Davids Medienkritik

High-Powered Austrian Rifles Found in Iraq

Just another reason for the Americans to thank the European "friends" in the Austrian government. High-powered 50 caliber rifles sold to Iran "to fight drug smugglers" by the Austrian firm Steyr-Mannlicher are now killing US troops in Iraq, and the Austrian government expressly approved the sale in 2005 despite U.S. protests, describing the deal as "unimpeachable":

Report: Austrian rifles supplied to Iran have found their way to Iraqi insurgents

LONDON: Sophisticated rifles supplied to Iran by an Austrian arms company in 2006 are finding their way into the hands of Iraqi insurgents, a British newspaper reported Tuesday.

American troops have recovered more than 100 "Steyr .50 HS" rifles in Iraq, part of an Austrian consignment of 800 such weapons delivered to Iran over American protests that they could be given to insurgents, the Daily Telegraph reported.

The Austrian government approved the sale of the rifles, made by precision weapons maker Steyr Mannlicher GmbH, after it concluded in 2004 that they would be used to fight narcotics smugglers. (source)

Just more evidence of the non-violent superiority of the European way-of-life. Trade anything to anyone. Who cares if they are genocidal thugs or out to build a nuke or wipe Israel off the map? Who cares if they use the rifles to kill Americans? This keeps Austria's unemployment down. Don't you just love pacifism?

The Austrian "statesmen" most responsible for approving the deal. From left to right: Former Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel, Interior Minister Guenther Platter, Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik, Ex-Interior Minister Ernst Strasser.

By the way: Where's Michael Moore when you need him? Here's a documentary idea: Take the family members of the American soldiers killed by Austrian rifles in Iraq and confront former Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel and ask him how any sane human being could have approved shipping hundreds of these killing machines to Iran. Were the measly profits involved worth the potential damage to US-Austrian relations? More here...

Endnote: We strongly suggest our American readers contact the press office at the Austrian Embassy with their thoughts and opinions on this:

Embassy Telephone: 1-202-895-6700 (listen to the recording and then press 1 and then press 4 for the press department - you may be asked to record your message)
Embassy E-mail: austroinfo@austria.org

The members of the then Schuessel cabinet most responsible for approving the sale can be reached here:

Ex-Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel: wolfgang.schuessel@parlament.gv.at

Austrian Interior Minister Günther Platter (Defense Minister at the time of the deal): matthias.wechner@bmi.gv.at

Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik: kabbm@bmaa.gv.at

Ex-Austrian Interior Minister Ernst Strasser: Click here to send an email.

You can also contact the firm that produced and sold the rifles to Iran. Apparently, Steyr-Mannlicher boss Wolfgang Fuerlinger has gone on the record as saying that Iran is "a market of the future" and that "more is coming" in the way of business with Iran for his firm:

Email: office@steyr-mannlicher.com
Phone: +43 (0) 7252 896 0
Fax: +43 (0) 7252 896 53

STEYR MANNLICHER GmbH & Co KG
Postfach 1000
Ramingtal 46
4442 Kleinraming | Austria

Normally we ask our readers to keep their comments civil and respectful. In this case, we understand if that is difficult...

Handelsblatt: America - Not Iran - A Problem for Germany

(By Ray Drake)

Moral relativism has a way of producing strange rationales and value systems. Nowhere was this more clearly on display than in a recent article in Germany's Handelsblatt, a financial daily. The piece, entitled, "US Firms Pressure German Firms Out of Iran," starts off with this fabulous graphic:

Caption: "Moving on treacherous terrain: Juergen Hambrecht (BASF), Dieter Zetsche (Daimler), Wolfgang Reitzle (Linde), Klaus-Peter Mueller (Commerzbank) and Klaus Kleinfeld (Siemens)."

That's right. It's all America's (and Bush's) fault. Again. Poor German CEO's can't trade in Iran because of US pressure. Here excerpts from the Handelsblatt piece (read the entire translation here):

"USA Pressures German Firms Out of Iran

The USA is putting firms under massive pressure worldwide to stop doing business with Iran. With that economic isolation they want to force the country to stop its controversial atomic program. Especially German firms are hard hit by that, indeed they traditionally do good business in the region. The latest case comes from the banking world.

BERLIN. After massive pressure from the USA, Commerzbank has now announced that it will end its processing of dollar-business for Iran at the end of January. Commerzbank boss Klaus-Peter Mueller has already publicly complained about the pressure from the Americans in his position as President of the Federal Union of German Banks."

