath in Gaza”, www.normanfinkelstein.com, 19 January 2009. [12] See also Immanuel Wallerstein, “Chronicle of a Euthanasia Foretold: The Case of Israel”, Agence Global, 15 January 2009.

[13] See also Hamid Dabashi, “The Moral and Military Meltdown of Israel”, The Palestine Chronicle, 12 January 2009.

[14] See also Gilbert Achcar interviewed by Daniel Finn, “The Crisis in Gaza”, Irish Left Review, 15 January 2009; as well as “Growing outrage at the killings in Gaza”, The Guardian, 16 January 2009, a call by hundreds of British academics which Achcar co-signed.

[15] “Gaza? Weniger Relevanz. Kritik an ‘Anne Will’” [“Gaza? Lesser relevance. Critique at ‘Anne Will’”], junge Welt, 16 January 2009, p. 14.

[16] Cited in “Debatte um Themenwechsel bei ‘Anne Will’: Freitod für die Quote oder Angst vor dem Krieg?” [“Debate on the change of topic on ‘Anne Will’: Suicide for ratings or anxiety over the war?”], Netzeitung, 15 January 2009. [17] Cited in Harald Neuber, “Statt Gaza-Streifen lieber Freitod” [“Instead of Gaza Strip rather suicide”], Telepolis, 15 January 2009. [18] Cited in Daland Segler, “Die Toten und die Quoten. Anne Will redete lieber über Merckle statt Gaza” [“the dead and the ratings. Anne Will preferably talked about Merckle than Gaza”], Frankfurter Rundschau, 13 January 2009.

[19] “Zur Absetzung von Talkshow zum Gazakrieg” [“On the cancelation of a Gaza War talk show”], junge Welt, 15 January 2009, p. 8.

[20] Cf. Manfred Rotter [professor emeritus on international law, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria], “Von ‘Notwehr’ kann keine Rede sein. Mit der Militäroperation gegen Hamas verstößt Israel massiv gegen die Bestimmungen des Völkerrechts” [“‘Self-defense’ is out of question. With the military operation against Hamas, Israel massively violates provisions of international law”], Der Standard (Austria), 31 December 2008 – 1 January 2009; “Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is not self-defence – it’s a war crime“, The Sunday Times, 11 January 2009; Mark LeVine [professor of Middle East history at the University of California, Irvine], “Who will save Israel from itself?”, Al-Jazeera English, 13 January 2009; Jens Berger, “Israel kontra Völkerrecht” [“Israel versus international law”], Der Spiegelfechter, 14 January 2009.

[21] Cf. Sabine Kefir, “Blockadebrecher ‘Al Djasira’: Weißer Phosphor, keine Bilder”, Freitag, No. 3 (16 January 2009), p. 6; see also the Gaza debate broadcast by Germany’s parliamentary TV channel PHOENIX, “Der ewige Kinflikt? – Krieg im Gazastreifen”, ‘PHOENIX Runde’, 12 January, 22:15h.

[22] Cited in Martina Doering & Ralf Mielke, “Zwischen den Fronten” [“Between the fronts”], Berliner Zeitung, 13 January 2009, p. 3

[23] Cited in Peter Kleinert, “Israels Erfolge im Propagandakrieg” [“Israel’s successes in the propaganda war”], NRhZ-Online – Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 179 (12 January 2009).

[24] Cf. Jens Berger, “Israel im Propagandakrieg” [“Israel in propaganda warfare”], Der Spiegelfechter, 8 January 2009; John Bunzl [historian at the Austrian Institute for International Affairs, OIIP], “Willkommen im Wahrheitsministerium Jerusalem. Wie Israels ‚Spindoktoren‘ unter Ausblendung historischer Zusammenhänge Realität konstruieren” [“Welcome to the Jerusalem Truth Ministry. How Israel’s ‘spin doctors’ construct reality by fading-out the historical context”], Der Standard (Austria), 10–11 January 2009; Peter Kleinert, op. cit.; Noam Chomsky, “On Gaza”, lecture, Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge (MA), 13 January 2009; James Zogby [president of the Arab American Institute], “Zionist propaganda machine”, Al-Ahram Weekly, No. 930 (15–21 January 2009).

[25] Cf. Peter Kleinert, op. cit.

[26] Anne Will interviewed by Michael Hanfeld, “Es gab keine Einflussnahme von außen” [“There was no influence from outside”], Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 16 January 2009.

[27] “‘Anne Will’ und Medienberichterstattung über den Gaza-Krieg” [“‘Anne Will’ and media coverage on the Gaza War”], CASMII, 22 January 2009.

[28] Op. cit.

[29] Op. cit.

[30] Norman Paech [German MP and former Hamburg University law professor], “Freiheit für Gaza” [“Freedom for Gaza”], Neues Deutschland, 10 January 2009, p. 1.

[31] Cf. Ali Fathollah-Nejad, “Neo-Con Conference Pushes for War on Iran”, Global Research, Montreal: Centre for Research on Globalization, 1 June 2008, last para.

[32] Gregor Gysi [German MP], “Waffenstillstand jetzt” [“Ceasefire now”], Frankfurter Rundschau, 7 January 2009.

[33] Pedram Shahyar, “Kolonialer Rassismus” [“Colonial racism”], junge Welt, 22 January 2009, p. 3.

[34] Rolf Verleger interviewed by Tobias Armbrüster “Rolf Verleger: Internationale Politik sollte Israel Grenzen zeigen” [“Rolf Verleger: International politics should show Israel limits”], Deutschlandfunk, 29 December 2008.

[35] Op. cit.

[36] “Deutsche Juden und Jüdinnen sagen NEIN zum Morden der israelischen Armee”, advert in Süddeutsche Zeitung, 17 January 2009, p. 10.

[37] Evelyn Hecht-Galinski, “Aktion ‘gegossenes Blei’ – Aktion ‘vergossenes Blut’” [“Operation ‘cast lead’ – Operation ‘blood shed’”], Das Palästina Portal, 30 December 2008.

[38] “Israel: Friedenskämpfer Avnery über Gaza. ‘Hamas wird gewinnen’” [“Israel: Freedom fighter Avnery on Gaza. ‘Hamas will win’”], sueddeutsche.de, 7 January 2009. See also Uri Avnery, “How Many Divisions? The Blood-Stained Monster Enters Gaza”, CounterPunch, 12 January 2009.

[39] Cf. Ali Fathollah-Nejad, op. cit.

[40] Cf. also Raymond Deane, “Are German getting fed up with Israel?”, The Electronic Intifada, 18 January 2009.

[41] “Crisis in Gaza: The U.S., Israel, and Palestine”, with Ali Abunimah, Norman G. Finkelstein and John J. Mearsheimer speaking, University of Chicago, 8 January 2009, 1h25min45sec.

[42] Cf. Peter Kleinert, op. cit.

[43] “Experte sieht Problem bei den Israelis” [“Expert sees problem with Israelis”], ‘Morgenmagazin’, ZDF, 30 December 2008; “Nahost-Experte Udo Steinbach zu der Situation im Gazastreifen” [“Mideast expert Udo Steinbach on the situation in the Gaza Strip”], ‘Tagesthemen’, ARD, 30 December 2008. Startlingly, the respective final questions posed to Steinbach in both programs were where “moderate Palestinians” were.

[44] Cf. Corinna Emundts, “tagesschau-chat mit Gunter Mulack: ‘Israels Vorgehen ist unverhältnismäßig’” [“tagesschau-chat with Gunter Mulack: ‘Israel’s action is disproportionate’], tagesschau.de, 6 January 2009.

SOURCE

Fathollah-Nejad, Ali (2009) “German Media Censorship on Gaza? Merkel’s Will“, Global Research, Montreal: Centre for Research on Globalization, 22 January;

▪ republished [with functioning endnotes] on NormanFinkelstein.com, 29 January;

▪ abridged version published on The Palestine Chronicle, 16 February.

 

CITED IN

Finkelstein, Norman G. (2010) ‘This Time We Went Too Far’: Truth and Consequences of the Gaza Invasion, New York: OR Books, p. 114 (Footnote 57) and p. 116 (Footnote 66).

 

Iran Falling Into the “Net” of a “Worldwide Policy”: On the U.S. Foreign Policy Doctrine and Its (Present) Dangers

PRAISE

»Quite interesting« (Prof. Noam Chomsky)

Ali Fathollah-Nejad interviews veteran Middle East Expert William R.Polk on United States foreign policy toward Iran:

Iran falling into the “net” of a “worldwide policy”: On the U.S. Foreign Policy Doctrine and Its Dangers

William R. Polk* interviewed by Ali Fathollah-Nejad**

A former high-ranking member in the foreign and security policy staff of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and most recently the foreign policy advisor of Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s presidential bid, Dr. William Polk talks to Ali Fathollah-Nejad on the neoconservative momentum in his country’s foreign policy, on terrorism, and on the danger of war on Iran.

A.F.: How can the U.S. foreign policy objective vis-à-vis Iran be summarized? What is the common denominator?

W.P.: I think it is a complicated issue really, because it is partly an aspect of American attitude toward Israel, partly an aspect of the attitude toward Iraq, but is also much influenced by the general drift which was set up the neoconservative movement dealing with America’s role in the world. I go into that in some detail in the last book I did called Violent Politics (HarperCollins Publishers, 2007) and also the book I did with former Senator George McGovern on the Iraq issue entitled Out of Iraq – A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now (Simon & Schuster, 2006).

This reformulation of American policy started over a decade ago with Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz asserting an American role as the world’s policeman. They sought to reconstitute various other countries according to, as they described it, American national interest. They proposed that America assume the right to attack other nations and to change their regimes. This was not a theoretical or academic exercise, but it was encapsulated in the U.S. national security policy.

The basic idea is that America assumes the right to intervene anywhere in the world, not only where it regards enemies operating against it, but where the United States feels that other countries or movements might rival its power. This policy was effected by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when he created an organization called the »Special Operations Command« which was set up in Florida with 53,000 men and last year’s budget (FY 2008) of 8 billion dollars, Rumsfeld asserted the right to station American special forces – »special op’s forces« as they are called – anywhere in the world to assassinate enemies, overthrow governments, and otherwise engage in acts of war and not be under the supervision of Congress or the designated American representatives abroad – the ambassadors – but to operate solely under the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. And this operation actually exists today. I have described it as being a “loose cannon” for American policy.

All attention is focused on Iran

So this is a whole new drift of American affairs that is not focused only on Iran or only on Iraq, but takes up Somalia, Pakistan, India, where we have some of these people (special op’s) now operating, and Latin America. It is a worldwide policy. In so far as it is evident in various other places, you can see already 737 American bases have been created around the world, so that Iran fell – if you will – into the net of this general policy.

As for Iran per se, there are two things that American attention has been focused upon that substantiated and build the possibility of such a policy. One is the hostage issue at the American embassy [in Tehran] which has left a very deep and still raw scar on American public opinion. Throughout America people still mention that.

The other thing is Islam. Americans generally, and certainly the government, have adopted the idea that Islam per se and Muslims per se are American enemies. People like my former Harvard University colleague Samuel Huntington have made a great issue out of this “clash of cultures.”

So most Americans today believe that Iran is a major leader in the struggle against America and that Iran is funding and arming opposition to America in Iraq and doing the same against Israel through the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon. No one remembers that Iran was helpful in trying to solve the Afghan problem. No one even knows about what Iran has done to try to stop the flow of drugs. Actually trying to interdict the flow of goods across its territory from Afghanistan and Pakistan Iran has lost as many as soldiers as America has lost in the Iraq War. The statistics are totally unknown about these things anywhere. Iran has been singled out as part of the – as [President George W.] Bush put it – »axis of evils« and of course now it is virtually the only one left because Iraq has been incapacitated and North Korea has achieved immunity because it actually has nuclear weapons. So all attention is focused on Iran.

I have been calling attention for the last three years to the build-up toward war on Iran. What seems, at least temporarily, to have stopped this is the publication of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) [in December 2007] showing that Iran had not been working on nuclear weapons for some period of time and had no “operational plans” to acquire them. Frankly I don’t believe that. If I were an Iranian, I would certainly be working on nuclear weapons or trying to acquire them somewhere because that is the only sure way that any country can defend itself.

The only way to discourage this move, I believe, is a serious move toward nuclear disarmament. We began that effort when I was in government in the 1960s. But we did not carry through. We should recommence that effort. I feel this particularly strongly as I was deeply involved, as a member of the Crisis Management Committee during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. That experience left permanent scars on me, as you can imagine.

One thing certainly then became clear: there is no constructive purpose ever served by nuclear weapons. Any nuclear weapon anywhere in the world is a mortal danger to everyone everywhere. After all, it only takes one nuclear weapon to create almost unimaginable horror and, if one nuclear weapon is used, it will certainly trigger the use of other nuclear weapons.

Having come so close as my government did – in the little group I was associated with and monitored – and later learning how close the Russians had come to the total destruction of the world, I deeply believe that we must prevent even the possibility of their use. We can be sure of that only by eliminating them.

The Iranian government is not helpful about these things, to be frank. I have dealt a lot with the Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Javad Zarif, in the past. He has recommended for example, when I started thinking about writing the book on which I am engaged – on Iranian-American relations – that I can go and talk to people in the Iranian government. They refused, they are not talking to anybody that I can find outside, not matter who they are.

They seem to be afraid in such a tense situation to speak frankly with you, aren’t they?

There is reason to be afraid, I understand that. But if we are to make any kinds of steps toward resolving this crisis there must be some degree of exchange. It would be helpful to them, I would argue. That is because I am going to write this book and I lecture all over America and speak to the Congress. So it would be useful to talk with responsible Iranians.

The other inhibition on Iranians is that many aspects of the Iranian government policy are not attractive. There are of course similar aspects of other governments that are not attractive, to which we pay no attention. But Iran is under the spotlight.

And since the European Union has been willfully ignorant and weak, hardly having an independent voice in these things the American government has had no real constraints or even other views on its activity. It more or less did what the Vice-President and the Secretary of Defense wanted it to do.

Nobody Is Giving a Damn About Illegality

The Israelis and the American neoconservative movement have been pushing very hard to precipitate an attack on Iran for years, going back indeed to the 1990s. Today I think they have less real power although for example the “surge” in Iraq was designed by Frederick W. Kagan, one of the neoconservative leaders. The neoconservatives remain extremely active in the so-called think-tanks, the newspapers, and the various publications. They are still unrependent about what they got us into in Iraq and they are perfectly prepared to get us into Iran.

I have responded to this policy by trying to show that a war on Iran would be greater disaster than the war on Iraq. I have tried successively to pick up the theme of illegality – which I find nobody really understands or is very interested in – the horrific cost to the Iranians that this would cause as it is caused in Iraq. Nobody gives a damn about that. The cost to American troops which surprisingly is not very much attended either because most of the young people we send overseas have been the “disadvantaged” or as a man in one of my audiences put it, the dregs of the our society. Lured into service by large bonuses, they are virtually a mercenary army. I think many people have said frankly that if they were not in Iraq, they would be in American prisons. So that has not been very useful.

But to what I have finally come cynically, I confess, to the belief that the only thing that really counts is the monetary cost. So I focused in the oil issue – the price of oil, the possible results of the close-down of the 8 percent of energy that Iran directly produces, and the 40 percent of the world’s energy that flows down the Persian Gulf – and the rise of debt in America, 30 percent under the Bush administration, the borrowing abroad 2.3 trillion dollars of which 1 trillion dollars of government obligations is directly owned by China, the three or perhaps six or seven trillion dollars that war has cost the American economy and the many more trillions of dollars that American businesses have borrowed from overseas investors. I found that the thing that had finally begun to make some difference in the interest of audiences was the decline of the American property market, that finally – as Mark Twain long ago put it – “the most delicate organ in the human body is the pocketbook.” So that’s my approach.

Coming just back to what you have said initially. Can you confirm the thesis put forward by many that the U.S. drive towards waging war on Iran is intended to gain momentum against the so-called global “peer competitors”, i.e. China, Russia, the EU? Since if you look at the national security strategies and all other relevant papers, the objective is to deter those “peer competitors” from becoming serious rivals on the global stage and considering Iran’s energy wealth and geostrategic positioning, how imperative is U.S. control over Iran? Is this also the rationale behind the neoconservatives’ drive towards confronting Iran?

I think there are two aspects to what you just said that need some refining. One of them is, I don’t think that this is a “peer” issue. I think everyone in the administration believes that America is uniquely powerful and has the capacity to utterly destroy Iran if it chose to and to do so practically overnight, certainly to destroy the Iranian army and whatever scientific capacity it may have for development of weapons of mass destruction. Frankly speaking, I think the analysis behind this [peer competitor argument] is very crude. As an old policy-planner I find it appallingly amateurish, never mind whether one agrees with the philosophy behind it or not.

I think rather than that, the feeling is that if America should – as one of the neoconservatives said – “line them up against the wall and kick them” and a movement against Iran would demonstrate America’s intent to be a tough, powerful figure on the world stage. That shows the resolution rather the capacity of a country to act. That would demonstrate to Pakistan, to Latin America – Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil, etc. – America’s will, which I think is the more important issue. Secondly, to alleviate or stop any Iranian interference in Iraq…

…for which there is no evidence until now. As far as I have observed, the United States administration has tried to change the rhetoric in the summer of 2007 because the image of the nuclear threat was not really credible if one read carefully the International Atomic Energy Agency’s reports where it is said that there no evidence for any Iranian weaponization program. That was a try to rally the American public behind such a war effort saying that Iran was “interfering in Iraqi affairs” and “killing our soldiers” in that country.

I think you are right, there is no clear evidence of effective Iranian armed interference in Iraq.

However, it seems to me that this misses one dimension which is worth considering carefully. I have always found that in my work on international affairs it is useful and important to try to put myself, as it were, on the other side of the table. Then I can imagine how I would act if I were the other person. So what does that suggest? If I were Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I would certainly be trying to make America’s position in Iraq and Lebanon as difficult as I possibly could. Why not? I would then be acting rather like America under the Monroe Doctrine with the nations of Latin America, its neighbors as Iraq is mine. And I would certainly be trying to get a nuclear weapon. That is, I would follow North Korea to avoid being treated like Iraq. So I assume that this is a feasible objective for the government of Iran.

That insight raises the question of what you do about it and the answer essentially comes down to three possibilities: attack Iran and try to destroy it, which is the neoconservative and Israeli approach; or you try in various ways to make such an effort so expensive and so difficult for Iran that it backs off, which is essentially what we are trying to do right now with sanctions and various forms of economic pressure; the third possibility is to try to find out what is causing this movement toward acquisition of weapons and toward intervening in Iraq and Lebanon.

It seems to me that it is the third one that offers us a real possibility for peace. Because if we can admit we would do what Iran possibly is doing or presumptively could be doing, then we can begin to identify and evaluate what would make it attractive for them not to do that.