The article almost makes it sound as if the United States is to blame for Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. There is absolutely no hint that it might be wrong or unethical to trade with (and financially prop-up) Iran or other violent dictatorships/state-sponsors of terrorism. This despite the fact that Iranian President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that Israel should be wiped off the map and that the Holocaust is a myth. There is also no mention of Iran's support of Hezbollah nor does Handelsblatt mention the country's bleak human rights record. Instead, America is made out to be the bad guy while Ahmadinejad gets a free pass. One honestly has to ask, where are the German concepts of fair trade and economic and social justice in all of this? Where are the traditional objections to profiteering and capitalist excess?   

The article continues:

"Now other German companies in other branches are worried about their traditionally good Iran business. The results of the worsening climate are already clearly visible: The German exports to Iran sank noticeably in 2006 - in the first three quarters by 14 percent.

German businesses are now trying to prevent the contracts they have signed with Tehran from becoming public at all. "Everything that might touch on the US-business is deadly. Therefore nobody in Tehran talks about his Iranian contracts," said a German business representative in Tehran under the condition that his name would not be printed. Above all, companies that are listed on US stock markets like Daimler-Chrysler with large businesses in America are affected. Siemens, for example, that according to Handelsblatt information is near to concretely completing a 450 million Euro contract with Tehran to deliver locomotives, does not want to comment on it publicly. Other firms listed on the Dax (German stock market) like BASF or Linde are moving on treacherous terrain with their involvement in Iran. BASF has just now signed and sealed a 304 million Euro project involving an Ammoniac-Urea facility in the Shiraz Petrochemical Complex. By contrast, Linde's contract for a petrochemical facility, believed to be secure, was cancelled by Tehran for the time being.

Not only the German economy is feeling the American intervention. In order to prevent the billion-dollar involvement of the Chinese oil company CNOOC in Iran, Washington presented "our concerns" to the government in Peking and to the company. That was reported by the speaker of the US embassy in Peking. Before that, US interventions lead to the stoppage, for the time being, of Japanese financing for a project in Iran worth about ten billion dollars.

The German government is following the US actions with concern. For one, the Berlin strategy in the Iran negotiations is to only sharpen the sanctions against Iran in increments and to thereby include all countries, in other words Russia and China as well. Chancellor Angela Merkel again emphasized that goal on Wednesday after a meeting with Japanese Minister President Abe. On the other hand, the German government fundamentally rejects the attempt by the US government to enforce American law beyond its borders.

This growing problem of the so-called "Extraterritoriality" is also named as a theme for the "Transatlantic Economic Initiative," with which Chancellor Merkel seeks to strengthen the economic relations between the EU and the USA."

Perhaps Chancellor Merkel ought to consider the chronic and growing problem of Iran's terrorist "extraterritoriality" in Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere in her efforts to improve transatlantic trade. Perhaps she ought to consider the potential impacts of a massive US boycott of goods from German companies like Siemens and BASF that insist on doing business with brutal dictators bent on a second Holocaust. Is it really in Germany's long-term interest to continue trade with a nation that threatens the fundamental security and moral interests of the entire western world? Are the short-term profits worth the cost?

And how about this double standard: When American investment firms do business in Germany, they are derided as bloodsucking parasites and "locusts" by German politicians and unions. On the other hand, when German firms busily sign deals in nations run by the most violent and reprehensible thugs, they are just trying to do some good business - and it is only the awful American "extraterritorial" interference getting in the way. And make no mistake: Iran is not the only case in point. While the international community struggles to put an end to genocide in Darfur, the German government is actively promoting annual trade fairs in Sudan for many of the same German multinational corporations that want to keep doing business in Iran.

Der SPIEGEL cover, December 2006: "The Greed of Big Money: Finance-Investors Grasp at German Businesses." Of course many of the "greedy investors" in question are American or British. No mention of greedy German CEOs profiteering in Iran and Sudan.

Perhaps German media like "Der Spiegel" and German politicians such as SPD Minister Franz Muentefering should spend a bit more time reviewing the activities of German corporations abroad before embarking on their next crusade against foreign multinationals. Of course it is far more convenient to make a scapegoat out of "the Americans" and the other foreign "locusts" than it is to stand against the unsavory trading practices of Germany's corporate giants. One honestly has to wonder why German anti-Globalization demonstrators aren't lining up by the thousands to protest German multinationals' dealings with Tehran and Khartoum. Perhaps morality applies only when it can be directed against the United States and Bush.