Where to begin? I don’t think it takes any intelligence to see that the Iranians are in part reacting to the threat posed by the 2005 U.S. national security doctrine – which as far as I have been able to found out is still operative. That doctrine threatens Iran with destruction. As I said, if I were Iranian, it would make me seek to do what we fear Iran wants to do. Therefore instead of threatening to attack, we need to disavow this policy.

Once we have done that, and gotten other powers, especially Iran, to believe us, we can then begin to deal with the nuclear issue. The first step there is to cooperate with the Russians to begin to destroy nuclear weapons and move toward where we were with the nuclear disarmament actions at my time in government. This must be the first step because, as the responsible Indian government official put it, we cannot expect others to cut back unless we do; they will not accept a world of Asian “haves” and European “have-nots.”

Beyond the nuclear issue, as we take the pressure off Iran, there is a possibility and indeed a probability that the moderating forces in Iranian society will have a chance to come to the fore. The current policy necessarily favors the more radical forces in the society and works to the disadvantage not only of Iran, but also of the United States and of course all the other countries. So we are going in exactly the opposite direction of where I think the policy should lead us.

So does that mean that Iran’s nuclear dossier should be sent back to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for not being anymore in such a politicized climate? If you observed the third round of sanctions, UN Security Council resolution 1803 from March 3, 2008, this was a sad exercise in international diplomacy when you see how much pressure was put upon the 10 non-permanent members by the 5 permanent ones, especially from Washington and Paris. Thus, at the end none of the four countries – Indonesia, Libya, South-Africa, Vietnam – that had signaled their intention to reject the resolution did so, so that the vote turned out to be quasi-unanimous with only Jakarta abstaining.

I am not sure if Iran can pursue a weaponization program without being caught by the IAEA, which is not an easy task to do. On the other hand I am not sure if Iran is not really interested in stability in Iraq. Its interference might not be so counterproductive to American interests either, as some argue. Maybe all this leads to the conclusion that the nuclear crisis is just – as I put it – “a manufactured crisis.” An Iranian nuclear weapon is certainly perceived as a threat by Israel, but for the U.S. it is more feasible to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran.

I think it is arguable that it does not really make any difference about Iranian nuclear weapons because let’s say that Iran acquires one, five, or ten weapons, any hint that it would use those weapons would cause massive destruction in Iran so that anyone would have be insane to use the weapons. We all have dealt with that problem repeatedly over the last 50 years. For Pakistan the use of the nuclear weapon against India is unthinkable and likewise vice versa, or for us to use it against Russia. Mutually assured destruction is maybe not a wholly satisfactory thing, but it does have some operational importance.

The one thing I detected in what you just said that I would be clear about it is that my experience in trying to think about policy is that you can’t really single out a little piece and change that. We really have to think globally on what the policy is about. If we could think about how we could interface with Iran over the whole range of our relationships, then the nuclear issue becomes more manageable. As a single issue I don’t think it is manageable.

Do you also think the U.S. should give Iran a security guarantee, a reversal from the regime-change policy, which would really change a lot also inside Iran in coping with the U.S. This seems to be the main hurdle in all this.

It is unlikely that any foreseeable American government would do that.

From the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire

So you don’t also think that a future U.S. government might do that?

I don’t see anybody in American politics today moving in that direction, including Barack Obama, who also now says “all options are on the table, I mean all options.” If Obama is the liberal voice of America, that does not give you much ground for hope. What it seems to me has to happen is, first of all, an analysis of what it is really we are trying to achieve, secondly, what the forces are at work, and thirdly, how we can take a series of carefully graduated steps toward achieving them. I think a security guarantee at some point may be a useful thing, but in fact if the various steps that I can foresee actually come into being, then the security guarantee is not anymore of real importance. We don’t give England a security guarantee for example.

But the U.S. did not say that we are going to do regime change in London either?

Exactly, but if you back off the neoconservative policy and begin to take a series of positive steps, you do not need a security guarantee. Therefore, the first thing that I would have us do is to revoke the 2005 U.S. national security doctrine…

…which is in fact about Iran…

Well, it covers the whole world and it covers it in a massive variety of forms of military intervention. It is a frightening document that is wholly out of the character of the traditional American political system. As a very old-fashioned American from a family that has been very much involved in American politics since before the Revolution[i], I feel very much that we have changed course. It is almost a change from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire. This is a change that I deeply resent in our political system.

What do you think about the prospect of creating a Conference on Security and Cooperation in the Near and Middle East, which would entail solving regional problems, but also creating a region void of weapons of mass destruction? Do you see the U.S. government willing to launch such an initiative?

Frankly, I don’t find much value in conferences. The ones that I have been involved in the past, the issues were really resolved before the conference. The conference itself was a kind of painting over, smoothing up, beautifying the results that had already been achieved. I think almost always conferences, particularly non-governmental conferences, are among the people who already agree with one another.

I am more talking about regional structure building.

I think this also is less valuable because if you really achieve the kind of movement that I suggested you don’t need that structure very much. It may be that it is cosmetically valuable at some point, but it is not going to be the thing that is going to change the actions.

Terrorism is the weapon of the weak

So what would be the advice you would give to the U.S. administration at this time?

The first would be you abolish the preemptive strike doctrine of 2005. The second thing would be to analyze what really in involved in the terror issue that is mesmerizing the American public and government. Terrorism is simply a tactic. We used terrorism in the American Revolution against the British. Every guerilla warfare and every insurgency has used terrorism. Terrorism is what people use when they do not have any other means of action. So when insurgent movements begin, that is what they can do. The Iraqi insurgence for example does not have the capacity to fight Apache helicopters, gunships, F-16s, tanks, and so forth. So what have they left? They have terrorism. They are going to use that because that is the only thing they have. Terrorism is the weapon of the weak. To say we have a “war on terrorism” is simply non-sense.

Bush’s Gun-Slinging-Shoot-from-the-Hip Approach

And more specifically on Iran? As Zbigniew Brzezinski, Scott Ritter and others pointed out, there is a considerable probability that in the remaining months of the Bush Administration a war is being waged on Iran.

I have been saying that for years. As I said, I think it is less likely now because of the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate. Even more than what it said was the way it was brought public. Some people have regarded it as a kind of attack on the Bush administration itself by the intelligence organizations. The fact that it was published is a remarkable thing. In my times of government, those documents were regarded as secret. To produce one on such an issue and publicize tells you that there is something very peculiar about it. What it attempted to do was to tie the hands of the Bush administration so that it could not attack Iran. Various of my colleagues who are closer to the Pentagon than I am –Seymour Hersh for example from The New Yorker – think that it was kind of coup d’état. I do not know how much that could be substantiated, but certainly many people in intelligence and some in the military who opposed the Bush policy havebeen pushed out of the government. It isn’t only government officials. The business community also is worried about the decline of the dollar and the decline of the American economy. Some openly talk about the gun-slinging-shoot-from-the-hip approach of the Bush Administration. That does not mean they are pro-Iranian, but that does mean that this is a very unprofessional and illogical set of actions.

Also in the sense that an attack on Iran, as Zbigniew Brzezinski argues, would immensely shorten the era of American domination?

I am not sure. Brzezinski and I do not agree on a great many things, although we are very old friends. I do not think that an attack on Iran would lessen American dominance, however if the attack were followed, as it is likely to be followed, by an actual invasion, then it would involve a guerrilla war that would be devastating to America. And as I mentioned, the effect on the world energy supply and price would be enormously devastating for the whole Western economy. I guess I have to say that I do agree with him about that issue.

What about the so-called “Cheney Plan,” the probability that after the NIE’s release which makes an American attack on Iran less likely, but Israel seems to be still very much interested in a military confrontation? What about Israel striking first and the Americans coming to its aid?

At least some of the Israelis were keen on striking first, as it were, pulling the trigger, but this presupposes that America would follow. The Israelis do not have the capacity to do more that begin the war. They would need America to carry on. They might try something like the Osirak attack [in 1981]. Since the Osirak episode, governments all over the world have followed the lead of Russia and the United States and have diversified their facilities to the point that it is almost impossible to think of a strike of that kind that would actually do anything more than accelerate the movement toward acquisition of nuclear weapons. The Israelis did have as for some months ago – I am not sure they still have – several nuclear submarines off the coast of Iran as a presumed warning to Iran that they had the capacity to destroy the country. But should Israel make a preemptive nuclear attack, I think it would be devastating to Israel itself. And the Israelis are not fools. They certainly understand is the cost of an aggressive war against Iran..

Whether they will do it or not, this government is very aggressive and extremely right-wing. I think it is not always attuned to Israel’s own interest in the long-term. But that is really speculation. I do not know what they are likely to do, but I do not think that they would attack Iran unless the American government will give it ”a green light.”

Concerning the presidential contenders John McCain and Barack Obama, it seems that McCain is very neo-con in his foreign policy stance, but Obama is at least willing to talk to those “rogue states”, which Washington was not willing to do. Can one put it in those terms?

I think you have to recognize that both candidates are determined to win the election and they are willing to say anything, and possibly even act on anything, that might get them the votes. So they are all going to cater to what they perceive to be the way to handle American political reaction. One of the curious things is that the public in general is very much opposed to the war. In the constituency of every Congressman, there is a small group of people that is vociferously in favor of it while opponents of the war are wishy-washy about it, so that although they are a very small minority in the overall, they are quite strong. In issues that have anything to do with Israel, there is of course a very strong lobby in America that is determined and active in every constituency. So Obama for example came out the other day with a statement that in fact violated everything that he had been saying in the Middle East and I think this is just a characteristic of American politics. It is lamentable, it is disturbing, but it is like that.

War on Iran: Great and Present Danger

What do you make out of Obama and McCain’s choices for their vice-presidential running-mates?

To be frank: I think McCain made a disastrous choice. Governor Palin is a know-nothing person. She speaks to the lowest denominator of the American public. Obama’s choice is better. But to have two senators, as the Obama team is, is weak in the sense that neither has administrative credentials. Biden has a record of listening to poor advice and is often inarticuate. Both could have done better. Biden is, at least, credible, but Palin would be terrifying in the position of being “a heartbeat away from the presidency.”

The chances that Obama will prevail in the presidential elections in November are quite good. Will an Obama–Biden Administration make a change in U.S. foreign policy in general and regarding Iran in particular? Are the American élites strongly in favor of an Obama presidency since the current has been harming their various interests by damaging America’s image in the world?

Here we are just guessing. We can hope with Obama. There is little hope with McCain.

There is increasing speculation of a military action against Iran in the remaining Bush months? What do you think?

I still think it is a great and present danger.

Thank you.

* William R. Polk was the member of the Policy Planning Council responsible for North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia from 1961 to 1965 and then professor of history at the University of Chicago where he founded the Middle Eastern Studies Center. He was also president of the Adlai Stevenson Institute of International Affairs. He is the author of a number of books on world affairs.

**Ali Fathollah-Nejad is an Iranian-German political scientist and author of a study on the U.S.-Iran crisis entitled “Iran in the Eye of Storm” (2007). He is the founder and a member of the Academic Advisory Board of the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII).

SOURCE

Fathollah-Nejad, Ali (2008) “Iran Falling Into the “Net” of a “Worldwide Policy”: On the U.S. Foreign Policy Doctrine and Its (Present) Dangers“, Interview with Dr. William R. Polk, Informed Comment, 13 October;

▪ republished on Iran Coverage, p. 738, 13 October | Global Research, 16 October | ZNet, 17 October | Payvand News, 20 October.

Neo-Con Conference Pushes for War on Iran

PRAISE

»a shocking report« (Prof. Noam Chomsky)

»very useful« (Dr. Norman Finkelstein)

»excellent report« (Abraham Weizfeld, Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians)

On the first weekend of May 2008, Berlin was host to two extraordinary conferences. On the one hand, a crowd of altogether 1,600 predominantly young people from all over Europe met at the Humboldt University in order to discuss and reflect the turbulent, globally unfolding events of 1968. On the other, not far away, about 400 participants gathered at the classier, guarded »Auditorium Friedrichstrasse« under the theme of “Business as usual? The Iranian regime, the holy war against Israel and the West and the German reaction,“ organized by the recently created »Mideast Freedom Forum Berlin (MFFB)«. Astonishingly despite wide participation by journalist from major newspapers, there was no mention of the conference in the German media. The purpose of the following account is also to fill this crucial gap.

Also historically, not least due to the bitter experiences of the recent past and present, an examination of the Weltanschauung advanced at the conference bears importance: What has entered the political discourse in Washington in a dominant fashion since almost a decade now, namely the view of the so-called neo-conservatives, appears not only to sound the medial and political terrains in Germany, but be willing to offensively occupy them. As in the United States, Iran takes a prominent role here.

The very first event of this kind to take place in Germany, the MFFB’s “International Iran Conference” had set the target of intervening politically to bring about a radical re-orientation of Berlin’s Iran policy, one that is heading towards Iran’s complete isolation or “regime change.” At the same time, the addressees of such a posture were clearly named: Not only lies the “future of pro-Zionism” in the hands of the Right. But beyond the so-called Anti-Germans who are sympathizers anyway, the main task was to win over the whole left side of the political specter.

The introduction was delivered by the chairman of the German branch of the U.S.-based association »Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME)«, professor Diethard Pallaschke. SPME’s mission is to meet “anti-Semitism” and “anti-Israelism” as well as to support the security of Israel’s borders. In the United States, SPME is accused of acting, via so-called »campus watch« groups, against critical statements on university campuses about Israeli and also U.S. foreign policies in the Middle East. Amongst the most prominent victims of this curtailing of academic freedom are Norman Finkelstein (formerly at DePaul University and author of, most recently, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, 2008) und Tony Judt (director of New York University’s Remarque Institute), who both have Jewish background.

Pallaschke branded Iran the “biggest threat in the history of mankind” and as such “to all civilized states.” The next speaker was Charles A. Small, professor of history at Yale University, who argued that Nazism and “radical Islam” had a common ideology. Even Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, Israeli politician and longtime Brigadier-General, had alluded to the possibility of a “second Holocaust,” he stressed. There should be no support of Iran from students, scholars and European governments, especially as Iran’s President Mahmud Ahmadinejad “dehumanizes the other.” He hoped that all those groups would “begin to act and act quickly.”

Small further quoted the former chief of staff of the Israeli military, Shaul Mofaz, with his estimation that within a year an Iran armed with nuclear weapons was to be expected.1 But according to the Iran report by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), released in December 2007, Iran does not maintain a nuclear weapons program. This finding was recently confirmed by Mohammad El-Baradei, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), when addressing the Middle East World Economic Forum in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. Likewise IAEA reports state that there is no evidence for an Iranian weapons program. And if Iran ever decided to divert its civilian energy program to a military one, the NIE says that “[a]ll agencies recognize the possibility that this [nuclear weapon] capability may not be attained until after 2015” (p. 7).

A Preventive Nuclear Strike Against the “Satanic Ambitions” of the “Un-Civilization”?

Menashe Amir, former longtime director of the Persian program of radio »Kol Israel« (the Voice of Israel) and current head of the Persian website of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs »Hamdami«, said the Iranian regime was intent on “destroying the world order.” The “dictatorial regime” ruling the country had “satanic ambitions,” he claimed. The Iranian people should be assisted in bringing about a “regime change” – for the sake of both Iranians and the rest of the world. Amir finished by telling an anecdote about a private audience he had with U.S. President George W. Bush, to whom he said: “Iranian citizens are waiting for you to rescue them.” Bush responded: “You know, we’ve the same problem in Iraq where we are stuck.”

Benny Morris, professor of history at the Ben Gurion University of the Negev (Israel), began his remarks about “A second Holocaust? The threat to Israel” with a quotation of the professing neo-conservative and Washington Post political commentator Charles Krauthammer, foreseeing a nuclear power Iran already by 2009/2010. With a nuclear-armed Iran, Morris then argued, Israel would lose its significance. Apart from strategic losses, investment flows as well as the peace accords signed with Arab governments would be jeopardized. In order to forestall the strategic challenge of a ‘nuclear Iran,’ he suggested, Israel ought to intervene preventively and destroy the “Iranian nuclear project” by conventional but preferably nuclear weapons. This would certainly cause the death of many civilians, he admitted, but this prospect lies within the responsibilities of the Iranians themselves who after all have to account for such of regime – the “mad mullahs of Tehran.” All in all, a nuclear strike was preferable to a “second Holocaust” which was lurking from this “un-civilization,” Morris concluded.2

The „Third Option“: Positioning a Terror Organization Against the German “Steinmeier Policy”?

Paulo Casaca, Portuguese Member of the European Parliament (MEP), dealt with the role of the European Union (EU) and the “effectiveness of sanctions” against Iran. The latter would have to go beyond the present United Nations sanctions framework, he said. “We really need economic sanctions from Germany and the European Union.” Casaca, member of the socialist group of the European Parliament, then held up a picture he had obtained from “sources” of the “Iranian resistance.” It allegedly showed a tunnel built by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, a construction said to be in connection with a nuclear weapons program. The MEP did not hide that this “main Iranian opposition group” he was referring to was the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO, or MeK) – a militant group listed as terrorist by both the European Union and the U.S. State Department. The “non-sense” of the MKO’s classification as terrorist organization ought to be removed, since, he claimed, it was all about supporting the “Iranian people.” In April 2004 Casaca had spent some days at »Camp Ashraf«, the shielded city and headquarters of the MKO, 60 kilometers north of Baghdad.

Matthias Küntzel, member of SPME’s Board of Directors, warned to turn the conference into an academic meeting.3 Quite on the contrary, its aim should be to intervene politically, and above all to win the political Left over, he emphasized. Küntzel, who regularly writes for the Wall Street Journal, concentrated furthermore on German–Iranian trade relations. With Germany being Iran’s number one European trade partner, Berlin was assigned the vital task to realize the isolation of Iran, he argued. All in all, a discontinuation of the trade relations between Germany and Iran would only represent a small sacrifice for the former, but in turn would minimize danger posed by the latter, Küntzel claimed. But in providing biased figures, he supersized the German economy’s importance for Iran.4 His criticism of the German industry’s role and his suggestion to have a sit-in in front of the headquarters of the business giant Siemens were well received by the assembled left-wingers whose attitude towards big business is rather skeptical. Even more as Küntzel also demanded that the business interest was not allowed to stand above morality. Finally, he also called for the break-up of diplomatic relations with Iran. He further accused the German media – except for some comments in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the country’s largest conservative daily – of severe defaults as to the presentation of the “Iranian danger.”

According to Morris, Bush had assured the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that Washington was taking care of the Iranian nuclear program. But given the situation in Iraq there was only little probability of a U.S. military strike, he added. However, if Democratic Senator Barack Obama was elected president in November, he believed, then Bush would order an attack on Iran. Despite low ratings and little support for war on Iran, the outgoing U.S. president would have nothing to lose by such an attack. The rationale behind such anticipation, which Morris did not attempt to hide, is that the ‘Iran problem’ cannot be devolved unto Obama – who has even promised unconditional negotiations with Iran –, but could eventually handed over to a Republican President John McCain. The latter has already insinuated that he would continue the administration’s foreign policy and Iran strategy.

Contrary to the nuclear strike option preferred by Morris, Casaca referred to a “third option” – beyond “appeasement” and military confrontation. This variant consisted of supporting the political leadership of the “Iranian opposition” – a reference made to the MKO. Amir noted that it was sufficient to eliminate a single “chain” of the nuclear program in order to paralyze it. Thus it would suffice to “only” bomb the nuclear plants of Natanz and Isfahan, he claimed. But the best way to bring about a regime change in Iran was to follow his five-point plan: (1) Providing a serious military threat; (2) expanding the sanctions to paralyze the Iranian economy; (3) helping the Iranian population and ethnic minorities, so that they could demand their rights; (4) financially supporting the majority of the Iranians; (5) organizing the 3 million Iranians in exile, so that they can exercise pressure upon Western governments to convince them of the “danger” the Iranian regime posed. If all these measures were carried out, there would be no necessity for military action, Amir pointed out.

To conclude the starting panel – whose title defined the “Iranian threat” in relation to Islamism, anti-Semitism, and the nuclear program – its moderator Alan Posener, chief commentator with the Welt am Sonntag, a German conservative Sunday paper, warned that one could not “fight dictatorships by over-cautiousness“ but only by “strength.” But the latter would not be part of the “Steinmeier policy.” In fact, Posener’s call signals the dissatisfaction of those pushing for a tough stance vis-à-vis Iran, a military option included therein, with the Iran policy as pursued by the Foreign Ministry that is under the aegis of Frank-Walter Steinmeier and his Social-Democratic Party (SPD). Likewise, Volker Perthes and Christoph Bertram, respectively the present and former directors of the »German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP)« – a Berlin-based think-tank advising the German government on foreign policy matters – were criticized by the conference participants as Steinmeier’s Iran policy is believed to take into account SWP’s input. Both Perthes and Bertram plead for a Western “strategic partnership” with Iran, while Bertram – also a former director of the »International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)« in London – just recently called for a détente policy vis-à-vis Iran as the strategy so far had clearly failed. On the other hand, the Iran stance by Chancellor Angela Merkel and her Christian-Democratic Party (CDU) is considered to be in line with demands from Washington and Tel Aviv.

Anti-War Intellectuals as “Purchased Vassals” of the “Iranian Theocracy”?

The following morning was dedicated to the “character of the Iranian Regime.” The Iranian writer Javad Asadian deemed the return of the Twelfth Imam, the Mahdi, to form the religious and ideological core of the “Iranian theocracy.” The final aim was the appearance of this Shiite Messiah. He further claimed that Iran needed the atomic bomb in order to use it against Israel. Thereupon the publicist Nasrin Amirsedghi drew a dark picture of women’s rights in Iran, a country which was stricken with the “deadly pandemic” called “Islamic republic.” There was a “virus introduced” by Iran’s Revolutionary Leader Ayatollah Khomeini, she claimed, which was the Islamic law Sharia, characterized by “incalculable aggressiveness.”

In addition, Germany’s prominent Islam and Iran experts Katajun Amirpur, Navid Kermani and Bahman Nirumand acted as “purchased vassals” of the “Allah state,” Amirsedghi asserted, and Asadian added that they must be confronted followed by large applause. Revealingly, those three public figures are admittedly known for their statements critical to the Iranian government, but at the same time markedly reject any ‘military solution’ to the conflict.

Finally, Miro Aliyar from the Austrian Committee of the »Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan« explained that Iran was a multi-ethnic state, and therefore the ethnicities represented therein were entitled to autonomy. It is reported that the Bush Administration is supporting separatism in the Iranian provinces of Kurdistan, Khuzestan, and Baluchestan in an effort to destabilize and disintegrate the country. Among the beneficiaries of U.S. and Israeli aid for that goal is the Iranian sister organization of the PKK, the PJAK, that has conducted cross-border raids into Iran.

Israel To Carry Out a Preventive Strike Against Iran

Under the title “The Holy War against Israel and the West” Ha’aretz journalist Yossi Melman, the U.S. neo-conservative figurehead Patrick Clawson and the German political scientist Alexander Ritzmann were due to speak. The latter underlined that the ‘Islamic danger’ was simmering inside Germany where the Lebanese Hezbollah maintained numerous offices. He also condemned the anti-Israel reporting of the Hezbollah broadcasting company Al-Manar, which despite expulsion from different satellite networks could still be received in Europe still via one network. Ritzmann, who is a Senior Fellow with the neo-conservative Brussels think-tank »European Foundation for Democracy«, opined that Iran could at any time activate these “Islamist” groups residing in Germany for political purposes, and will do so. Nearly all German politicians believe, Ritzmann claimed, that Iran represented a danger for Israel. However, the task was to make clear that Iran was also a danger for Europe and the whole world, he emphasized – indeed a challenge since based on the facts on the ground Germany’s policy-makers are far from conceiving the “Iranian threat” in such dimensions.

Following the same dictum, intelligence expert Melman described the threat of an irrationally acting Iran that would acquire nuclear weapons capability between 2009 and 2011. If diplomacy failed, he predicted, Israel had to act militarily; an approach agreed upon by most Israeli politicians and parties, he added. Following the so-called Begin Doctrine – named after a former Israeli Prime Minister and used as basis for the 1981 bombardment of the Iraqi nuclear plant »Osiraq« – his country would act preventively within one or two years from now: “I believe Israel will have to do it,” Melman concluded. Not sharing Morris’ suggestion of a nuclear attack on Iran, he stressed that conventional tools might be sufficient. Melman covers intelligence and national security issues for the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz and is the co-author, with Meir Javedanfar, of The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Iran (2007).

Clawson, deputy research director at the neo-conservative »Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP)« – a think-tank ascribed to the Israel Lobby – was certainly the most prominent international figure speaking at the conference. He argued that in addition to economic pressures, political and security measures must be taken, such as accelerating the “military security” of Iran’s neighbors. Moreover, it must be openly voiced that “we will be prepared to deter Iran.” However, if diplomacy failed, he said to me in an interview, he fears that the military option will be employed. Clawson, one of the main players in the preparation of the “regime change” enterprise in Iraq, has over the years demanded an equal lot for Iran.

“Language of Sticks” as the “Only Solution”?

On the panel “Iran and Europe: Dialogue or confrontation?” Saul Singer, The Jerusalem Post’s editorial page editor, argued that Europe’s “appeasement policy” regarding Iran would press Israel towards war.5 The author of Confronting Jihad: Israel’s Struggle and the World After 9/11 (2003) praised the event as ringing the “beginnings of a new anti-fascist Left.” Singer, who earlier in the conference referred to the “Iranian nuclear war program,” pointed to the Iranian President’s disputed statements regarding Israel and called for Ahmadinejad to be legally pursued. This ought to be done according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide whose Article 3(c) says that “[d]irect and public incitement to commit genocide” is punishable.6 However, one can doubt whether Ahmadinejad’s falsified statement – which verbatim reads “The Imam [Khomeini] said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghâlgar-e Qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bâyad az safheh-ye ruzgâr mahv shavad)” – can be interpreted as incitement to genocide, or is a call for a “regime change” in a country that in violation of the most basic principles of international law continues a decades-long occupation.

Singer continued stressing that it was not the Iranian nuclear program that posed problem, but the very existence of the regime. The West could act, and had to do so, particularly so as it “holds international legitimacy in its hands“ – in fact, a questionable judgment in the view of the reality of Western-led occupations in the last decade. Especially when it comes to the Iranian nuclear program, the majority of the international community has consistently supported Tehran’s position against Western accusations.

Finally, the well-known German journalist Bruno Schirra was convinced that the only solution regarding the “clerical fascist system” of Iran would be the use of the “language of sticks.” The author of Iran – Sprengstoff für Europa [Iran – Explosives for Europe] (2006) said that bombing Iran would only postpone the nuclear program to about five to ten years, so that in the end one would be forced to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.

There was no mention of the word “dialogue” included in the panel’s title, nor any suggestions in such a direction.

A “New Anti-Fascist Front” Against the “New Hitler”?

The final panel discussion was meant to promote “The need for a new antifascism.” Laying the foundational stone of the evening, Jeffrey Herf, professor of history at Maryland University, put Ahmadinejad on a level with Bin Laden and Hitler. It was a matter of defying “fanatic anti-Semitism,” he insisted, an ideological fanaticism that must not be underestimated.

The next speaker was Los Angeles-based Kayvan Kaboli, spokesperson of the »Green Party of Iran«. He considered the “Tehran regime [to be] of fascist essence,” which not only in a few years, but right now represented an international threat – just like “global warming” as he went great length to explain. Iran, Kaboli asserted, pursued a “program of territorial expansion” and used Iraq as stepping stone to eradicate Israel. The “clero-fascist regime” in Tehran planned to “islamize the world,” he said. And the European “appeasement policy” toward Iran “for the sake of juicy contracts” was “shameful.” Kaboli finally called upon Iranian “opposition” groups to declare support for Israel. After all, the “two fascisms” – Nazi-Germany and Iran – were the same and also equally dangerous. It was the formation of a worldwide anti-fascist front, he suggest, which presented a way out.

The highlight of the congress was the contribution made by Thomas von der Osten-Sacken. The founder and director of the NGO WADI, a German ‘relief and human rights’ organization mainly active in Northern Iraq, made it quite clear from the very beginning that what he called “Islam-Nazism” was very similar to Germany’s National-Socialism. Therefore anti-fascism was necessary, whose aim had to be to “bash these Islam-Nazis, put them in jail, and kill them” – a statement which was accompanied by large applause. As “anti-fascists” we had to “wage war,” not militarily however, but the war must be taken seriously, he insisted. Just like in the 1930s and 40s the universalistic vision must be to fight “despotism.”

Von der Osten-Sacken, who is considered a leading figure of the so-called “Anti-Deutschen” [Anti-Germans] – a well established ideological strand among the German Left which deems unconditional support for Israel’s policies as consequential lesson of Germany’s hegemonic strive in World War II and its Holocaust crimes – presented an agenda for the “democratization” of the Middle East. This included: secularization and “rule of law”; a “restructuring of the economy”; a “federalization” instead of nationalization, in which Kurdish efforts for independence would be considered; against „gender apartheid“; and against both Iran and Syria. These programmatic points, which strongly reminded of the 2004 U.S. initiative for a “Greater Middle East,” were supplemented by his very curious interpretation of the ongoing Iraq War. The countries of the region, such as Iraq, are “rotten from the core” so that one only had to “screw the cork” and war would inevitably break out.

Altogether, he denied a nuclear weapons-free zone, which follows that Israel would remain the only country in the Middle East possessing such weapons of mass destruction. To conclude, Von der Osten-Sacken outlined his “vision” for the future of the region. He wished one day to be able to take the Intercity train from Tel Aviv via Amman and Baghdad to Tehran without any passport check, then go to a Tehrani disco, drink beer and later on have a sunbath at the Persian Gulf.7

Broder’s Slander Volley

The last speaker of the conference, Henryk M. Broder, was the most prominent figure among the German participants. An author for liberal-left outlets, above all Germany’s most influential political weekly magazine Der Spiegel, is notorious for his defamatory polemics. In his 2006 best-seller Hurra, wir kapitulieren! [Hurray, we capitulate!], he accuses the West to “cave in” vis-à-vis Islamists and thus to promote Europe’s “Islamization.” Signaling his agreement with and referring to what his predecessor had outlined before, Broder quoted a Palestinian journalist friend whom he used to meet in Bethlehem with the sentence “It’s not about the occupation, it’s about the girls on the beach!” He stressed that the situation at hand was as “terrible and cruel” as in the 1930s. In an unmistakable reference to Nazi-Germany, Broder remarked that the topic Iran “looks somehow familiar to us.” But there was an important difference between 1939/40 and 2008, he added: nowadays, there was no Churchill who was able to act after negotiations failed. On his co-edited web-blog, Die Achse des Guten [The Axis of Good], which assembles a pool of writers and registers nearly 400,000 unique visitors per month, Broder called Iran the “Fourth Reich.” The “idea of war” was “horrifying” to him, but this option could not be omitted, he underscored.

Then, he contented himself with quoting passages from German daily papers of 2006 about the West–Iran standoff. The citations delivered the impression of European politicians constantly offering attractive incentive packages to the Iranians; but with resolute defiance, Tehran had been rejecting them. Furthermore, Iran had also repeatedly ignored ultimatums set by the West without shrugging its shoulders. This absurd lining up of newspaper excerpts caused a certain amusement within the audience. He did not need to read out the quotations from 2007, Broder added, because their content could easily be imagined. He finally quoted the Iranian president as saying “the Europeans are stupid,” and complacently added that Ahmadinejad might be right.

Then Broder turned to the »Arbeiterfotografie« (Concerned Photography). This group of politically committed photographers was the first in Germany to reveal the mistranslations of the Iranian President’s alleged “Israel must be wiped off the map” statements made during an anti-Zionism conference held in Tehran in October 2005. On its initiative the »Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung (bpb)« [Federal Center for Political Education], a public think-tank, ordered the examination of Ahmadinejad’s remarks by the translation service of the German Parliament, the Bundestag. As a result, Associated Press (AP), Tagesschau.de (website of Germany’s most widely watched TV newscast) and SpiegelOnline (the online edition of Der Spiegel) conceded their unchecked adoption of translations dispatched then by the major Western news agencies. However, they have not yet corrected their mistakes in previously published items.

The issue of Ahmadinejad’s actual words gained prominence as late as this March with an article appearing in the country’s largest daily, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, where the renowned Islam and Iran expert, Katajun Amirpur, pointed to the widespread mistranslation of this “Iranian key sentence” and the danger it harbors for serving as a pretext for waging war an Iran allegedly intent on “wiping Israel off the map.”

Not amused by Amirpur’s revelations then, at the conference Broder relinquished a rude tirade against “those who sparked the debate” with the bpb – a reference to the »Arbeiterfotografie«: Already calling the latter lumpenproletariat in a blog, Broder now added to this “troublemakers,” “cranks,” “bums,” “anti-social elements,” “subsidy receivers” and “madmen.” However, he stressed, the bpb had “elegantly” solved the issue kicked off by those “fools.” In fact, the website particularly provided by the public think-tank to open a discussion on Ahmadinejad’s statements and “Iran’s position” hardly presents a balanced, let alone educational account: From three contributions in total, one is by Matthias Küntzel and another – a polemic – by Broder himself.

The Auschwitz Lesson: Suspending Human Rights in Case of Emergency?

In the final discussion, the U.S. historian Herf called for a “new Atlanticism.” Such an “Atlantic alliance” should wage the “long war against radical Islam” – a phrase at the core of neo-conservative thinking. At the same time he predicted that if the “U.S. withdraws from the world,” especially from Iraq, then Europe will be exposed to greater danger.

Von der Osten-Sacken, on his part, claimed that a large majority of the Iranian population was in favor of “liberation.” He underlined that we were in a “state of emergency.” The lesson of Auschwitz meanwhile comprised the idea that “in some situations, human rights are to be suspended,” he was convinced. Finally, Kaboli recommended including each willing group – regardless of its democratic posture – into an “anti-fascist front.”

Fully in compliance with Küntzel’s initial desire, the conference at no time ran the risk of being only approximately academic. Following his desire for political intervention, some of the prominent Berlin conference participants intend to talk to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. In order to likewise refer to the alleged danger posed by Iran and to require concrete action, they moreover wished for a Bundestag hearing and also intend to talk to German companies.

All conference participants agreed upon the notion of a “worldwide threat” posed by the new quasi-“fascist” state of Iran. They also agreed upon an iron fist as best response to this. 8 Among this sea of consent, there was only a single moment in the conference where a dissenting view was voiced. A bearded, Jewish man from the audience said that the picture drawn between Good and Evil was not so clear for him as presented by the panelists. Immediately, he was interrupted by the moderator and asked not to issue a statement (whereas others who agreed with what had been said were extensively allowed to make their case) but to ask a question. However, he was not able to do so, as the microphone was promptly taken away from him by one of the organizers.

Against Iran and Islam: Unholy Alliances of the “Anti-Fascist Front”

With the participation of key Berlin panelists, an almost identical conference, entitled “The Iranian Threat,” took place at the University of Vienna/Austria on the following day. The congress was organized by SPME Austria and »Stop the Bomb – Coalition against the Iranian extermination program«, an initiative endorsed by over 4,000 petition signees, who demand a total isolation of Iran. Among them are Austrian Nobel Literature Prize laureate Elfriede Jelinek and prominent Dutch writer Leon de Winter.9 In an interview for SpiegelOnline – the very popular online edition of Der Spiegel –, conducted by Broder, in August 2005, De Winter states: “Sometimes there is only the choice between disaster and catastrophe, and then one must remember that the first and foremost task of the state is to guarantee the life and security of its citizens. […] We deal with a new totalitarianism. No, this one is not new, but is only different. After the left fascism of the Soviets, after the right fascism of the Nazis, Islamism is the fascism of the 21st century.”10

»Stop the Bomb« emerged out of protest against ongoing trade relations between Austria and Iran. Especially the 2007 gas deal, worth of 22 billion euros, between the Austrian OMV (Österreichische Mineralölverwaltung), Central Europe’s leading oil and gas corporation, and the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), is a thorn in the initiators’ flesh as it might undermine their much-desired, total isolation of Iran. In Berlin, the German journalist Schirra has uttered the wish to form a German variant of the »Stop the Bomb« initiative.

Unlike the German media, the Austrian daily Der Standard published a conference report headlined “Threats of War from the Lecture Hall.” The contents and threats that were uttered in Vienna led Der Standard’s Senior Editor Gudrun Harrer to assume that these both congresses must have been a concerted lobbying “roadshow” in an effort to push for war on Iran and to brand anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.

The long-serving Mideast expert Udo Steinbach, director from 1976 to 2007 of Germany’s foremost Middle East research entity, the »German Orient Institute«, has called the Berlin conference’s goal to form an “AIPAC” in German-speaking countries. And indeed the resemblance to the »American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – America’s pro-Israel Lobby« – deemed as of one of the most influential American lobbies – is hard to overlook. Akin to AIPAC, WINEP and other parts of the Israel Lobby and the wider neo-conservative movement, the German-speaking variant is beating the drums for war on Iran.

Next on the agenda is a date 31 May–1 June at Cologne University, which the audience was given notice of by flyers in the entrance hall of the Berlin conference: The “Kritische Islamkonferenz: Der Islam als politische Herausforderung” [Critical Islam Conference: Islam as Political Challenge]. The event is linked on the website of the right-wing, Islamophobic Politically Incorrect (PI), which in turn also links to Broder’s Achse des Guten weblog. PI is also sympathizing with Honestly Concerned, an initiative founded in May 2002 to counter anti-Israel stances in the media and also of the main supporters of the Berlin conference. By mid-May two major German organizations committed to fighting the “Islamization” of Germany and Europe merged into the »Bürgerbewegung (Citizens’ Movement) Pax Europa«.