Endnote: Apparently, Siemens is one of the largest German firms doing big business in both Iran and Sudan. You can contact Siemens here with your comments.

Jeffrey Gedmin: Talk Syria and Iran?

Proudly presenting the original English version of an article by Jeffrey Gedmin, published Dec. 13, 2006, in WELT: "Iran - Es fehlt ein kleines bißchen Realismus".

Talk Syria and Iran?
By Jeffrey Gedmin

Ruprecht Polenz (CDU), the chairman of the Bundestag foreign affairs committee, has told the Tagesspiegel the U.S needs to talk to Syria and Iran. The Tagesspiegel got so excited it ran as a front page headline the quote, "Bush needs to swallow his pride." Polenz knows better. The United States talks to Syria. Washington has probed conversations with Iran. The issue is not whether we talk, but rather what we negotiate with these regimes.

It is no surprise that publication of the Iraq Study Group report, an effort led by former Secretary of State James Baker, would inspire the enthusiasts of interest-driven Realpolitik, apparently both on the Right and the Left.

We all agree that Syria and Iran help to promote the terrorism in Iraq. We should agree, amidst all the chatter about "constructive dialogue" with Syria and Iran, that in Europe economic interests play an especially important role in shaping foreign policy choices. Germany has a special stake in the case of Iran, for example. We can agree that talking with adversaries is not an unreasonable thing to do. We talked with the Soviet Union.

What I am still missing from the so-called realists here is the slightest bit of realism. What do we want?  Stability in Iraq, moderate government  in Baghdad, and a country that lives in peace with its neighbours, Israel included. What do Syria and Iran want? The Syrians want a) an end to the UN investigation of the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Harriri b) Lebanon as a sphere of

Iran, Al-Qaeda and the Far Left all agree...

US exit key to Iraq peace.

Sueddeutsche's US Correspondent: Biased and Malinformed

You can't make this up.

Here is Christian Wernicke, U.S. correspondent of left-wing daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung, asking questions to Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, during a press briefing about "U.S. Policy Toward Iran" at the Foreign Press Center Roundtable of the State Department on November 13, 2006.

No need to comment on the apparent bias in the questions of the malinformed Sueddeutsche correspondent:

QUESTION:  [Christian Wernicke, with Sueddeutsche Zeitung] Ambassador, you mentioned in your introduction that the U.S. is not seeking a regime change, what we are seeking is a change in behavior.  Is that totally in line with all parts of the government or even Congress legislation, which kind of asked -- not by military means, but by political and diplomatic and communication means -- to change the mullah regime in Iran?

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY:  I would have to know the specific piece of legislation you're referring to.  The --

QUESTION:  Especially in the House.  I mean --

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY:  But once again, there are certainly voices.  You know, I mean, America is, like many other societies including your own, a very pluralistic place.

The last legislation, the renewal of what we call the ILSA legislation against Iran and Libya, only this time Libya was dropped off thus we can't call it ILSA anymore -- I think we can call it ISA -- certainly did not go as far in calling for a change in regime as the -- what was it, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998?  I would say -- I would cite that as a good example of regime change legislation.  I don't see the same thing. 

In fact, the ISA legislation was quite remarkable.  While it urged the promotion of democracy in Iran, it was very, very careful in stating explicitly that this is not to be done by military force.  And I mean, as one who has worked with European Union diplomats extensively in the Balkans, in a way we were looking for what amounts to regime change or deep-seated changes in both institutions and behaviors and policies that amount to something approaching regime change.  Part of the European Union accession process is something that I would consider regime change.  So I think that part of the concern about regime change and the fact that I mentioned it is tied to this idea of regime change through lightning* military strikes.

QUESTION:  Ambassador Jeffrey -- sorry, I didn't introduce myself.  Christian Wernicke, Sueddeutsche Zeitung.  Coming back to the two questions of my friends, you mentioned the parallel situation when -- in Afghanistan, which leads me to the point that a colleague of yours, or former colleague of yours, Jim Dobbins, is always citing this period, even including 2002, that there's a lot of missed options. 

It all boils down to the question that has been raised:  How do you weigh the different interests?  I mean, if there is -- you like it or not, there is a tradeoff between the nuclear program and security and Iran's help in -- for security in Iraq.  So is the -- is the U.S., for example, willing to give in to the Iranian demand or at least consider the Iranian demand for a kind of security guarantee for this regime?  That's what they're asking for.  They want to have the security that the big power of the world -- and that's your government -- is not interfering there.