The bolstering anti-Islam movement in Germany appears to enjoy privileged ties with emerging neo-conservative ideologues. Allegedly in favor of Israel, the United States, and European values, those groups have designed a new globally omnipresent threat – this time, Iran in the company of Islam – which they cultivate both in domestic (immigrant integration) and foreign policy (Iran and its “evil” allies) stages. Startlingly, for building such an unholy alliance strugglers against anti-Semitism have unconsciously joined with rightist extremists.

These agents provocateurs have specialized in distorting the realities (forcing on the “clash of civilizations” concept upon social and political conflicts) and in perverting the lessons modern history provides. In their “West against the (Islamic) rest” paradigm, they ruthlessly camouflage the horrendous consequences of their recent drum beats, leaving the over one million Iraqi victims of the ongoing occupation a lone footnote in their bloody efforts to “promote democracy.” The blunt assumptions and statements uttered at the Berlin conference expose – without further need of comment – their homophobic attitudes. Even more gravely, they invoke the memory of millions of Holocaust victims to suit their one and only agenda: the “long war.” The self-proclaimed “anti-fascist” supporters of Bush’s neo-conservative project are in reality anti-democrats; and certainly they are not pro-Israeli or pro-American – nor are they pro-Iranian: they are pro-war.

And: It remains to be seen whether the conference organizers’ will to win over the Left will succeed. The German Left Party plays a decisive role here as it must decide whether it is willing to continue the path of anti-imperialism and anti-war, or is ready to bury them at the altar of a grotesquely defined raison d’Etat – as Gregor Gysi, head of Die Linke’s large Bundestag caucus, has recently demanded. While Broder applauded him, he was boldly criticized by foreign and peace policy experts of the party-affiliated foundation who doubted if Gysi was really advocating a “leftist policy.” But despite the mobilization of “pro-Zionist” factions amidst leftist milieus, the huge crowd gathering at the Berlin 1968 Congress keep the hope astute that war-mongering will have a hard time selling its propaganda to sympathizers of the Left.

Version of 1 June 2008.

The author thanks Judith Schlenker (Germany) for translating an initial version of the report from German.

Ali Fathollah-Nejad is an independent writer focussing on the international politics of the Middle East, the foreign policies of France, Germany, the United States and Iran as well as politico−cultural issues of immigrant integration. He publishes in English, German, and French with his articles translated into Spanish, Italian, and Persian. He is the author of a detailed study on the U.S.−Iran Crisis, entitled Iran in the Eye of Storm – Backgrounds of a Global Crisis,  Since 2006, he has delivered numerous lectures all across Germany.

NOTES

1 According to Small, this statement was made at the conference “Understanding the Challenge of Iran,” organized late April 2008 by the »Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism« which is headed by Small himself.

2 In the aftermath of the conference, Morris voiced similar comments vis-à-vis the online editions of the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (7 May) and the Austrian Standard (11 May) dailies.

3 For the views expressed in his talk, please refer to both his articles “Ahmadinejads Mission” [Ahmadinejad’s Mission], Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung, 25 April 2008, and “The Tehran–Berlin Axes”, The Wall Street Journal (Europe), 15 May 2008.

4 Küntzel’s presentation of figures in terms of German–Iran economic relations was biased. He estimated the German–Iranian trade volume to be at 5 billion euros, which is correct, but he did not mention that as a result of the sanctions imposed upon Iran in recent years, a pressure mainly exerted by the U.S. Treasury, German exports had halved to 3 billion euros for 2007. While trade with Iran equals less than 0.5 percent of Germany’s total export volume, Iran covered 40 percent of her imports from Germany, Küntzel claimed. In reality, Iran covers roughly 10 percent of its total supplies worth of over 60 billion U.S. dollars from Germany. Furthermore Küntzel claimed that about three-quarters of the small and medium-sized enterprises in Iran were dependent on goods imported from Germany. This is also rapidly changing with Iranian firms turning to Asian countries and at the same time making efforts to increase domestic production capabilities.

In conclusion one must note that Küntzel supersized Germany’s economic weight for Iran, thus serving the purpose of supporting his argument for a cancellation of German trade ties with Iran, which would then result in a quasi-total isolation of the Middle Eastern heavyweight. But the situation in a globalized world economy is more diverse than this simplistic assessment suggests. As a consequence of the U.S.-pushed sanctions regime imposed upon European economies, those have experienced significantly losses in trade shares with Iran. However, a complete breakup of the trade relations with Iran would have damaging long-term consequences for the world’s number one export nation, as the chairman of the “North Africa–Middle East Initiative of the German Economy,” Matthias Mitscherlich, emphasized in an interview on 29 November 2007. Meanwhile, European retreat from the lucrative Iranian market has made China, an EU rival, the most important trade partner of Tehran touching a bilateral trade volume of 25 billion dollars this year. The business volume with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has hit 12 billion dollars, 10 billion of which are Iranian imports. The UAE is believed to serve as bridgehead to the Iranian market for U.S. firms.

5 In early 2008, the Jerusalem Post announced that it will begin a partnership with the Wall Street Journal including joint marketing and exclusive publication in Israel of The Wall Street Journal Europe. Its current head editor is David Horovitz who in 2004 replaced current Wall Street Journal editorial board member Bret Stephens. In addition, in 2007, Dow Jones & Company, the owner of the Wall Street Journal – whose editorial board is considered as supporting neo-conservative foreign policy stances – was bought by media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

6 Former German State Secretary Klaus Faber, an attorney from Potsdam/Germany and acting chairman of the »Wissenschaftsforum der Sozialdemokratie in Berlin, Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern e.V.« – a think-tank affiliated to the German Social-Democratic Party (SPD) – pointed out that former Canadian Minister of Justice, Irwin Cotler, had likewise called to “try Ahmadinejad for genocide calls”. Later in the conference, it was agreed upon that further to the political agenda this legal path should be simultaneously followed.

7 Due to Von der Osten-Sacken’s anti-Muslim agitation, the already independent WADI Austria recently dissolved from the main German organization to become what is now LEEZA.

8 At the conference were also present: Wahied Wahdat Hagh, political scientist, former member of MEMRI Germany (»The Middle East Media Research Institute«), online columnist for Welt Debatte and Senior Research Fellow with the Brussels think-tank »European Foundation for Democracy«; Klaus Faber, German State Secretary ret., attorney from Potsdam and acting chairman of the »Wissenschaftsforum der Sozialdemokratie in Berlin, Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern« and co-editor of Neu-alter Judenhass: Antisemitismus, arabisch-israelischer Konflikt und europäische Politik [New-Old Jew-Hatred: Anti-Semitism, Arab–Israeli Conflict and European Policies] (Verlag für Berlin Brandenburg, 2006).

 

9 Other important signees are the Berlin and Vienna conference speakers Küntzel, Casaca, Kaboli, Herf, and furthermore Hermann L. Gremliza (editor of the ‘Anti-German’ weekly magazine konkret), Kazem Moussavi (foreign policy speaksperson of the »Green Party of Iran« in Europe), Karl Pfeifer (leading journalist with the Austrian, pro-Israel online journal Die Jüdische [The Jewish]), Sacha Stawski (editor-in-chief of the online Honestly Concerned), Ruth Contreras (member of SPME’s Board of Directors, coordinator for SMPE in Europe and chairwoman of SPME Austria), chief editors of »German Media Watch« (a pro-Israel media monitoring group established in 2001), Andrei S. Markovits (professor of Political Science at the University of Michigan and author of the German-language book Amerika, Dich hasst sich’s besser. Antiamerikanismus und Antisemitismus in Europa, published by konkret’s publishing house »Konkret-Literatur Verlag« in 2004), Micha Brumlik (who was present at the Berlin conference is professor for Educating Science at the University of Frankfurt/Main and co-editor of the political-scientific monthly magazine Blätter für deutsche und international Politik), Christopher Gillibrand (journalist with the neo-conservative The Brussels Journal – The Voice of Conservatism in Europe, which is published by the Zurich-based non-profit organization »Society for the Advancement of Freedom in Europe (SAFE)« and features articles from the American right-conservative daily The Washington Times), »Scottish Friends of Israel«, Raimund Fastenbauer (Secretary-General of the Austrian Federal Association of the Jewish Religious Community [»Bundesverband der Israelitischen Kultusgemeinden«]), and many others.

10 In own translation. The German original reads: “ Manchmal hat man nur die Wahl zwischen einem Desaster und einer Katastrophe, und dann muss man sich daran erinnern, dass es die erste und wichtigste Aufgabe des Staates ist, das Leben und die Sicherheit seiner Bürger zu garantieren. […] Wir haben es mit einem neuen Totalitarismus zu tun. Nein, er ist nicht neu, er ist nur anders. Nach dem linken Faschismus der Sowjets, nach dem rechten Faschismus der Nazis, ist der Islamismus der Faschismus des 21. Jahrhunderts.” The interview can also be retrieved via WADI’s website.

SOURCE

Fathollah-Nejad, Ali (2008) “Neo-Con Conference Pushes for War on Iran“, Global Research, Montreal: Centre for Research on Globalization, 1 June;

▪ republished on NormanFinkelstein.com, 1 June;

▪ published as Germany’s First Neo-Con Conference Pushes for War on Iran, Payvand News, 5 June | Unholy Alliances, Iranian.com, 26 June

▪ linked at Antiwar.com Viewpoints.

QUELLE (der deutschen Originalversion)

Fathollah-Nejad, Ali (2008) “„Business as usual“? „Aufs Maul hauen, verknasten und umbringen: Das ist Anti-Faschismus!“ Bericht zur Iran-Konferenz des »Mideast Freedom Forum Berlin«“, ZNet Deutschland, 24. Mai;

▪ »Aufs Maul hauen, einknasten, umbringen«: Ex-linke Bellizisten trommeln zum Präventivkrieg gegen den Iran, analyse & kritik, Nr. 529 (20. Juni 2008), S. 19;

▪ ebenso veröffentlicht auf Iran-Now Network, 4. Juni | in Auszügen auf SteinbergRecherche, 25. Mai;

▪ verlinkt auf Das Palästina Portal, 25. Mai | BessereWeltLinks.

IN FARSI TRANSLATION

▪ trans. Ahmad Ahgary, “Mantegh-e Jang-Talabân [The Logic of Warmongers]“, Radio Zamaneh, 21/07 (Part 1), 23/o7 (Part 2) | commented trans. Ahmad Ahgary, “Morouri bar yek Conference [On a Conference]“, Akhbare Rooz (Iranian Political Bulletin), 30/07.

 

Iran in the Eye of Storm

PRAISE

»absolutely fascinating«

Professor Anoushiravan Ehteshami (Dean of the »School of Government and International Affairs«, Durham University, United Kingdom), 11 April 2007

»The study is of great interest«

Professor Michel Chossudovsky (Department of Economics, University of Ottawa, and Director »Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG)«, Montreal, Canada), 5 April 2007

»Impressive«

Professor Emeritus Hans-Jürgen Krysmanski (Institute of Sociology, University of Münster, Germany), 11 October 2007

»Highly interesting«

Professor Albert A. Stahel (Director of the »Institute for Strategic Studies«, Zurich, Switzerland), 13 March 2008

»umfassende und sehr lesenswerte Studie«

Informationsstelle Militarisierung (IMI), Tübingen, 13. April 2007

 

Abstracts in English, German and French

English | The Iran crisis has become a synonym for escalation dangerously tending towards confrontation. Tehran therein is accused by the U.S.-led West of developing nuclear weapons. This in fact is an alerting highlight in the tense history of U.S.-Iranian relations since World War Two, as we clearly hear the war bells ring. What lies behind that present Irano-Western conflict has to be seen in a broader historical and political context: Beginning with the 1953 coup d’état against Iran’s democratically elected Mossadegh government till recent wars in the Iranian periphery, American interventionist foreign policy in the world economy’s most crucial region, the Middle East, proves a great deal of bitter continuity in its push for controlling this part of the world for the sake of global hegemony. The new U.S. preventive war doctrine provides the political legitimacy for such an agenda. The major battlefield of this militaristic agenda of America’s grand strategy seems to be focused on the ‘Greater Middle East.’ Besides having to cope with a considerable security dilemma due to tremendous trembles in her environment, Iran now sees herself targeted as an exclusive member of the ‘Axis of Evil.’ This paper will attempt to clarify the interests at stake for the sole remaining superpower. It will thus argue that the only meaningful way to perceive the present conflict is through considering its politico-strategic background and implications. The Iran crisis is indeed a significant symptom of a unilateral world order on the verge of collapse. To prevent a catastrophic conflagration, an unbiased engagement by the European Union is indispensable in order to decrease the regional security dilemma by ultimately establishing a nuclear-free Near and Middle East zone. Europe should assume responsibility vis-à-vis her neighboring region, for surrendering to New Order fantasies à l’Américaine will heavily harm her own interests.

Français | La crise iranienne est devenue un synonyme pour une escalade dangereusement menant à la confrontation. Téhéran est accusé par l’Occident, mené par les Etats-Unis, de vouloir développer l’arme nucléaire. Ceci est en fait une culmination alarmante des relations américano-iraniennes depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale, comme nous entendons clairement les cloches de guerre sonner. Ce qui est derrière ce présent conflit irano-occidental doit être considéré en prenant en compte le contexte historique et politique : Commençant par le coup d’état de 1953 contre le gouvernement iranien démocratiquement élu de Mossadegh jusqu’aux guerres récentes dans la périphérie iranienne, la politique étrangère interventionniste des Américains dans la région la plus prépondérante pour l’économie mondiale, le Moyen-Orient, atteste une continuité amère dans sa volonté de contrôler cette part du monde. Désormais, la nouvelle doctrine de guerres préventives des Etats-Unis offre la légitimité politique pour un tel agenda visé à sauvegarder son hégémonie mondiale vis-à-vis ses rivaux. Le champ de bataille majeur de cet agenda militariste de la politique mondiale des Etats-Unis semble se concentrer sur le « Grand Moyen-Orient ». Face à un considérable dilemme sécuritaire, l’Iran se voit dorénavant ciblé en tant que membre exclusif de l’« Axe du Mal ». Cette étude veut clarifier les intérêts en jeu pour l’hyper-puissance. Elle veut ainsi argumenter que la seule manière significative de percevoir le conflit présent se fait par la considération des éléments de base au niveau politico-stratégique. Afin de réduire le dilemme sécuritaire régional, un engagement sérieux par l’Union européenne est indispensable qui devrait viser l’établissement d’une Conférence sur la sécurité et la coopération dans un Proche- et Moyen-Orient complètement dépourvu d’armes nucléaires. L’Europe devrait assumer ses responsabilités face à sa région voisine, car en cédant à des fantaisies d’un « New Order » à l’Américaine ses propres intérêts seront terriblement nuis.

Deutsch | Die Iran-Krise ist zum Synonym einer gefahrenvollen Eskalation, die gen Konfrontation tendiert, geworden. Der von den Vereinigten Staaten geführte Westen wirft Teheran vor, die Atomwaffe entwickeln zu wollen. Dies ist in der Tat ein alarmierender Höhepunkt in den iranisch-amerikanischen Beziehungen seit Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs, zumal die Zeichen unverkennbar auf Krieg weisen. Um die Hintergründe dieses Konfliktes zu verstehen, darf ein Blick auf den historischen sowie politischen Kontext nicht außer Acht bleiben: Beginnend mit dem 1953 erfolgten Staatsstreich gegen Irans demokratisch gewählte Mossadegh-Regierung bis hin zu Kriegen neueren Datums in Irans Peripherie, zeugt die interventionistische US-Außenpolitik in der für die Weltwirtschaft ausschlaggebendsten Region, dem Mittleren Osten, von der bitteren Kontinuität diesen Teil der Welt beherrschen zu wollen. Die Präventivkriegs-Doktrin der USA stellt die politische Legitimation solch eines Unternehmens dar, dessen Anspruch es ist ihre weltumspannende Hegemonie aufrechtzuerhalten. Der dafür identifizierte Hauptkampfschauplatz scheint unverkennbar der „Größere Mittlere Osten“ zu sein. Einem existentiellen Sicherheitsdilemma ausgesetzt, sieht sich Iran derweil als exklusives Mitglied der „Achse des Bösen“ im unmittelbaren Schussfeld. Die vorliegende Studie beabsichtigt die auf dem Spiel stehenden Interessen der einzig verbliebenen Supermacht zu verdeutlichen. So argumentiert sie, dass die einzig konstruktive Weise diesen Konflikt zu betrachten eine sein muss, die den politisch-strategischen Implikationen bezüglichen des internationalen Systems Rechnung trägt. Um das regionale Sicherheitsdilemma zu verringern, ist ein ehrliches Engagement der Europäischen Union für eine nuklearfreie Zone unerlässlich. Europa sollte sich gegenüber seiner immens bedeutsamen Nachbarregion seiner Verantwortung stellen. Sich stattdessen amerikanischen Neuordnungsfantasien zu beugen, würde ihr großen Schaden zufügen.

 

Contents

Introduction

PART 1          ON GEPOLITICS IN THE MIDDLE EAST

1. Geoeconomic Centers: The Stage of Empire

1) The Middle East’s Centrality for the World

2) Iran’s Centrality in the Middle East

2. Geostrategic Hot Spot: The Age of Gulf Wars

1) Oil and Democracy

2) Iran and Great Powers Rivalry

PART 2          THE HEGEMON’S HOLD ON THE MIDDLE EAST

1. 21st Century U.S. Grand Strategy

1) On How to Designate American Supremacy

2) The ‘Cheney Report’ on Energy Policy (May 2001): On Securing Oil

3) The 2002 National Security Strategy: The ‘Preemptive’ Strike Doctrine

4) The ‘Greater Middle East Initiative’: America’s Restructuring Offensive

5) The 2006 National Security Strategy: Putting Iran in Crosshairs

6) A Carefully Prepared Highly Explosive Mixture

2. Iran and America’s Wars

1) Iranian Détente as Response to U.S. Containment and Peripheral Wars

2) Iran’s Security Dilemma: U.S. Militarization of the Middle East

3) Forced Modus Vivendi: ‘Axis of Evil’ as Reward for Cooperation

4) The Neocons in the Corridors of PowerŽ

PART 3          MANUFACTURING A GLOBAL CRISIS: THE IRAN CONFLICT

1. On Iran’s Nuclear Program?

1) The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and Its Erosion

2) Historical Outline of Iran’s Nuclear Program

3) Dilemmas of Double-Standard and Dual-Use                            

2. On How Diplomacy Can Pave the Way for War

1) Negotiations over Iran’s Nuclear Program: Escalating Diplomacy

2) Why the Talks’ Failure was Foreseeable

3) Tackling the Real Issues: How Diplomacy Can Finally Succeed

PART 4          AT THE EDGE OF EMPIRE

1. Who is the International Community? On Global Fissures

1) The West’s Sole Agency Claim

2) Southern Objection

2. The Global Hegemon’s Decisive Battle

1) Stranglehold on its Rivals: America’s ‘Oil Weapon’

2) Feeling the Hegemon’s Squeeze: Asian Great Powers and Iran

3) Consequences of an Iran War

4) Who Would Benefit from an Iran War and Who Not?