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY:  If I could shape that into a question as opposed to a debating point, I would say have -- has Iran asked for a security guarantee?  I don't really know where they have actually asked for that.  A lot of people both here in Washington and Europe assume that that's what they want, but I think that assumption needs to be, you know, questioned until someone comes up with an authoritative statement of the Iranians that that's what they want.  I haven't seen it.  But you know, maybe I missed it.  I've only been doing Iran now since June.  But you know, but that doesn't preclude the fact that maybe that's what they want but they haven't said it. 

We have said, as part of the dialogue that was placed on the table by Mr. Solana discussions on regional security.  That's the most we do.  We don't give regimes security guarantees.  There are good reasons for that.  If a regime is well-behaved, such as Switzerland, it doesn't need a security guarantee.  And if a regime is a bad actor,  there probably are good reasons why you would not give it a security guarantee, because you would then be basically saying that no matter what it does nothing will happen to it.  And we have friends, we have allies, we have interests in the region that we have responsibilities to defend and protect in a variety of ways. 

Germany's Position on Iran: Now and Then

Remember the enthusiasm about Germany's patient, nuanced, diplomatic approach vis-à-vis Iran?

Schröder thanks Fischer for his role in successful negotiating effort in Iran Thu, 10/23/2003

Speaking at a cabinet meeting Chancellor Gerhard Schröder thanked Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer for his part in the successful negotiating effort carried out by three EU foreign ministers in Iran. The results of their trip demonstrate the success of a strategy of cooperation, Schröder said.

Sure. Not the kind of shoot-from-the-hip approach so typical for a certain American administration... The good old European tactic. Patient. Result oriented. Cooperative.

And here's the rest of the story, as they say:

EU: Statecraft not working on Iran; sanctions seem vital

Oct. 18, 2006
The European Union said its diplomacy is failing to curb Iran's nuclear program and the United Nations should act on U.S.-led demands for sanctions against the Islamic nation.

EU foreign ministers said the door is open for the U.N. Security Council to discuss sanctions against Iran for refusing to stop uranium enrichment, which can be used for nuclear power or bombs. Europe is offering Iran trade benefits in return for halting the nuclear activity.
"It's unavoidable that the Security Council will now take up deliberations with the goal of a resolution and the first step on sanctions," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said at a meeting with his EU counterparts Tuesday in Luxembourg.

Just wonder what Joschka is doing these days... Teaching international crisis diplomacy at Princeton?

I mean, the guy sure knows a thing or two about how to deal with dictatorships!

Iran’s Terror-cum-Intelligence Networks Thrown across Three Continents

(By Paul13)

DEBKAfile

Wenn sich der Block der sogenannten Blockfreien trifft, ist das meistens ein wahres Fest der antiwestlichen Propaganda. Doch bleibt es offenbar nicht immer nur bei Worten:

While the leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement nations were making speeches at the 14th conference of their movement in Havana in mid-September, three groups of intelligence experts were off in a well-guarded corner next door to talk about matters far from the conference’s main theme of how to develop backward economies and societies.

Iranian, Cuban and Venezuelan teams were putting their heads together on ways of translating their leaders' hostile rhetoric and slogans into effective war action against the United States.

Achmadinedschad, Castro und Chavez - was für ein Dreamteam! Gegen diese Ansammlung geballten

Die Welt ohne 9/11: Als US-Präsident Kerry ins World Trade Center bat

(By Paul13)

SPIEGEL online

Ohne den 11. September 2001 säße im Weißen Haus ein anderer, über Afghanistan wüsste die westliche Welt so viel wie über West-Kansas, und stehen gelassene Koffer wären höchstens als Stolperfalle gefährlich. Oder doch nicht? Experten skizzieren für SPIEGEL ONLINE die Welt, in der wir jetzt leben würden.

[…] Israel, Syrien und Iran scheinen sich allmählich aussöhnen zu wollen. Die Furcht vor dem Unsicherheitsfaktor Nummer eins in der Region eint sie: Saddam Hussein rasselt seit dem Golfkrieg 1990 ständig mit dem Säbel.

Nette Idee. Hätte man tatsächlich was draus machen können. Hat man aber nicht. Stattdessen malt man sich eine nahezu idyllische Welt voller rational handelnder Akteure, in der die einstigen Erzfeinde Israel, Syrien und Iran plötzlich dicke Freunde sein wollen, und das wird dann makabererweise auch noch mit Saddam Husseins friedenstiftendem Säbelgerassel begründet.

So greift man erst in einen Wassermalkasten voll bunter Farben, und stellt dann angesichts der unattraktiven Schwarzweißbilder der Bush-Ära mit kindlichem Erstaunen fest, daß die Welt ohne ihn viel hübscher wäre. Mit der Bezeichnung Best-Case-Szenario sind diese Träumereien jedenfalls noch äußerst freundlich umschrieben. Doch der SPIEGEL wäre nicht der SPIEGEL, wenn er eine dermaßen peinliche Schönfärberei nicht wenigstens pro forma mit dem Feigenblatt einer pseudokritischen Analyse zu entschärfen versuchen würde:

Schöne neue Welt - könnte sie so aussehen, wäre ein bestimmter Tag des Jahres 2001 anders verlaufen?

dass sich die Welt ohne die Terroranschläge dieses Tages völlig anders entwickelt hätte? Dass der mächtigste Mann der Welt ein anderer wäre; dass die Welt friedlicher wäre; dass islamistischer Terror nicht unser Leben bestimmte?

Experten zweifeln erheblich an einem solchen Szenario. Bei SPIEGEL ONLINE beschreiben sie, was dieser eine Tag wirklich verändert hat.

Soso, Experten. Ich kann mir schon gut vorstellen, wie man die aufgetrieben hat. Wahrscheinlich hat unser Redakteursschneewittchen einfach "SPIEGEL, SPIEGEL, in der Hand, wer ist der klügste im ganzen Land?" gerufen und plötzlich standen unsere sieben Zwerge vor der Tür, überglücklich, daß sie endlich mal jemand nach ihrer Meinung fragt.

Anders ist jedenfalls nicht zu erklären, wie dieses Dreamteam es fertiggebracht hat, einen Artikel zum Thema "Die Welt ohne 9/11" zu schreiben, ohne dabei wenigstens einmal Begriffe wie Dschihad, Demokratisierung, Achmadinedschad, Katjuscha oder Völkermord zu verwenden; ganz so, als ob die Erfindung der Schariah, die ethnischen Säuberungen im Sudan, die Gründung der al-Qaida, der palästinensische Terrorismus, die Raketenrüstung der Hisbollah, der Beginn des iranischen Atomprogramms oder das gegenseitige Massakrieren von Sunniten und Schiiten erst durch die amerikanische Reaktion auf den 11. September ausgelöst worden wäre, während diese Politik gleichzeitig natürlich nichts, aber auch gar nichts mit dem Sturz der mittelalterlichen Schreckensherrschaft der Taliban, den ersten freien Wahlen im Irak, der Demokratiebewegung im Libanon und der zunehmenden innerarabischen Diskussion über westliche Freiheiten zu tun hat.

Aber lassen wir stellvertretend für diese geballte Brainpower unserer glorreichen Sieben einfach mal den "Politologieexperten" zu Wort kommen, der durch seine rosarote Brille unter seiner über die Augen gezogenen Zipfelmütze offenbar einen ganz ausgezeichneten Blick auf die Weltpolitik hat:

In den USA wäre Bush auf relativ unspektakuläre Art ein zweites Mal gewählt worden. Keinesfalls war eine solche Polarisierung zu erwarten, dass Bush am Ende unter seinen Republikanern bessere Zustimmungsraten hatte als Ronald Reagan zu seiner Glanzzeit - und unter Demokraten schlechtere als Richard Nixon vor seinem Rücktritt. Die Welt wäre weniger dramatisch, doch vielleicht ein schönerer Platz zum Leben mit beliebteren USA.

Mal ganz davon abgesehen, daß der Verlust des Beliebtheitspreises in einem globalen, um das nackte Überleben geführten Konflikt nur Abzüge in der B-Note bedeutet, ließe sich ohne allzu viel Phantasie mit einer weit größeren Berechtigung als jede der hier in SPIEGEL online vorgestellten Märchenwelten auch folgende, nicht einmal extrem negativ fortgeschriebene Entwicklung skizzieren:

Atomstreit: Deutsche Politiker fordern neue Verhandlungen mit den Mullahs

(By Paul13)

SPIEGEL online

Angesichts der drohenden Uno-Sanktionen gegen Iran fordern mehrere deutsche Außenpolitiker weitere Verhandlungen mit dem Mullah-Staat.