5) The War Bells Ring: America and the World at the Crossroads

Concluding Remarks

 

 

SOURCE

Ali Fathollah-Nejad (2007) Iran in the Eye of Storm, 2nd fully revised version, April, 95 pages | 3rd updated version, May, 103 pages, German Power Structure Research, Peace and Conflict Studies, Institute of Sociology, University of Münster (Germany) [over 8,000 downloads until 1 May 2007];

republished by the Institute for Strategic Studies, Zurich, 3rd updated version, 2007;

documented by the Informationsstelle Militarisierung [Information Agency Militarization] (IMI), Tübingen (Germany), 13 April 2007;

reprinted as Report by Nathan Hale Institute for Intelligence and Military Affairs (Boise, ID: Liberty Park, USA™ Foundation).

“I won’t be an Uncle Tom”: In conversation with Navid Kermani | “Den Onkel Tom, den spiele ich nicht!” Navid Kermani im Gespräch mit Ali Fathollah-Nejad

 

PRAISE

»truly interesting and excellent«  

(Dr. Moustafa Bayoumi, Brooklyn College, CUNY)

“I won’t be an Uncle Tom”

A conversation with Navid Kermani

“My real task is criticism, not justification. I have to choose: either I play my part and become a defender of Islam or multiculturalism – or indeed a denouncer of Islam, whatever role I get landed with. Or else I write my books, with a view to people still reading them in twenty years, fifty years, hoping that they won’t be too affected by debates that we will hopefully have forgotten all about in a couple of years.” Prominent German-Iranian author Navid Kermani speaks to Ali Fathollah-Nejad about Islam and Iran, European values, and why he won’t have anything to do with the Islam industry.
Ali Fathollah-Nejad: You say yourself that you prefer writing in German, but speaking Farsi! How come? 

Navid Kermani: I speak better German than Farsi, but when I hear the Persian language abroad, it feels more familiar to me. When my daughter was born, the first words I spoke to her – although I hadn’t thought about it before – were Farsi. Farsi was simply the first language that I heard, and that stays in the ear. 

AF-N: And you don’t think that has much to do with the sound of the language?

NK: Of course Farsi has a very pleasant sound, but I imagine the same is probably true of Finnish. It’s simply a matter of principle: bilingualism does not mean that both languages are identical, but rather that different languages cover different areas and in ideal circumstances broaden the horizon of one’s own language. In Germany we have got used to the idea that being monolingual is normal and that bilingualism is something akin to a disease. In the history of civilization it has actually been the custom to speak two languages – for example, one language for day-to-day business and a more elevated language for other occasions. Or people would live in a city where many languages were spoken, be that Azeri and Persian, or Czech and German. Many of the greatest German poets and writers were not German in the national sense. 

AF-N: In October 2005, you gave a speech[1] to commemorate the 50thanniversary of the reopening of the Burgtheater in Vienna. Influenced by your trip to Morocco, you talked about the blood-spattered frontiers that fence Europe in. Has Europe lost its humanist ideal? 

NK: No, I wouldn’t go that far; it does exist. Rather, we should ask whether Europe is also bringing its humanist ideal to bear against those who are not Europeans. After all its bloody experiences, the many victims and crimes, which are truly unbelievable and unique and which did not exist to such an extent in other cultures, Europe is today a continent that has achieved a state of comparatively tolerant and humanitarian coexistence. I am very happy to be in Europe. I also genuinely feel European, with everything that that entails: the European Enlightenment and the ideals of the French Revolution, and the fact that diversity is not only accepted, but appreciated and valued as something worthwhile in itself – as was also the case in the Ottoman Empire or under the Habsburgs. Europe was only capable of doing this after it had attempted to drive this diversity out by force. I fear that Europe is now in the process of losing this love for humanity once again; for one thing, through the way it deals with those who do not belong to Europe. Here Europe is betraying its ideals every single day, starting with foreign policy, where it is only – or almost only – material interests that count. This also has to do with people who want to come to Europe – here the border fences of Ceuta and Melilla are only one example among many – whom a German minister of the Interior then talks about as if they were a disease. One can always say that things are no better elsewhere. That may be some consolation, but I refuse to think like that. Actually, I can only measure Europe against what it wants to be. Europe was always a kind of utopia held out as an alternative to nationalistic pragmatists. This utopia has become reality. The summit meetings which take place between the European nations, the complete naturalness with which people deal with one another today, travel around or even argue with one another – all that could never have been foreseen fifty years ago. Europe is no longer just an empty word. When you look at what Europe used to be and how far it has come in these fifty years, and if you then think fifty years ahead, Europe could really become a good place.

AF-N: Historically there have been a great many critics who, for all their youthful love of Europe, have been sorely disappointed in retrospect. One example is the former president of the writers’ association PEN [Poets, Essayists and Novelists], Said. In 1992, Said, who was of Iranian origin, wrote a “letter to Europe”.[2] It begins with the story of a young Iranian living under the dictatorship of the Shah who longs for Europe and its liberal freedom, but as soon as he arrives is very disappointed in this Europe. Said writes: “He has become tired, because you, Europe, understand their [the dictators’] language better than ours. He is tired because you always want to be the victor, never a friend. Because you put day-to-day pragmatism above decency, above fraternity. Yet where there is no love, no understanding can grow either!” Frantz Fanon, one of the prophets of anti-colonialism, concludes: “Let us leave this Europe!” Is that the wrong conclusion? 

NK: I’m well aware of all that. There was a reason why I decided to give my speech to Europe on the 50th anniversary of the Burgtheater from the perspective of refugees. I deliberately went where Europe behaves most shabbily, where Europe is at its most brutal. And even as I write about how Europe is betraying its own ideals, I believe in those ideals. Otherwise none of this would matter. The greatest Europeans, those who believed in Europe most passionately, were the very ones who criticized Europe most fiercely; whereas those for whom Europe was not so important cultivate a more or less pragmatic relationship with the European project. Look at the national leaders of today – Angela Merkel, Tony Blair or Nicolas Sarkozy in France. For them, Europe is no more a part of their political identity than it was for the political generation after the war, whether leftwing or rightwing, right up until Kohl, Schröder, Mitterrand and Chirac. They still had a recollection of the war and grew up with the idea that Europe is something to be fought for. But for the current lot, Europe has become an economic community and, in my view, has lost something fundamental. 

For another thing: let us consider the affair of the refugees in North Africa. What is happening there is utterly brutal. And it is happening in the name and on behalf of the Europeans, even if it is to some extent Moroccan policemen who are bringing about this evil. But the reason they are so brutal is that they are put up to it by the Europeans – and there I cannot find many words to defend them. And also the way we deal with asylum-seekers, the way malicious language is used, to an extent, about foreigners and other cultures, and the way politicians even exploit that resentment in their election campaigns – for instance in Denmark, Austria or Holland – all that is hideous. And yet in spite of all that, taken as a whole, things are still better than they are in Iran. Of course the choice between Merkel and Schröder was very far from the ideals of the European Enlightenment, but at least it was a choice. It is only the things one prizes highly that one can also criticize passionately. 

AF-N: You say that the lovers of Europe have in the past also been bitter enemies of Europe. The political scientist Dieter Oberndörfer[3] remarked of the “ethos test” which the CDU is attempting to put into practice: “Knowledge of the history and culture of Germany are no guarantee of a positive identification with Germany. Some outstanding experts in German history and culture were nevertheless bitter enemies of Germany.” What sort of concepts are hidden behind the national and European setting?

NK: Of course, the framework of the German nation state is a different one from the wider European context. I think we all know that. It is precisely the German nation state which is founded upon the unity of race, blood, religion and culture – and that includes the right of citizenship. The consequence of this is that a Russian who had a German mother four or five generations ago is more German than a Turkish immigrant whose family has lived in Germany for three or four generations and only speaks German. That means that you cannot becomeGerman, since Germany is not a community of values, but still a national and ethnic category.

Europe, by contrast, is a community of the will. Europe has never claimed to be a unity. It is not a question of smoothing out differences, but rather of retaining differences by neutralizing them politically. A community of the will means that it is one’s values, not one’s origin, that are shared. Values are things people can sign up to, or not. There are many Europeans who do not share the European values – fascists and rightwing radicals, for example. In this sense they are less European than a Turkish intellectual who is prepared to go to jail for those values. That means that Europe’s borders cannot be defined like national or linguistic borders, but that Europe is emphatically defined by values.

You can feel this fear, defensiveness and spirit of mistrust in the citizenship questionnaires that are to be introduced in Germany.[4] That of course conflicts completely with what Europe actually is – quite apart from the fact that such tests are completely abstruse and ridiculous anyway. The absurd thing about the whole debate is that the very people who most opposed the ’68 revolutionaries and what followed – such as gay marriage and the like – are the ones now making gay marriage into the generic concept of the European Enlightenment. I hope that people can continue to laugh about this state of affairs. But I fear that everything is going to become so serious that one loses the will to laugh. 

As much as I love Europe and think of myself as a European, I feel very suspicious. Everyone knows what happened in Europe sixty years ago. Srebrenica was only ten years ago – that was in Europe and took place before the eyes of the European Union. The European soldiers stood and watched as 7000 Muslims were massacred within the space of a few days. What Europe has achieved so far is as endangered as it is valuable. I don’t think the forces of liberalism in Germany are very strong – possibly because Germany does not have a long tradition of coexistence with other cultures, as England does for example. I still feel very at ease in my city and my surroundings. But I am afraid that all that could collapse. 

AF-N: You support the idea that Muslims should also study the Bible and the Torah. Why is that important? 

NK: I think that an Islamic religion has to develop its own structures even within Germany and Europe – ones different from those in an Anatolian village – and that the religious belief of today will change over the course of a few generations. It is important to have a modicum of knowledge of other people’s religious beliefs, especially when one lives alongside members of other religions. In any case, I take the view that one can only adequately understand religions, even one’s own, when one studies them in the context of their neighbouring traditions. No religion has ever come into being in isolation, but always through a process of exchange with other religions. If we do not understand the questions Islamic theology is attempting to answer, we will not understand the answers either. That’s why the study of religious traditions must not be delegated to the subject “dialogue with other cultures”, but is at the very core of an understanding of religion. The context of Islam is, above all, that of Judaism and Christianity, and the same goes for Christianity and Judaism too. 

AF-N: How is it possible, as a writer, to promote the cause of enlightenment at a time of apparently irreconcilable differences? 

NK: It’s probably impossible to talk much to those people, like terrorists for instance, who have drifted off completely. Dealing with them is a job for politicians and the security services. But we must try to stop more people following such individuals. If we adopt the cultural language with which such political conflicts are articulated, we will become part of the problem ourselves. Nor do I think that we will solve the Palestinian problem by means of a “dialogue of cultures”. Such a dialogue may constitute an element of a possible solution and be useful for a particular level of discussion; but this conflict is a territorial conflict, a national one. I don’t believe that we should discuss the question of nuclear weapons in Iran on a theological level either – that is a purely political issue. The same goes for the question of Muslim immigrants in Europe. 

This subject of “Islam”, who or what is that supposed to be? And who or what is the subject “West” supposed to be? We can already see what differences there are in the West alone, between, let us say, the America of George W. Bush and a Europe that has come out against the Iraq war. Who or what is meant by “Islam”? Do we mean Wahabism? And what about us? Do those of us who grew up here and see ourselves as Europeans belong to the West or to Islam? These concepts give rise to identities that are in practice very complicated. And we reinforce those concepts by accepting them. That means that people like us suddenly think of themselves primarily as Muslims, given that apparently we don’t belong to the West. Many end up radicalizing themselves as a result and are then nothing other than Muslim. The people who have crossed the line into terrorism were often remarkably well integrated. In fact they were completely Western, but there came a point when they realized that ultimately they did not really belong after all. They then constructed an Islamic identity for themselves that has nothing to do with the Islam of their mothers and fathers. 

In this respect I see my task as a writer as one of problematizing things – that is to say, breaking down fixed identities, describing contradictions and ambivalences, and not creating generic, superficial tags. For me, an Iranian intellectual who campaigns for democracy has much more in common with an English intellectual than with a farmer fifty kilometres outside Tehran – and not only in terms of his views, but also in terms of the culture he grew up with, the ideals he stands for and the kind of life he leads. That means that the divide does not simply run between the West and Islam, but right through the middle of Iran. The same is true in the West: I would say that someone like Susan Sontag had much less in common with an evangelical minister from the Bible Belt than she did with Orhan Pamuk. The only problem is that people base their political or military action on such caricatures. Osama bin Laden or the September 11 terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center – the symbol of the West – have a particular idea of the West and used acts of terrorism on the basis of that idea. Conversely, more and more Western politicians are operating on the basis that there exists one particular Islam which has to be tackled. And the moment these caricatures lead to political action, one has to take them seriously. And then it is no longer enough to say, “The reality is more complicated.” 

AF-N: The highlighting of complexities is therefore a major goal of yours as a writer. But at what point does frustration set in an environment partly characterized by very strong concepts of the enemy, by simplifications and cultural stereotypes? Or is an intellectual tireless in his engagement? 

NK: I’m utterly frustrated on this level. If I’ve been taking part in a debate, I often feel annoyed afterwards. It’s always these talk shows with the Muslim and the critic of Islam. I’ve noticed that I find it easier to get through them if I mostly ignore all that, rather than if I were to try to join in the discussion on the same level. “Islam is this, Islam is that!” – “But Islam isn’t like that at all!” I immediately find myself taking up a defensive attitude that I absolutely can’t stand: I mean, my real task is criticism, not justification. I have to choose: either I take these debates seriously, play my part and become a defender of Islam or multiculturalism – or indeed a denouncer of Islam, whatever role I get landed with. Or else – and this is much more important to me – I write my books, with a view to people still reading them in twenty years, fifty years, hoping that they won’t be too affected by debates that we will hopefully have forgotten all about in a couple of years. 

AF-N: Is that a frustrated retreat from public discourse? 

NK: I think of it more as a kind of asceticism, to help me concentrate on something. I much prefer doing a reading than taking part in a debate or a panel discussion. Besides, I’ve realized that I achieve a greater effect at a reading than I do with a two-minute speech on television. People go home with something that’s been sparked off in their heads. They go home and ask questions – and so a dialogue begins on a different level. My vocation consists much more in creating confusion or describing the way things are than in suggesting solutions. That is the real dialogue of a writer: his words have to ferment within the reader and take on a different form of reality. A reader who has been provoked by a book is a reader who reads on; and I think he then starts to take a more complex view of his life and his reality than before. As I writer I have to make a conscious decision to go with the words that stream into my head. I often have to cut myself off and ignore a lot of things. Whatever I do, I can’t react to everything. A sportsman who doesn’t pay attention to his body, to what he eats, is showing disregard for his job. I, as one who writes, have to pay attention to what I read. And if we’re talking about effect, I would rather give one big speech once a year than speak on as many occasions as possible. Though that is purely theoretical. In practice, of course, I still talk far too much and far too often. The inflation of one’s own words is terrible. I’ve still got to become a whole lot more ascetic! 

AF-N: You, along with your wife, the commentator and Islamicist Katajun Amirpur, both wrote very strongly worded letters to the editor-in-chief of the news magazine Der Spiegel in which you accused the publication, among other things, of being “editorially dishonourable”,[5] when the magazine published a special feature on the themes of Islam and integration. Do you still read Der Spiegel? 

NK: The Spiegel affair is irritating, since at least you know with rightwing publications where they’re coming from. When I still used to read it from time to time, it seemed to me far more dogmatic than, say, Die Welt, precisely because it comes from a leftwing background. And then if you actually know people at Der Spiegel as well, you realize that that is really how it works internally: the chief editors make the articles even stronger than they already are. In the Spiegel discourse, people like me just do not appear, whether as writers or intellectuals. As a Muslim, you only have a place in it if you’re attacking your own religion. But I won’t be an Uncle Tom. 
[1] “The enthusiastic Europeans are to be found where Europe is not taken for granted, in eastern Europe, in the Balkans or in Turkey, among Jews and Muslims. If you want to know how much the construct that we call the European Union is worth, you have to go to where it ceases to exist. How many of its brightest spirits has Europe lost because they stood before closed doors, because they had no valid identity papers, no visas, no foreign currency? How many Europeans only survived because sixty years ago they were allowed to cross over from Tarifa to Tangier? We have taken part in the destinies of countless European refugees through the media of literature, art and film. So why do we reflexively shout out words of hate when we encounter them from the other perspective: illegals, criminals, human traffickers, economic migrants, drugs flows, ‘no more room on the boat’?” (Extract from Navid Kermani, “After Europe – Speech on the 50thanniversary of the reopening of the Vienna Burgtheater”, ISBN 3-250-20006-9, Amman Verlag, January 2006)
[2] The reading “Letter to Europe”, broadcast by ORB [Ostdeutscher Rundfunk Brandenburg], received the CIVIS Media Prize in the same year (1992). It can be heard on http://freieradios.net/portal/content.php?id=1160.
[3] Dieter Oberndörfer (born in Nuremberg in 1929) held the chair of Political Science at the University of Freiburg in Breisgau until he was granted emeritus status in 1997. He is considered to be one of the most important representatives of the Freiburg School of Political Science and an important psephologist and expert in foreign aid. See also Dieter Oberndörfer, “Die Rückkehr der Gastarbeiterpolitik” [“The Return of Gastarbeiter politics”] inBlätter für deutsche und internationale Politik [Journal of German and International Politics], vol. 6 (2005), 725-735.
[4] Foreigners in Germany wishing to be naturalized are to be tested by means of a wide-ranging questionnaire to determine whether they can receive German citizenship.
[5] “Of course decent Muslims exist, but they are the exception. At least that is what media outlets like Der Spiegel are suggesting.” Navid Kermani, “Hostile Takeover: Open Letter to the Editor”, in tageszeitung, No.7177, 9 October 2003, p.12. This commentary was written as a reaction to the cover story “Symbol of Intolerance” of the Spiegel cover topic “The Principle of the Headscarf” (volume 40, 29 September 2003). In a commentary on the same issue Katajun Amirpur, who along with her husband is considered one of Germany’s foremost Islamicists, spoke of “rabble-rousing of the cheapest kind and journalistic hate campaigning, combined with platitudes, untruths and clichés”; cf. Katajun Amirpur, The Clash with Der Spiegel, in Qantara.de, 2 October 2003.http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php?wc_c=469&wc_id=45.

SOURCE

Ali Fathollah-Nejad (2007) “»I won’t be an Uncle Tom«: A conversation with Navid Kermani“, Eurozine, 27 July.

* * *

 

“Den Onkel Tom, den spiele ich nicht!”