Na, das war ja nur eine Frage der Zeit. Wäre ja auch äußerst seltsam gewesen, wenn sich da niemand bemüßigt gefühlt hätte, seinen Senf dazuzugeben.

[…] Außenminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD) sagte gestern Abend in den ARD-"Tagesthemen", er gehe er davon aus, dass der Druck auf die Führung in Teheran steigen werde. Allerdings rechne er nicht mit militärischen Schritten gegen Iran. In den vergangenen Monaten sei diese Möglichkeit nicht erwogen worden. Mehrere deutsche Außenpolitiker sprachen sich für neue Verhandlungen aus, nachdem Iran gestern das Ultimatum des Sicherheitsrats verstreichen ließ.

Äh, 'tschuldigung Leute, aber Ihr habt da glaub' ich was nicht ganz verstanden: Der Sinn eines Ultimatums ist nicht, es einfach verstreichen zu lassen und dann weiterzuverhandeln, sondern es dient dazu, nach einem Scheitern von Verhandlungen Konsequenzen folgen zu lassen. D.h. wenn man eh bereit ist, auch nach dem Stichtag einfach so, als ob nichts geschehen wäre, weiterzuverhandeln, dann braucht man erst gar kein Ultimatum zu stellen. Zumal man, wenn man das dann nicht auch durchsetzt, bei weiteren Ultimaten nicht mehr ernst genommen wird. Obwohl - wurden die Europäer vom Iran ja auch vorher nicht. So gesehen macht's natürlich keinen Unterschied. Also gut, weitermachen, ist eh egal...

"Die Diplomatie hat noch Spielraum", sagte der verteidigungspolitische Sprecher der SPD-Bundestagsfraktion, Gert Weisskirchen, der "Berliner Zeitung". Ähnlich äußerte sich auch der Vorsitzende des Auswärtigen Ausschusses im Europaparlament, Elmar Brok (CDU). Sanktionen dürften die immer noch möglichen Verhandlungen mit Iran nicht behindern, müssten aber zugleich zeigen, dass die Provokationen Teherans nicht hingenommen würden. Wenn sich die EU-Außenminister bei ihrem Treffen heute in Finnland auf eine gemeinsame Strategie einigten, dann gebe es eine Chance, das auch in den USA durchzusetzen. Die Außenminister der 25 EU-Staaten kommen in Lappeenranta zu zweitägigen informellen Beratungen über die Nahostpolitik der Union zusammen.

Wenn es noch irgendeiner Begründung für die amerikanische Skepsis gegenüber den europäischen Verhandlungsbemühungen (und mehr als Bemühungen waren das nicht, verhandeln ist was anderes) bedurft hätte, in diesem Absatz findet sie sich. Selten hat sich eine potentielle Großmacht so blamiert wie die EU bei einer auch für ihre eigene Sicherheit so existentiellen Frage wie den Atomgesprächen mit dem Iran. Die hier angesprochene Äußerung Elmar Broks ist der Offenbarungseid der europäischen Außenpolitik. In den USA durchsetzen wird dieses Europa gewiß nichts mehr. Die US-Regierung wird pro forma vielleicht noch zustimmen, damit man ihr hinterher nicht vorwerfen kann, eine Verhandlungslösung torpediert zu haben, aber wenn es drauf ankommt, wird der amerikanische Präsident damit das richtige tun, nämlich sie ignorieren.

Massive Kritik an der US-Regierung übte Grünen-Fraktionsvize Trittin. Es sei falsch, wenn immer nur über Sanktionen geredet werde. Das bediene nur die "Bombenfantasien" des US-Verteidigungsministers Donald Rumsfeld. Es sei wichtiger, endlich mit Iran zu reden. Rumsfeld hatte zuletzt erklärt, die USA hätten das militärische Potenzial für ein Vorgehen gegen Iran.