Ein Gespräch mit dem deutsch-iranischen Schriftsteller und Orientalisten Navid Kermani

Ali Fathollah-Nejad: Sie sagen von sich selbst, dass Sie es bevorzugen, auf Deutsch zu schreiben, jedoch lieber Persisch sprechen! Woher kommt das?

Navid Kermani: Ich spreche schon besser Deutsch als Persisch, aber wenn ich im Ausland die persische Sprache höre, ist sie mir vertrauter. Als meine Tochter zur Welt kam, waren die ersten Worte, die ich zu ihr sprach – ohne, dass ich vorher darüber nachgedacht hätte – Persisch. Persisch war einfach die erste Sprache, die ich gehört habe und das bleibt einem im Ohr.

AF-N: Und das hat nicht so sehr mit dem Klang der Sprache zu tun?

Natürlich hat das Persische einen sehr schönen Klang, aber ich glaube, beim Finnischen ist es wahrscheinlich genauso. Es ist einfach eine prinzipielle Sache: Zweisprachigkeit heißt nicht, dass beide Sprachen identisch sind, sondern dass verschiedene Sprachen verschiedene Bereiche abdecken und im Idealfall den Horizont der eigenen Sprache erweitern. In Deutschland haben wir uns angewöhnt zu denken, dass Einsprachigkeit normal und Zweisprachigkeit so etwas wie eine Krankheit sei. Kulturgeschichtlich ist Zweisprachigkeit eigentlich die Regel gewesen, zum Beispiel hat man eine Sprache für den täglichen Umgang und eine Hochsprache für andere Anlässe. Oder man lebt in einer Stadt, in der viele Sprachen gesprochen werden, ob das nun Aserisch und Persisch oder Tschechisch und Deutsch ist. Viele der größten deutschen Dichter und Schriftsteller waren keine Deutschen im nationalen Sinne.

AF-N: Unter dem Eindruck Ihrer Reise nach Marokko haben Sie im Oktober 2005 die Rede zum 50. Jahrestag der Wiedereröffnung des Wiener Burgtheaters gehalten.[1] Da haben Sie auch über die blutbeschmierten Grenzen gesprochen, die Europa umzäunen. Hat Europa sein humanistisches Ideal verloren?

Nein, das nicht; es ist ja da. Es stellt sich eher die Frage, ob Europa sein humanistisches Ideal auch gegenüber denjenigen zum Tragen kommen lässt, die nicht Europäer sind. Europa ist heute ein Kontinent, der es nach all den blutigen Erfahrungen, den vielen Opfern und Verbrechen, die ja wirklich unglaublich und einzigartig und in anderen Kulturen nicht in dieser Dichte vorhanden sind, zu einem vergleichsweise toleranten und humanistischen Miteinander gebracht hat. Ich bin sehr gern in Europa. Ich fühle mich auch wirklich als Europäer mit allem, was das bedeutet: der europäischen Aufklärung und den Idealen der Französischen Revolution, und der Tatsache, dass man die eigene Vielfalt nicht nur akzeptiert – das war im Osmanischen Reich oder unter den Habsburgern auch so –, sondern dass man sie als einen Wert an sich gutheißt und schätzt. Dazu war Europa erst fähig, nachdem es versucht hatte, die Vielfalt mit Gewalt auszutreiben. Ich befürchte, dass Europa gerade dabei ist, diesen (Menschen-)Schatz wieder zu verlieren; zum einen durch den Umgang mit denjenigen, die nicht zu Europa gehören. Hier verrät Europa tagtäglich seine Ideale. Das fängt mit der Außenpolitik an, wo nur oder fast nur materielle Interessen zählen. Und das hat auch mit denen zu tun, die nach Europa wollen – die Grenzzäune von Ceuta und Melilla[2] sind hier nur ein Beispiel unter vielen – und über die dann ein deutscher Innenminister wie über eine Krankheit spricht. Man kann immer sagen: Anderswo ist es auch nicht besser. Doch so kann ich nicht denken. Mit diesem Argument wäre sogar das Europa von Berlusconi immer noch besser als Saudi-Arabien. Das mag ein Trost sein. Aber eigentlich kann ich Europa nur daran messen, was es sein will. Europa war immer eine Art von Utopie, die nationalistischen Realpolitikern entgegengehalten wurde. Diese Utopie ist Wirklichkeit geworden. Die Gipfeltreffen, die zwischen den Ländern Europas stattfinden, die Selbstverständlichkeit, mit der man heute miteinander umgeht, umher reist oder sich auch streitet, war vor fünfzig Jahren überhaupt nicht abzusehen. Europa ist nicht mehr nur eine Worthülse. Wenn man sieht, was Europa war und wie weit es in diesen fünfzig Jahren gekommen ist, und wenn man dann fünfzig Jahre weiterdenkt, könnte Europa wirklich ein guter Ort werden.

AF-N: Es gab in der Geschichte sehr viele Kritiker, die von ihrer Jugendliebe Europa im Nachhinein sehr enttäuscht waren. Zu denen gehört auch beispielsweise der ehemalige iranisch-stämmige Präsident des deutschen Schriftstellerverbandes PEN, Said, der 1992 einen “Brief an Europa” verfasst hat.[3] Er fängt an mit der Geschichte eines jungen Iraners, der sich unter der Schah-Diktatur nach dem freiheitlichen Europa sehnt, aber sobald er hier ist, von diesem Europa sehr enttäuscht wird. Da schreibt Said: “Er ist müde geworden, weil Du, Europa, deren Sprache [die der Diktatoren] besser verstehst als unsere. Er ist müde geworden, weil Du immer Sieger, nie aber ein Freund sein willst. Weil Du die Tagesvernunft gegen den Anstand stellst und gegen Brüderlichkeit. Nur dort wo keine Liebe ist, wächst auch kein Verstehen!” Frantz Fanon, einer der Vordenker des Anti-Kolonialismus, schließt daraus: “Verlassen wir dieses Europa!” Ist das die falsche Schlussfolgerung?

Das ist mir ja alles bewusst. Ich habe mich nicht ohne Grund dazu entschieden, meine Rede zu Europa zum 50. Jahrestag des Burgtheaters aus der Perspektive der Flüchtlinge zu schreiben. Ich bin bewusst dort hingegangen, wo sich Europa am schmutzigsten verhält, wo Europa am brutalsten ist. Und gerade, indem ich schreibe, wie Europa seine Ideale verrät, glaube ich an diese Ideale. Sonst wäre ja alles egal. Die größten Europäer, die am emphatischsten an Europa glaubten, waren die, die Europa am schärfsten kritisiert haben. Während die, für die Europa nicht so wichtig war, einen mehr oder weniger pragmatischen Umgang mit dem europäischen Projekt pflegen. Sehen Sie sich die Staatsführer von heute an, Angela Merkel, Tony Blair oder Nicolas Sarkozy in Frankreich. Für sie ist Europa nicht mehr ein Teil ihrer politischen Identität wie für die Politikergeneration nach dem Krieg, ob links oder rechts, bis hin zu Kohl, Schröder, Mitterrand und Chirac. Diese hatten noch eine Erinnerung an den Krieg und sind damit aufgewachsen, dass man für Europa kämpft. Doch für die jetzigen wird Europa zu einer Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und verliert, wie ich finde, etwas Wesentliches.

Zum anderen: Schauen wir uns die Geschichte mit den Flüchtlingen in Nordafrika an. Es ist absolut brutal, was da passiert. Und es passiert im Namen und im Auftrag der Europäer, selbst wenn es zum Teil marokkanische Polizisten sind, die das Übel anrichten. Aber sie sind so brutal, weil die Europäer sie dazu anstiften, da kann ich nicht viele Worte zur Verteidigung finden. Und auch der Umgang mit Asylanten, wie über Fremde und andere Kulturen zum Teil gehetzt wird und wie Politiker das Ressentiment auch im Wahlkampf nutzen, etwa in Dänemark, Österreich oder Holland – all das ist grässlich. Und trotzdem, alles zusammengenommen ist es noch besser als im Iran. Zwar war die Wahl zwischen Merkel und Schröder weit entfernt von den Idealen der europäischen Aufklärung, aber immerhin war es eine Wahl. Nur was man wertschätzt, kann man auch mit Leidenschaft kritisieren.

AF-N: Sie sagen, dass die Liebhaber Europas auch erbitterte Feinde Europas gewesen sind. Zu dem ’Gesinnungstest¹, den die CDU durchzusetzen versucht, hat der Politikwissenschaftler Dieter Oberndörfer[4] bemerkt: “Kenntnisse der Geschichte und Kultur Deutschlands verbürgen keine positive Identifikation mit Deutschland. Hervorragende Kenner der deutschen Geschichte und Kultur waren dennoch erbitterte Feinde Deutschlands.” Was für Konzepte verbergen sich hinter dem nationalen und europäischen Rahmen?

Natürlich ist der deutsche nationalstaatliche Rahmen ein anderer als der europäische Rahmen. Ich glaube, wir kennen das alle. Gerade das deutsche Nationalstaatskonzept beruht – und das geht bis zum Staatsbürgerschaftsrecht – auf der Einheit von Rasse, Blut, Religion und Kultur. Mit der Folge, dass ein Russe, der vor vier oder fünf Generationen eine deutsche Mutter hatte, deutscher ist als der türkischstämmige Migrant, der in der dritten oder vierten Generation in Deutschland lebt und nur Deutsch spricht. Das heißt, man kann kein Deutscher werden, denn Deutschland ist keine Wertegemeinschaft, sondern immer noch eine nationale, eine ethnische Kategorie.

Europa hingegen ist eine Willensgemeinschaft. Europa hat nie von sich selbst behauptet, eine Einheit zu sein. Es geht nicht um die Nivellierung von Unterschieden, sondern um die Aufgabe, Unterschiede zu bewahren, indem man sie politisch entschärft. Willensgemeinschaft heißt, dass Werte geteilt werden, nicht die Abstammung. Zu Werten kann man sich bekennen oder nicht. Es gibt viele Europäer, die sich nicht zu den europäischen Werten bekennen: Faschisten und Rechtsradikale etwa. In dem Sinne sind sie weniger Europäer als ein türkischer Intellektueller, der für diese Werte bereit ist ins Gefängnis zu gehen. Das heißt, Europas Grenzen kann man nicht definieren wie man eine nationale, sprachliche Grenze definieren kann, sondern Europa ist im emphatischen Sinne durch Werte gekennzeichnet. Bei den Fragebögen zur Staatsbürgerschaft, die in Deutschland eingeführt werden sollen, spürt man die Angst, die Abwehr und diesen Geist des Misstrauens.[5] Das steht natürlich völlig im Widerspruch zu dem, was Europa eigentlich ist. Ganz abgesehen davon, dass solche Tests auch vollkommen abstrus und lächerlich sind. Das Absurde an der ganzen Debatte ist, dass ausgerechnet diejenigen, die die 68er und ihre Folgen – wie die Homoehe und ähnliches – am allermeisten bekämpft haben, diejenigen sind, die gerade die Homoehe zum Oberbegriff europäischer Aufklärung machen. Ich hoffe, dass man auch weiterhin darüber lachen kann. Aber meine Befürchtung ist, dass alles noch so ernst wird, dass einem das Lachen vergeht.

So sehr ich Europa liebe und mich als Europäer verstehe, habe ich ein großes Misstrauen. Jeder weiß, was vor sechzig Jahren in Europa passiert ist. Srebrenica ist gerade mal zehn Jahre her. Und das war in Europa, fand vor den Augen der Europäischen Union statt. Die europäischen Soldaten sahen tatenlos zu, wie 7.000 Muslime innerhalb von wenigen Tagen massakriert worden sind. So wertvoll das ist, was Europa bislang erreicht hat, so gefährdet ist es. Ich glaube, dass die Kräfte der Liberalität in Deutschland nicht sehr stark sind – möglicherweise auch, weil Deutschland keine lange Tradition des Zusammenlebens mit anderen Kulturen hat wie etwa England. Noch fühle ich mich in meiner Stadt, meinem Umfeld wirklich wohl. Aber ich habe schon Angst, dass das einmal kippen könnte.

AF-N: Sie fordern, dass Muslime sich auch mit der Bibel und der Thora befassen sollten. Wieso ist das von Bedeutung?

Ich glaube, dass eine islamische Religion auch in Deutschland und Europa ihre eigenen Strukturen herausbilden muss, dass es andere sind als in einem anatolischen Dorf und dass die heutige Religiosität sich über Generationen hinweg verändern wird. Gerade dann, wenn man mit Angehörigen anderer Religionen zusammen lebt, ist es wichtig, ein Minimum an Kenntnis ihrer Religion zu haben. Ich glaube ohnehin, dass man Religionen – auch die eigene – nur angemessen verstehen kann, wenn man sie im Kontext ihrer Nachbartraditionen studiert. Keine Religion ist isoliert entstanden, sondern in der Auseinandersetzung mit anderen religiösen Traditionen. Wenn wir die Fragen nicht verstehen, auf die die islamische Theologie antwortet, dann werden wir die Antworten auch nicht verstehen können. Daher darf das Studium religiöser Traditionen nicht delegiert werden an das Fach “Dialog mit anderen Kulturen”, sondern es gehört zum Innersten eines religiösen Verständnisses. Der Kontext, in dem sich der Islam bewegt, ist eben vor allem das Judentum und das Christentum. Entsprechend wird das für das Christentum und das Judentum auch gelten.

AF-N: Wie kann man als Schriftsteller Aufklärung betreiben in einer Zeit der angeblich unvereinbaren Gegensätze?

Mit denen, die ganz abgedriftet sind, wie z.B. mit Terroristen, kann man wahrscheinlich nicht viel reden. Es ist Aufgabe der Politik und der Sicherheitsdienste, mit ihnen umzugehen. Man muss aber versuchen zu verhindern, dass mehr Menschen sich solchen Leuten anschließen. Wenn wir die kulturelle Sprache, mit der solche politischen Konflikte artikuliert werden, übernehmen, werden wir auch zu einem Teil des Problems. Ich glaube also nicht, dass wir das Palästinenser-Problem durch einen “Dialog der Kulturen” lösen werden. Ein solcher Dialog mag ein Bestandteil einer möglichen Lösung sein und für eine bestimmte Gesprächsebene gelten, aber es handelt sich hier um einen territorialen, um einen nationalen Konflikt. Ich glaube auch nicht, dass wir die Frage der Atomwaffen im Iran auf der Ebene der Theologie diskutieren sollten, das ist vielmehr eine Frage der Politik. Das Gleiche gilt für die Frage der muslimischen Migranten in Europa.

Dieses Subjekt “Islam”, wer oder was soll das sein? Und wer oder was soll das Subjekt “Westen” sein? Man sieht doch schon, welche Unterschiede es allein im Westen gibt, zwischen, sagen wir, dem Amerika von George W. Bush und einem Europa, das sich gegen den Irak-Krieg gewendet hat. Wer oder was soll “der Islam” sein? Ist damit der Wahhabismus gemeint? Und was ist mit uns? Gehören wir, die wir hier aufgewachsen sind und uns als Europäer verstehen, dem Westen an oder dem Islam? Diese Konzepte schaffen Identifikationen, die in der Realität sehr kompliziert sind. Indem wir diese Konzepte annehmen, verfestigen wir sie. Das heißt, Leute wie wir fühlen sich dann plötzlich primär als Muslime, denn zum Westen gehören wir ja scheinbar nicht. Manche radikalisieren sich daraufhin und sind dann nur noch Muslim. Die Leute, die in den Terrorismus abgeglitten sind, waren oft auffallend gut integriert. Sie waren eigentlich vollkommen westlich, haben aber irgendwann gemerkt, dass sie am Ende doch nicht wirklich dazu gehören. Sie haben dann für sich eine islamische Identität konstruiert, die mit dem Islam ihrer Mütter und Väter nichts zu tun hat.

Insofern sehe ich meine Aufgabe als Schriftsteller darin, Dinge zu verkomplizieren, also feste Identitäten aufzulösen, Widersprüche zu beschreiben, Ambivalenzen, und nicht Abziehbilder zu generieren. Für mich hat ein iranischer Intellektueller in Teheran, der für die Demokratie kämpft, viel mehr mit einem englischen Intellektuellen zu tun – und zwar nicht nur in Bezug auf seine Ansichten, sondern auch in Bezug auf die Kultur, mit der er aufgewachsen ist, die Ideale, die er vertritt, die Art des Lebens, das er führt –, als mit dem Bauer fünfzig Kilometer außerhalb von Teheran. Das heißt, die Schneise geht nicht zwischen dem Islam und dem Westen hindurch, sondern sie geht mitten durch den Iran. Und das Gleiche gilt auch im Westen: Ich würde sagen, dass eine Susan Sontag mit dem evangelikalen Pfarrer aus dem Bible Belt viel weniger zu tun hatte als mit Orhan Pamuk. Das Problem ist nur, dass Leute aufgrund von solchen Karikaturen politisch oder militärisch handeln. Osama bin Laden oder die Terroristen des 11. September, die das World Trade Center attackiert haben – das Symbol des Westens –, haben eine bestimmte Vorstellung des Westens und aufgrund dessen terroristisch gehandelt. Umgekehrt agieren immer mehr westliche Politiker aus der Vorstellung heraus, dass es den Islam gibt, mit dem man sich auseinandersetzen muss. Und in dem Augenblick, in dem diese Karikaturen zu einer politischen Handlung führen, muss man sie ernst nehmen. Es reicht dann nicht mehr zu sagen: “Die Wirklichkeit ist komplizierter.”

AF-N: Komplexitäten aufzeigen ist also ein Ausweg, den Sie mit Ihrem Schriftstellerdasein bezwecken. Wann setzt jedoch in einer Umwelt, die zum Teil von sehr starken Feindbildern, von Simplifizierungen und Kulturalisierung bestimmt ist, Frustration ein? Ist das Engagement des Intellektuellen unerschöpflich?

Auf dieser Ebene bin ich total frustriert. Wenn ich an einer Debatte teilgenommen habe, bin ich hinterher oft erbittert. Immer diese Talkshows, in denen es den Islam-Kritiker gibt und den Muslim. Ich merke, dass ich das eher überleben kann, wenn ich es weit gehend ignoriere, und nicht, wenn ich versuchen würde, auf einer solchen Ebene mitzudiskutieren: “Der Islam ist dies und der Islam ist das!” – “Aber der Islam ist gar nicht so!” Ich komme sofort in eine apologetische Haltung, die mir zuwider ist. Meine eigentliche Aufgabe ist ja die Kritik und nicht die Rechtfertigung. Ich muss mich entscheiden: Entweder nehme ich solche Debatten ernst, bringe mich ein und werde zum Multikulti- oder Islam-Verteidiger – oder auch zum Islam-Ankläger, welche Rolle auch immer mir dann zugeschoben werden würde. Oder – was für mich viel wichtiger ist – ich schreibe meine Bücher, und zwar so, dass sie noch in zwanzig oder fünfzig Jahren gelesen werden können, das heißt, ohne dass sie allzu sehr von Debatten tangiert sind, die man hoffentlich in zwei Jahren wieder vergessen hat.