Klar, wenn es um die Bewerbung für das Gruselkabinett deutscher Außenpolitik geht, darf ein Jürgen Trittin natürlich nicht fehlen. Und er wird seiner Favoritenrolle unter den Nominierten der Kategorie "Der Feind meines Freundes ist mein Freund" wie erwartet absolut gerecht. Milosevic in der Hölle, Saddam in Knast und Kim Jong Il im Bonker, da ist der Quartalsirre aus Teheran natürlich das perfekte Liebesobjekt, welches vor diesem kriegslüsternen Rumsfeld geschützt werden muß. So ist es denn auch kein Wunder, wenn es ein Grüner von altem Schrot und Korn ablehnt, ein antisemitisches, frauenfeindliches, schwulenhassendes, reaktionäres und grausames Terrorregime mit gewaltfreien Mitteln wie Wirtschaftssanktionen daran zu hindern, an Nuklearenergie, Plutoniumkreislauf und Atomraketen zu kommen. Als Grüner im Jahre 2006 kämpft man eben für und nicht mehr gegen den Atomtod. So ändern sich die Zeiten.

Für den FDP-Außenexperten Wolfgang Gerhardt liegen derzeit "in Teheran die selbstverschuldeten Trümmer amerikanischer Außenpolitik". Die Isolationspolitik gegenüber dem Regime in Iran sei misslungen. Wegen der unilateralen Vorgehensweise, verbunden mit "einem Irak-Desaster", sei auch die Abstimmung mit Russland und China nicht überzeugend. "Das alles kommt jetzt zusammen. Trotzdem: Es gilt immer wieder, neu miteinander zu reden", sagte Gerhardt.

Wie, Gerhard? Tom Gerhard? Ach, Wolfgang Gerhard! Ist das nicht der, der auf dem letzten FDP-Parteitag diesen tollen Plan vorgelegt hat, wie man den Iran durch Aufhebung seiner selbstgewählten Isolation davon überzeugen kann, daß es nicht nett ist, Atombomben auf fremde Städte zu werfen, und daß Achmadinedschad die Juden wieder ganz doll lieb hat? Oder der damals mit jener genialen Idee kam, nach der Saddam Hussein freiwillig zurückgetreten wäre, um die Macht an eine frei gewählte Regierung zu übergeben, was nur durch den vorzeitigen Einmarsch dieser unfähigen Amerikaner verhindert wurde? Jener Gerhardt, der all die Jahre als seriöse Alternative zu einem kaum vermittelbaren Außenminister Westerwelle gehandelt wurde? Das ist der "Außenexperte" der FDP? Also dann kann's auch der Guido machen. Oder noch besser, grabt einfach Mölli wieder aus, schlimmer ist selbst der nicht. Nicht mal in seinem derzeitigen Zustand.

Bis jetzt gibt es keinerlei Hinweise, dass Teheran in letzter Minute doch noch der Forderung nachgekommen ist, seine umstrittene Urananreicherung einzustellen. Der iranische Präsident Mahmud Ahmadinedschad hatte sich unmittelbar vor Ablauf des Ultimatums weiter unbeugsam gezeigt. Iran werde sich keinem Druck beugen, sagte er in einer vom Fernsehen übertragenen Rede.

Da wäre er auch schön blöd. Denn es macht wenig Sinn sich einem Druck zu beugen, den es gar nicht gibt. Solange auf der Gegenseite überwiegend Volltrottel und Dilettanten sitzen, die selbst bei Möchtergernendlösern wie Adolfimdschihad lieber auf Kooperation statt Konfrontation zu setzen, kann man fast verstehen, daß er einen auf dicke Hose macht. Allerdings nur fast. Denn zum Glück haben es Profis wie Bush und Rumsfeld nicht nötig, auf unbedarfte Amateure wie Trittin und Gerhard zu hören. Da sollte der gute Mahmud also trotzdem aufpassen, daß ihn Rummy's Bombenfantasien im Rahmen von Bush's Außenpolitik nicht plötzlich unter den Trümmern seines Präsidentenpalasts begraben.

Libanon-Krieg: Hisbollah soll britische Nachtsichtgeräte haben

(And now an article in German from our new guest author Paul of No Blood for Sauerkraut!)

SPIEGEL online

Die Hisbollah-Milizen im Süden des Libanons sind im Kampf gegen Israel möglicherweise mit Nachtsichtgeräten aus Großbritannien ausgerüstet. Das britische Außenministerium ordnete eine Untersuchung an.

London - Israelische Truppen hätten die Nachtsichtgeräte in Kommandobunkern der Guerilla sichergestellt, berichtet die "Times". Die Geräte könnten der Hisbollah wesentlich beim Beschuss israelischer Ziele und bei der Beobachtung von Truppenbewegungen geholfen haben. 2003 waren 250 solcher Geräte mit einer Export-Sondergenehmigung an Iran verkauft worden, um den Kampf gegen den Drogenhandel an der Grenze zu Afghanistan zu unterstützen.