AF-N: Ist das ein frustrierter Rückzug aus dem öffentlichen Diskurs?

Es ist eher eine Askese, damit ich mich auf etwas konzentrieren kann. Ich mache viel lieber eine Lesung, als dass ich an einer Debatte oder Podiumsdiskussion teilnehme. Außerdem merke ich, dass ich bei einer Lesung eine größere Wirkung erziele als mit einem Zwei-Minuten-Statement im Fernsehen. Die Leute gehen nach Hause und bei ihnen ist etwas ausgelöst worden. Sie gehen mit Fragen nach Hause. Da entsteht ein Dialog auf einer anderen Ebene. Meine Aufgabe liegt vielmehr darin, Verwirrung zu stiften oder Wirklichkeiten zu beschreiben, als Lösungen vorzuschlagen. Das ist der eigentliche Dialog des Schriftstellers: seine Texte müssen im Leser weitergären und eine andere Art von Wirklichkeit annehmen. Der Leser, der von einem Buch angestiftet worden ist, liest weiter, und ich glaube, er sieht dann sein Leben, seine Wirklichkeit komplexer als vorher. Als Schriftsteller muss ich bewusst mit den Worten umgehen, die auf mich einströmen. Ich muss mich auch oft abschotten und manches ignorieren. Auf keinen Fall darf ich auf alles reagieren. Ein Sportler, der nicht auf seine Nahrung, seinen Körper achtet, missachtet seinen Beruf. Ich, als jemand der schreibt, muss darauf achten, was ich lese. Und, wenn wir schon von Wirkung sprechen: Lieber halte ich einmal im Jahr eine große Rede, wie die Rede im Wiener Burgtheater, als dass ich bei möglichst vielen Anlässen spreche. Wobei das jetzt reine Theorie ist. In der Praxis rede ich natürlich immer noch viel zu viel und viel zu oft. Die Inflation der eigenen Worte ist schrecklich. Ich muss noch viel asketischer werden.

AF-N: Ihre Frau, die Islamwissenschaftlerin und Publizistin Katajun Amirpur, und Sie haben beide sehr offensive Offene Briefe an den Chefredakteur des Nachrichtenmagazins Der Spiegel geschrieben und dem Blatt unter anderem vorgeworfen sich kein “anständiges Redigat” zu leisten[6], wenn Der Spiegelmit den Themen Integration und Islam aufmachte. Lesen Sie noch den Spiegel?

Beim Spiegel ist das ärgerlich, denn bei rechten Blättern weiß man ja, woher etwas kommt. Als ich ihn noch ab und zu gelesen habe, wirkte er auf mich, gerade weil er aus einem linken Milieu kommt, um Vieles dogmatischer als etwa Die Welt. Wenn man dann auch noch Leute im Spiegel kennt, dann weiß man, dass es intern wirklich so läuft: die Artikel werden von der Chefredaktion noch schärfer gemacht, als sie ohnehin schon sind. Im Spiegel-Diskurs tauchen Leute wie ich nicht auf, weder als Schriftsteller, noch als Intellektueller. Da hat man als Muslim nur Platz, wenn man seine eigene Religion anklagt. Aber den Onkel Tom spiele ich nicht.

 

[1] “Die enthusiastischsten Europäer findet man dort, wo Europa nicht selbstverständlich ist, in Osteuropa, auf dem Balkan oder in der Türkei, unter Juden und Muslimen. Wer wissen will, wie viel das Gebilde namens Europäische Union wert ist, muss dorthin fahren, wo es aufhört. Wie viele seiner klügsten Geister hat Europa verloren, weil sie vor verschlossenen Toren standen, weil sie keine gültigen Ausweispapiere vorzuweisen hatten, keine Visa, keine Devisen. Wie viele Europäer haben nur deshalb überlebt, weil sie vor sechzig Jahren von Tarifa nach Tanger übersetzen durften. Durch die Literatur, die Kunst, den Film haben wir teilgenommen an unzähligen europäischen Flüchtlingsschicksalen. Weshalb rufen wir dann reflexartig Schimpfwörter aus, wenn sie uns heute aus der anderen Perspektive begegnen: Illegale, Kriminelle, Menschenhändler, Wirtschaftsasyl, Drogenströme, Terrorismus, das Boot ist voll?” Auszug aus Navid Kermani, “Nach Europa – Rede zum 50. Jahrestag der Wiedereröffnung des Burgtheaters Wien”, ISBN 3-250-20006-9, Ammann Verlag, Januar 2006.
[2] Ceuta ist eine autonome spanische Exklave an der Mittelmeerküste Afrikas, nahe der Straße von Gibraltar. Wie Melilla gehört Ceuta politisch zu Spanien, geographisch jedoch zu Afrika. Sie ist eine 18,5 km2 große Halbinsel, die 21 km von der spanischen Küste entfernt ist. Die Stadt ist bekannt als Anlaufpunkt für illegale Immigration von Afrikanern in die Europäische Union.
[3] Die vom ORB ausgestrahlte Lesung “Brief an Europa” erhielt im selben Jahr den CIVIS-Medienpreis im Bereich Hörfunk. Zu hören unterhttp://freieradios.net/portal/content.php?id=1160.
[4] Dieter Oberndörfer (geb. 1929 in Nürnberg) hatte bis zu seiner Emeritierung 1997 den Lehrstuhl für Politikwissenschaft an der Universität Freiburg im Breisgau inne. Er gilt als einer der wichtigsten Vertreter der Freiburger Schule der Politikwissenschaft und als bedeutender Wahlforscher und Experte für Entwicklungshilfe. Siehe auch Oberdörfer, Dieter: “Die Rückkehr der Gastarbeiterpolitik”, in: Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, Heft 6, (2005) S. 725-735.
[5] Mit einem umfassenden Fragebogen sollen einbürgerungswillige Ausländer in Deutschland geprüft werden, ob sie die bundesdeutsche Staatsbürgershaft erhalten können.
[6] “Natürlich gibt es anständige Muslime, nur sind sie die Ausnahme. Das zumindest suggerieren Medien wie etwa Der Spiegel.” Navid Kermani, “Feindliche Übernahme: Offener Brief an den Herausgeber”, in: taz, Nr. 7177 vom 9.10.2003, S. 12. Diese Glosse wurde als Reaktion auf die Titelstory “Symbol der Intoleranz” des Spiegel-Titelthemas “Das Prinzip Kopftuch” (Heft Nr. 40 vom 29.09.03) verfasst. In einem Kommentar zur selbigen Ausgabe merkte Katajun Amirpur an, die zusammen mit ihrem Mann zu Deutschlands führenden Islamwissenschaftlern gezählt wird: “Billigste Scharfmacherei, journalistische Hetze, kombiniert mit Plattitüden, Unwahrheiten und Klischees”; vgl. Amirpur, Katajun: Das Kreuz mit dem Spiegel. In: Qantara.de, 02.10.2003.http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php?wc_c=469&wc_id=45.

QUELLE

Ali Fathollah-Nejad (2007) “»Den Onkel Tom, den spiele ich nicht!«, Ein Gespräch mit dem deutsch-iranischen Schriftsteller und Orientalisten Navid Kermani”, Eurozine, 27. Juli.

* * *

QUOTED IN:

Frauke Matthes (2008) “Negotiating and Marketing Muslim Identity for the West: Navid Kermani’s Kurzmitteilung“, Silvia Naish Post-Doctoral Fellow’s Lecture, IGRS (Unpublished), School of Advanced Study, University of London.

“Don’t blame the messenger for the message”? Wie die EU-Diplomatie den Weg für einen US-Angriff auf Iran ebnet

REAKTIONEN

»Sehr gut« (Andreas Zumach, UN-Korrespondent)

Im brisanten Sommer 2006, als die USA im israelischen Bombenhagel auf die zivilen Einrichtungen des Libanon die “Geburtswehen” der Neuordnung des Broader Middle East zu erhorchen glaubten und der “Atomstreit” zwischen dem Westen und Iran in eine unheilvolle Eskalationsspirale gelangt war, empfing man in Teheran hohen Besuch. Der ehemalige Bundesaußenminister Joschka Fischer reiste in jene Hauptstadt, die nun als “Zentralbänker des internationalen Terrorismus” das Böse in der Welt in Gestalt einer islamo-faschistischen Nuklearbedrohung zu monopolisieren schien. Als einer der vormaligen Hauptfiguren des Verhandlungsprozesses zwischen den EU3 (Großbritannien, Frankreich und Deutschland) und Iran über das Atomprogramm des Letzteren, sprach Fischer am 1. August am Iranian Center for Strategic Research zum Stand und zur Zukunft europäisch-iranischer Beziehungen.[1] Der Tenor seiner Rede war: Entweder ihr Iraner realisiert die unmittelbare Gefahr, der ihr euch als nächster Station auf der US-amerikanischen ‚Regime-Change‘-Agenda gegenüberseht, und akzeptiert ohne Wenn und Aber das auf dem Tisch liegende Angebot der fünf Ständigen Sicherheitsratsmitglieder plus Deutschlands (P5+1)[2] oder aber der Anbruch einer großen Katastrophe wird nicht abzuwenden sein. Was dem angehenden Princeton-Gastprofessor jedoch ganz besonders am Herzen zu liegen schien, war die Betonung, dass die iranischen Zuhörer doch bitte den “Boten nicht die Schuld für die Botschaft” geben sollten (“[…] and, please, don’t blame the messenger for the message”). Kann jedoch der Eindruck, den Fischer von der europäischen Position als einer im Grunde genommen gutmütigen Verhandlungspartei erwecken wollte, der Analyse der europäischen Verhandlungsstrategie gegenüber Teheran Stand halten?

Diplomatie und Regime Change? All options are on the table!

Als in den Folgemonaten der angelsächsischen Invasion des Irak sich das Chaos der “Befreiung” abzeichnete, erhöhten die in Washington an die Schaltzentralen der Macht gelangten US-Neokonservativen den rhetorischen Druck auf Teheran und sprachen in immer kürzeren Abständen ganz unverblümt über ihr nächstes ‚Regime Change‘-Unterfangen. Angebliche Beweise über die militärische Ausrichtung des iranischen Nuklearprogramms, welche die Bush-Regierung aus dubiosen Zirkeln dankend aufnahm, dienten der aggressiv hervorgebrachten Bezichtigung, dass das Land durch sein Atomprogramm die gesamte internationale Sicherheit ernsthaft bedrohe. So wurde auf Restspuren von hochangereichertem Uran in einer iranischen Anlage hingewiesen, das – wenn im industriellen Maßstab hergestellt – die Entwicklung von Nuklearwaffen ermöglichen würde. Diese vom Weißen Haus gern emporgerichtete Speerspitze wurde jedoch alsbald entschärft. Denn die Internationale Atomenergiebehörde (IAEO) bestätigte die iranischen Beteuerungen hierzu, nach denen es sich um eine Kontamination von im Ausland erworbenen Geräten handele.[3] An der von langer Hand geplanten, in zahlreichen politischen und militärischen Strategiepapieren der US-Regierung sorgsam vorbereiteten, “militärischen Lösung” des geostrategischen Schwergewichts Iran in der fossilen Kernregion der Welt, deren Kontrolle die Amerikaner ihr nationales, vitales Interesse zu betrachten pflegen, änderte dies jedoch nichts. Prompt wurde auf die unheilvollen Folgen einer Appeasement-Politik gegenüber den zum islamistischen Hitler aufgebauschten iranischen Präsidenten Ahmadinedschad und seine in Nazijargon gepackten Äußerungen hingewiesen.[4] So konnten sich hochrangige israelische und amerikanische Politiker bei ihrer Angriffskriegs-Rhetorik gegen Iran als einzig vertrauenswürdige Möglichkeit die sturen Mullahs zurechtzuweisen, mit einem größeren Halt in den öffentlichen Meinungen rechnen.

Als jedoch der “Sumpf” (quagmire) der Irak-Besetzung den Gang nach Teheran zu erschweren schien, gab man in Washington bekannt, dass man das Problem des iranischen Atomgramms zunächst der Diplomatie übergeben wolle. Ein Schachzug, von dem man sich ein größeres europäisches Wohlwollen für die eigenen Pläne erhofft. Dennoch blieben die USA ihrem Konfrontationskurs gegenüber Teheran treu und verweigerten ihrerseits Gespräche zu führen. Zur selben Zeit sogar – im Frühjahr 2003 – ignorierten die US-Neokonservativen ein sich historisch anmutendes umfangreiches Verhandlungsangebot der iranischen Regierung – eine einmalige Gelegenheit, über die vor noch nicht allzu langer Zeit erst berichtet wurde. Darin zeigte sich Iran in allen für die USA relevanten Gebiete konzessionsbereit: vollkommene Transparenz in Sachen Massenvernichtungswaffen, Stabilisierung des Irak, Unterstützung beim Antiterror-Kampf, Einstellung der Unterstützung missliebiger Gruppen sowie Einwilligung der Zweistaatenlösung Israel-Palästina.[5] Um dennoch den Anschein zu wahren, dass man an einer diplomatischen Lösung interessiert sei, wurden nun die Diplomaten der EU3 losgesandt, um mit Teheran einen Deal auszuhandeln. In der Hoffnung einen US-Waffengang gegen Iran aus eigenen, v.a. wirtschaftlichen, Interessen abwehren zu können, gewiss aber auch, um diesmal den USA nicht allein das Feld zu überlassen, begaben sich die Europäer unter dem die Gesprächsatmosphäre nicht unbedingt dienlichen Washingtoner ‚All options are on the table‘-Formel nach Teheran.

Diplomatische Provokationen im Dienste der neokonservativen Eskalationsstrategie

Während die EU-Troika stets – wie auch Fischer in seiner o.g. Rede – beteuert, Iran das Recht auf die zivile Nutzung der Kernenergie gewähren zu wollen, wurde Teheran seit Anfang der Verhandlungen aufgefordert, die Anreicherung von Uran aufzugeben. Letztere, so die einhellige Meinung von Experten, befinde sich ausschließlich auf Forschungsniveau und ist als solche weit davon entfernt, waffenfähiges Uran herzustellen. Trotz der jüngsten iranischen Ankündigung Tausende von Zentrifugen in Betrieb nehmen zu wollen, darf als sicher gelten, dass Iran noch weit davon entfernt ist den nuklearen Brennstoffkreislauf zu schließen, geschweige denn die Bombe bauen zu können.[6]

Sowohl im Teheraner[7] (Oktober 2003) als auch Pariser Abkommen[8] (November 2004), den ersten beiden Absichtserklärungen zwischen beiden Parteien, hatte Iran jedoch eingewilligt, sein durch den nuklearen Nichtverbreitungsvertrag (NVV) verbrieftes Recht auf die Entwicklung eines zivilen Atomprogrammes “freiwillig auszusetzen”. Zudem hatte man sich durchgerungen das NVV-Zusatzprotokoll, welches unangekündigte Inspektionen seitens der IAEO vorsieht, zu akzeptieren. All das sollte als “vertrauensbildende Maßnahme” zu verstehen sein, die für die Dauer eines für beide Parteien befriedigenden Verhandlungsprozesses über langfristige Arrangements Bestand haben solle.

Nun waren auch die Europäer gefragt, Iran im Gegenzug ein adäquates Angebot zu unterbreiten. In Teheran erwartete man derweil Abhilfe bzw. Unterstützung angesichts der äußeren Bedrohung des Landes. Allein 200.000 amerikanische und mit ihnen alliierte Truppen zählte man rund um das iranische Territorium herum. So erwartete man von Washingtons europäischen Bündnispartnern, welche sich ja vorwiegend gegen die Irak-Okkupation positioniert hatten, die regelrechte Einkreisung des Iran, wenn nicht aufzuheben, so doch wenigstens zu entschärfen. Zu dieser Zeit bescheinigte die IAEO dem Iran zudem volle Zusammenarbeit und keinerlei Anzeichen für ein militärisches Atomprogramm.[9] Insbesondere Letzteres sollte sich bis zum heutigen Tag nicht ändern.

Die EU3 kündigten an, dem 70-Millionen-Land ein äußerst attraktives Verhandlungspaket geschnürt zu haben, welche umfangreiche Kooperationen auf verschiedensten Gebieten beinhalte. Als schließlich das Angebot den Iran erreichte, reagierte die dortige dienstälteste Diplomatie der Welt in hohem Maße empört. Man sprach sogar von einem “Witz” und der “Beleidigung des iranischen Volkes”. War die Wortwahl nun als bewusst inszeniertes machtpolitisches Manöver zu verstehen, um eine auf innenpolitischen Terraingewinn ausgerichtete Blockadehaltung einzunehmen? Oder gab es handfeste Gründe für Teherans Empfinden in quasi-kolonialistische Gewässer geraten zu sein?

In der Tat wurden dem Iran umfangreiche ökonomische Kooperationen in Aussicht gestellt, was jedoch angesichts der enormen Attraktivität des dortigen Marktes für die europäische Wirtschaft kaum verwundern mag. Da zudem viele solcher Vorhaben zumindest bereits in Planung waren, konnte man in Teheran wohl zu recht kein wesentliches Entgegenkommen oder gar Zugeständnis erkennen. Die zentrale Frage nach dem iranischen Sicherheitsdilemma, über die sich auch die Europäer völlig im Klaren gewesen sein dürften, wurde indes vollkommen ignoriert. Vor dem Hintergrund der Afghanistan- und Irak-Okkupationen konnte die harsche “Demagogie” (Z. Brzezinski)[10] aus Washington und zunehmend auch aus Tel Aviv wohl kaum als folgenlos abgetan werden. Stattdessen las man in Teheran den eher abstrus anmutenden europäischen Eid, dass weder die französischen noch britischen Atomwaffen gegen Iran gerichtet seien. Dabei war allen klar, worum es im Kern ging: Amerikanische Sicherheitsgarantien gegenüber Iran waren dringend geboten. Teherans Ablehnung war also durchaus vorauszusehen.

So begann man im Iran, enttäuscht über den unbefriedigenden Verhandlungsverlauf, vereinzelt damit, Anreicherungsaktivitäten wieder aufzunehmen. Dieser Akt, der vollständig durch die zuvor abgeschlossenen Abkommen gedeckt war, wurde jedoch in Europa unverzüglich als iranischer Vertragsbruch denunziert. In der europäischen Politik, Medien und auch breiten Öffentlichkeit schob man das vorläufige Scheitern der Verhandlungen dem Iran in die Schuhe. Den Eingeweihten aber schien durchaus bewusst, woran es tatsächlich gemangelt hatte. In Deutschland riefen dementsprechend der CDU-Politiker Ruprecht Polenz (Vorsitzender des Auswärtigen Ausschusses des Bundestages) und der Nah- und Mittelost-Experte Volker Perthes (Direktor der Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik) dazu auf, mehr Zuckerbrot zu offerieren. Realisiert hatte man auch, dass ohne Washingtons Verhandlungsinput die Diplomatie zum Scheitern verurteilt war.[11] Wie die Nachrichtenagentur Reuters Ende Juli 2005 einen EU-Diplomaten zitierte, war das auf dem Tisch liegende Angebot an den Iran ein “in viel Geschenkpapier gehülltes recht leeres Paket”. Daran änderte sich auch in den darauf folgenden Monaten nichts. So blieb der Verhandlungsprozess in der Sackgasse; eine vorzügliche Ausgangssituation für das neokonservative Eskalationsszenario.

Die Amerikanisierung der europäischen Diplomatie

Die Europäer indes hatten sich immer mehr der amerikanischen Haltung angenähert, indem auch sie nun forderten, dass der Iran seine Urananreicherungsaktivitäten vollständig aufgeben müsse, um überhaupt an den Verhandlungstisch zurückzukehren. Zudem übernahm man die amerikanische Überzeugung, dass der UN-Sicherheitsrat sich des Falles Iran in Form von Sanktionen annehmen müsse. Auch die Gewissheit, dass ‚alle Optionen auf dem Tisch‘ belassen werden müssten, um der Diplomatie mehr Nachdruck zu verleihen, hatte man derweil trotz verbaler Ablehnung einer ‚militärischen Lösung‘ bereitwillig inkorporiert.

Im Rahmen der westlichen Zuckerbrot-und-Peitsche-Strategie war für dessen zweiten Teil ohnehin in Washington zur Genüge gesorgt.[12] Dort suchte man nach Wegen, den Konflikt angesichts der ins Stocken geratenen Diplomatie weiter zuzuspitzen.[13] Nachdem das transatlantische Bündnis noch im Januar 2006 einem verschwiegenen Angebot seitens des Iran, das u.a. eine mindestens zweijährige Suspendierung des Atomprogramms im Austausch für die Sicherheitsthematik berücksichtigende Gespräche, keine Beachtung schenkte,[14] klinkten sich die USA plötzlich doch in den diplomatischen Prozess ein. Gemeinsam mit Russland und China, die bislang jegliche Verschärfung des Konflikts abgelehnt hatten, sowie den EU3, legte man nun dem Iran das alte Angebot in einem neuen ‚internationalen‘ Gewand vor und erhöhte somit den Druck auf Teheran sich endlich den Forderungen zu beugen. Während Teheran Gesprächsbereitschaft signalisierte, es jedoch weiterhin ablehnte mit dem Einfrieren seines mittlerweile wieder aufgenommenen Atomforschungsprogrammes in Vorleistung zu treten, erhöhte Washington weiter den Druck auf Teheran. Das lang ersehnte Ziel, Irans Atomakte bei der IAEO an den UN-Sicherheitsrat zu übergeben, war Anfang Februar 2006 durch immensen “politischen Druck”[15] der Amerikaner erreicht worden, sodass der Weg für Sanktionen bereitet war.[16]

Im Frühjahr 2006 war die Arroganz der einzig verbliebenen Supermacht unverkennbar. Das an Hypokrisie nicht zu überbietende, das internationale Recht ignorierende, Nuklear-Abkommen zwischen Washington und Neu-Delhi war ein weiterer gewichtiger Beweis amerikanischer Doppelstandards. Zudem markierte die Neuausgabe der amerikanischen Nationalen Sicherheitsstrategie (NSS) Iran klar und deutlich als nächstes Ziel,[17] derweil Washington 75 Mio. US-Dollar zur Verfügung stellte, um die ‚Demokratie im Iran zu fördern‘.[18] Bei einer Senatsanhörung kündigte Außenministerin Rice unterdessen an: “Wir sehen uns wohl keiner größeren Herausforderung seitens eines einzigen Landes gegenüber als dem Iran.” Somit öffnete sie ganz im Sinne der neu aufgelegten NSS Tür und Tor für die Anwendung eines Präventivschlages gegen Iran, für den auch nukleare Optionen offen angedacht werden.[19]

In solch einer heißen Phase regierte derweil ein unsägliches Schweigen in den Hauptstädten Europas. Dort war man damit beschäftigt einen Sanktionstext zur Vorlage für den UN-Sicherheitsrat zu entwerfen. Am Vortag der Teheraner Fischer-Rede war es dann auch soweit: Am 31. Juli 2006 wurde Iran mit der Resolution 1696[20] aufgefordert innerhalb eines Monats all seine Nukleartätigkeiten einzustellen. Ganz im Sinne der Eskalationslogik war diese Forderung unter den gegebenen Umständen kaum dafür geeignet, den in eine absehbare Sackgasse gelangten Verhandlungsprozess neu zu beleben. Ganz im Gegenteil sollte ein erster Grundstein für eine gezielt betriebene Eskalationsdynamik gelegt werden – vollkommen den Vorgaben der neokonservativen Drehbücher entsprechend.

Wenn der europäische Bote zum amerikanischen Botschafter wird

Auf den Tag genau ein Jahr nach der Amtseinführung des neuen iranischen Präsidenten Ahmadinedschad, sprach Fischer vor Experten der iranischen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik in Teheran. Zu Anfang seiner Rede betonte er nicht ganz unmissverständlich, dass er zwar nicht in “offizieller Funktion” auftrete, aber dennoch als jemand, der am EU3-Iran-Verhandlungsprozess aktiv beteiligt war. Er stellte klar, dass Teheran nicht gut beraten sei, das ihm angebotene Vorschlagspaket abzulehnen.[21] Während Fischer im Falle iranischer Zustimmung die Normalisierung der Beziehungen in Aussicht stellte, machte er nun sehr deutlich, was das Land zu erwarten habe, würde seine Wahl sich nicht mit den westlichen Wünschen decken: “Eine Ablehnung des gegenwärtigen Angebots wird zu einer Eskalation des Konflikts führen […].” Obgleich die Großmächte bezüglich der Frage eines Irak-Krieges gespalten waren, würde die Frage nach “Irans nuklearen Ambitionen die internationale Gemeinschaft vollkommen einen”.

So resümierte einer der führenden transatlantischen Außenpolitiker das Hauptaugenmerk seiner Iran-Reise wie folgt: “Wir befinden uns am Scheideweg, und die Führung des Iran muss eine Entscheidung treffen, vielleicht eine von historischen Ausmaßen. Kooperation oder Konfrontation sind die Alternativen, und, bitte, geben Sie dem Boten nicht die Schuld für die Botschaft. Es liegt ein Angebot auf dem Tisch, das nicht ausgeschlagen werden darf”. Er hoffe, dass der Iran die “Gelegenheit für gemeinsamen Fortschritt in unseren Beziehungen und für Frieden” ergreife. In diesem Sinne stellte er die Entwicklung eines regionalen Sicherheitssystems in Aussicht, das Länder des Mittleren Ostens umfassen solle. Ein politisches Projekt von höchster Bedeutsamkeit, das jedoch bislang über Lippenbekenntnisse nicht herauskam.

Ein Iran-Krieg ist zum Greifen nahe

Fischer betonte zugleich, dass man es nicht mit einem “Streit über Rechte, sondern über Vertrauen” zu tun habe. Ob jedoch die iranische Seite den ausländischen Großmächten nun angesichts der ‚Friss-oder-stirb‘-Option mehr Vertrauen entgegenbringen kann, ist mehr als fraglich. Genau dieser Vertrauensverlust, insbesondere der europäischen Verhandlungspartner, scheint sich als gravierend herauszustellen. Der aktive europäische Beitrag an der Verhängung von zwei weiteren Sanktionen (Resolution 1737 vom 23. Dezember 2006 sowie Resolution 1747 vom 24. März 2007) hat das Vertrauen in die Diplomatie des Alten Kontinents, welche für sich beansprucht eine friedliche Lösung des Konfliktes anzustreben, erheblich unterminiert.

Indes befindet man sich schon längst in einem Krieg. Im September 2006 erklärte der pensionierte US-Luftwaffenoberst Sam Gardiner gegenüber CNN, dass sein Land seit mindestens 18 Monaten militärische Operationen im Iran durchführe.[22] In der Region des Persischen Golfs befinden sich bereits drei große US-Kampfverbände.[23] Solch ein groß angelegter Aufmarsch war zuletzt am Vorabend der Irak-Invasion aufgeboten worden. Es liegt nun in erster Linie an dem inneramerikanischen Kampf zwischen den an der Macht stehenden neokonservativen Kriegsbefürworter und jenen sog. Realisten, welche in einem Iran-Krieg den Vorboten für das Ende der weltweiten amerikanischen Vorherrschaft sehen.[24]

Ein klares Nein aus den restlichen Hauptstädten könnte aber auch ein erhebliches politisches Hindernis für einen geplanten Nuklearangriff auf Iran darstellen. Während einiges dafür sprich, dass sich Moskau insgeheim strategische Vorteile in der zu erwartenden aufreibenden Konfrontation zwischen Iran und den USA verspricht, ist von der Bundeskanzlerin wohl kaum eine Distanzierung gegenüber ihren amerikanischen Freunden zu erwarten.[25] Jenseits des Rheins zeichnet sich indes wohl ein deutlicher pro-atlantischer Kurs ab. Der neue französische Präsident Nicolas Sarkozy, dessen “niederschmetternder Sieg” (L’éclatante victoire)[26] laut Le Monde-Autor Laurent Greilsammer zentral in dem Werben für einen “französischen Traum” (rêve français) zu verstehen ist, erhält seine besondere Segnung dadurch, dass der erste Glückwunsch entgegen der sonstigen politischen Praxis persönlich von US-Präsident Bush erfolgte. Am gleichen Wahlabend noch richtet Sarkozy, just nachdem er ein zweideutiges Bekenntnis zu Europa äußert, einen “Appel an unsere amerikanischen Freunde, die wissen sollen, dass sie auf unsere Freundschaft zählen können (Jubel!), welche sich in den Tragödien der Geschichte geschmiedet hat, denen wir gemeinsam gegenüberstanden. Ich will ihnen sagen, dass Frankreich immer an ihrer Seite stehen wird, wann immer sie es brauchen. Ich will ihnen auch sagen, dass Freundschaft auch bedeutet, dass man akzeptiert, dass seine Freunde anders denken (Jubel!).” Inwieweit der in den USA als Neokonservativer Gefeierte, seinen amerikanischen “Freunden” den Vorzug gegenüber den europäischen “Partnern” erteilt, bleibt abzuwarten. Allerdings ist es nicht sehr wahrscheinlich, dass der mit Bush so vertraute Sarkozy sich eines Krieges gegen Iran entgegenstemmen würde. Während in Berlin ganze 72% der Exil-Franzosen für die sozialistische Kontrahentin Ségolène Royal gestimmt haben,[27] hegt die dort regierende Kanzlerin unbeirrt Sympathie für den Pariser Wahlausgang. Eine Entamerikanisierung der europäischen Diplomatie ist also nicht abzusehen.

Nichtsdestotrotz sollten die Europäer die folgende Bemerkung Fischers in Bezug auf weitere diplomatische Schritte beherzt aufnehmen, um eine globale Katastrophe, die ein Iran-Krieg unweigerlich heraufbeschwören würde,[28] noch abzuwehren: “Für Iran war der Mangel an Respekt und Anerkennung gegenüber seiner Unabhängigkeit, seiner sehr alten Zivilisation, seines strategischen Potentials sowie das Talent und die Fähigkeiten seines Volkes während seiner ganzen modernen Geschichte besonders demütigend und gewiss kränkend.”[29] Weder Fischer noch die EU3 können angesichts der von ihnen mitverantworteten Eskalationsdiplomatie ihre Hände in Unschuld waschen. Als Ergebnis dessen gilt nach wie vor, was der UNO-Korrespondent Andreas Zumach Ende Februar 2007 anlässlich der Beendigung der US-Militärvorbereitungen für einen Iran-Krieg diagnostizierte: “Der Krieg könnte morgen früh um fünf beginnen, und wir erfuhren davon um 6 Uhr aus den Nachrichten.”[30]

Anmerkungen

[1] Alle Zitate sind, in eigener Übersetzung, in der Folge dem englischsprachigen Abdruck der Rede entnommen; siehe Joschka Fischer: Iran: High Stakes, Dissent Magazine, Winter 2007,

[2] Die von den EU3 ausgearbeiteten Entwurfstexte sind unter http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0606/doc01.htm zu finden.

[3] Vgl. Andrew Koch: Iran uranium source revealed, Jane’s Defence Weekly, 10.08.2004 und Gero von Randow: Atomdeal gesucht, in: Die Zeit, Nr. 36, 26.08.2004.

[4] Mehr zu Ahmadinedschads ohnehin äußerst deplatzierten, im Übrigen auf die Sympathie der arabischen Massen zielenden, Äußerungen, siehe Gruppe Arbeiterfotografie: Äußerungen von Ahmadinedschad zum Holocaust verfälscht: Wie Medien den Iran-Krieg vorbereiten, NRhZ-Online (Neue Rheinische Zeitung), 12.04.2006; Jonathan Steele: If Iran is ready to talk, the US must do so unconditionally, The Guardian, 02.06.2006; sowie Ethan Bronner: Just How Far Did They Go These Words Against Israel?, The New York Times, 11.06.2006.

[5] Das Angebot kann unter http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/us_iran_1roadmap.pd… eingesehen werden. Auch siehe v.a. Gareth Porter: Burnt Offering. How a 2003 secret overture from Tehran might have led to a deal on IranÂ’s nuclear capacity-if the Bush administration hadn’t rebuffed it, in: The American Prospect, Jg. 17, Nr. 6, Juni 2006, S. 20-25. Vgl. auch Ali Fathollah-Nejad: Iran in the Eye of Storm, www.uni-muenster.de/PeaCon/psr, Mai 2007, S. 28-31 (Abschnitt über “The Neocons in the Corridor of Power: The Fervent Drive for Regime Change Spurns Iran’s Grand Bargain Offer”).

[6] iran-report, Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Nr. 05/2007, S. 12.

[7] Zum Teheraner Abkommen, siehe Iran Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Statement by the Iranian Government and visiting EU Foreign Ministers, 21.10.2003.

[8] Siehe International Atomic Energy Agency: Communication dated 26 November 2004 received from the Permanent Representatives of France, Germany, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United Kingdom concerning the agreement signed in Paris on 15 November 2004, Information Circular, INFCIRC/637, 26.11.2004.

[9] Vgl. IAEA Board of Governors: Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, GOV/2003/75, Bericht des Generaldirektors, 10.11.2003, sowie ibid.: Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, GOV/2004/83, Bericht des Generaldirektors, 15.11.2004.

[10] stern.de: “Das sind doch paranoide Slogans”, Interview mit Zbigniew Brzezinski von Katja Gloger, 18.11.2004.

[11] Vgl. Ruprecht Polenz: Wo bleibt das Zuckerbrot? Wer Iran vom Bau der Bombe abhalten will, muß etwas zu bieten haben, Die Welt, 27.11.2004; sowie Volker Perthes: The EU Needs a U.S. Input on Iran, in: European Affairs, Jg. 6, Nr. 4 (Herbst 2005), S. 17-20.

[12] Für eine Veranschaulichung der deutschen Iran-Politik, siehe die Bundestagsplenardebatte am 01.03.2007 (Wahlperiode 16, Sitzungsnr. 82 ).

[13] So beispielsweise torpedierte man den russischen Vorschlag, der von allen Verhandlungsparteien als vielversprechend eingestuft wurde. Dazu Mohssen Massarrat: Der Iran und Europas Versagen, in: Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, Mai 2006, S. 544-547, hier 544-545.

[14] Vgl. Kaveh L. Afrasiabi: Sideshows on Iran’s frogmarch to the UN, Asia Times, 07.02.2006.

[15] Dazu Siddharth Varadarajan: India’s anti-Iran votes were coerced, says former U.S. official. ‘New Delhi should walk away from Iran pipeline project’, The Hindu, 16.02.2007.

[16] Zur Entscheidung des IAEO-Gouverneursrats, siehe IAEA Board of Governors, Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, GOV/2006/14, Resolution verabschiedet am 04.02.2006.

[17] The White House: The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, Washington, März 2006.

[18] Zu Letzterem, siehe Peter Baker/Glenn Kessler: U.S. Campaign Is Aimed at Iran’s Leaders, Washington Post, 13.03.2006, S. A01,.

[19] Dazu Jorge Hirsch: America’s Nuclear Ticking Bomb, The San Diego Union-Tribune, 03.01.2006; sowie die Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations aus dem Jahr 2006.

[20] Zu finden unter http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.htm.

[21] Demzufolge solle dem Land Zugang zur Technologie von modernen Leichtwasserreaktoren, eine “internationale Garantie eines permanenten Zugangs zu Nuklearbrennstoff” sowie internationale Zusammenarbeit im Bereich der Nuklearforschung gewährt werden. Während allen voran die westliche Nuklearindustrie sich nichts Sehnlicheres wünschen würde, als dass Iran diesem Deal zustimme, wurden Teherans Bedenken, eine vom Ausland unabhängige Kernenergieversorgung zu unterhalten, keinesfalls Rechnung getragen.

[22] CNN: Situation Room, Interview mit Sam Gardiner von Wolf Blitzer, 18.09.2006, Video unter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcSK809U3Qs; Transskript unter http://thinkprogress.org/col-sam-gardiner-on-cnn-91806/.

[23] Vgl. Michel Chossudovsky: ‘Theater Iran Near Term’ (TIRANNT), Global Research, 21.02.2007 (revidiert am 23.02.), sowie ibid.: The War on Iran, Global Research, 01.04.2007.

[24] Ali Fathollah-Nejad: Teetering on the Brink of Disaster: The NeoconsÂ’ Decision to Bomb Iran, Global Research, 09.04.2007.

[25] Zu Moskaus Rolle, siehe Ali Fathollah-Nejad: Russian Roulette and the Iran War: Ulterior motives of an Iran War profiteer-and its risks, Global Research, 21.04.2007.

[26] Titel der konservativen französischen Tageszeitung Le Figaro vom 07.05.2007, dem Folgetag der Wahl Sarkozys.

[27] Siehe Wahlsendung von TV5 Monde am Abend des 2. Wahlganges am 06.05.2006.

[28] Über die immense globale Bedrohungslage bezüglich eines amerikanischen und/oder israelischen Nuklearkrieges, siehe Leonid Ivashov: Iran: the Threat of a Nuclear War, Strategic Culture Foundation online magazine, 30.03.2007, http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=647.

[29] J. Fischer, idem.

[30] Andreas Zumach: Für den Irankrieg ist alles vorbereitet, taz, 25.02.2007, S. 3.

QUELLE

Ali Fathollah-Nejad (2007) Don’t blame the messenger for the message“? Wie die EU-Diplomatie den Weg für einen US-Angriff auf Iran ebnet, AUSDRUCK, Tübingen: Informationsstelle Militarisierung, Juni, S. 3–6;

ebenfalls erschienen auf Linksnet, 29.05. | in: Informationsstelle Militarisierung e.V. (Hg.), Studien zur Militarisierung EUropas 28/2007, 7 Seiten.