Kampf gegen den Drogenhandel, wie süß! Die sind ja richtig putzig, diese naiven kleinen Dummerchen. Wer konnte denn schon ahnen, daß ein Regime, nur weil es die eigene Bevölkerung vom oppositionellen Demonstranten bis hin zum minderjährigen Vergewaltigungsopfer massakrieren läßt, den internationalen Terrorismus auf jede nur erdenkliche Art und Weise unterstützt, völlig offen an der Auslöschung eines souveränen Mitgliedsstaates der Vereinten Nationen arbeitet und zu diesem Zweck mal eben einen völlig sinnlosen Krieg in einem unbeteiligten Land vom Zaun bricht, die Weltöffentlichkeit beim Bau der Atombombe seit Jahrzehnten an der Nase herumführt und dabei beängstigend zielgerichtet auf einen Krieg gegen eine Supermacht zusteuert, deswegen auch gleich lügen würde?

Wer dermaßen engagiert gegen die Drogen kämpft, kann so schlecht schließlich nicht sein, sondern ist dadurch automatisch ein vertrauenswürdiger Partner im Kampf gegen das internationale Verbrechen. Und wenn man die Wahl hat zwischen einem schmierigen Drogendealer und einem anerkannten Massenmörder, muß man notfalls auch mal mit letzterem paktieren, wenn er dafür mit Indianerehrenwort verspricht, im Kampf gegen ersteren mitzuhelfen. Spätestens seit dem 11. September gilt ja bekanntlich, besser HighTech-Waffen in Terroristenhänden als eine Zunahme der Verstöße gegen das Betäubungsmittelgesetz. Manchmal muß man eben Prioritäten setzen.

Wenn die Mullahs halbwegs clever sind, lernen sie was draus und schreiben auf die Bestellzettel für benötigtes Kriegsführungs- und Repressionsmaterial in Zukunft bei Verwendungszweck nicht mehr "Gefangenenmißhandlung", "Weltvernichtungsmaschine" oder "Judenausrottung", sondern bestellen die Handschellen für ihre Folterungen offiziell für ihre Sado-Maso-Spielchen, die Tornado-Jagdbomber für die größte Kunstflugstaffel der Welt, die Uran-Zentrifugen für eine riesige Atomuhr und die dazugehörigen Mittelstreckenraketen für das "Imam-Chomeini-Gedächtnisfeuerwerk". Wobei letzteres nicht mal so richtig gelogen sein dürfte...

Jeffrey Gedmin: Hypocrisy in the West: Iran and the Peace Movement

Proudly presenting the original English version of Jeffrey Gedmin's latest article in WELT.

Hypocrisy in the West: Iran and the Peace Movement
Column in "Die Welt", 21.06.2006
By Jeffrey Gedmin

Look at it this way, says Mohammad Ali Ramin: "So long as Israel exists there will never be peace." The Iranian Presidential adviser also told students in Rasht recently that the holocaust rumour and bird flu were somehow inter-related, the latter being a conspiracy by the West to destract from its failures in the Middle East. Ramin said killing chickens was part of a plot to control prices. He also seems to believe that Jews once caused the plague and typhus because "Jews are very filthy people."

As all this does sound just a tad dangerous, I keep wondering what happened to the peace movement.   The peace movement has always been anti-nuclear. Iran wants the bomb. The peace movement loves the U.N. and international law. Teheran defies the International Atomic Energy Agency. The peace movement condemns the "arms race." When Iran goes nuclear, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey will also want the bomb. The peace movement cherishes human rights. The mullahs stone women. The peace movement is modern, multicultural, and secular. President Ahmadinejad believes in the Hidden Imam and relishes a clash of civilizations. The peace movement likes peace. The Iranian leader has called for a U.N. member state to be wiped off the face of the earth.

The peace movement is once again exposed as a farce and a fraud. During the Cold War it thrived on anti-Americanism and a good dose of Soviet block support. It was back recently when George W. Bush said he would compel Saddam Hussein to comply with U.N. resolutions. In Berlin, half a million people took to the streets. Teachers, students, churches, trade unions. It is hard to remember too many of these folks lifting a finger for the people of Iraq before or ever since.

And those banners declaring "No Blood for Oil"? Do the peaceniks know that Europe depends on Middle Eastern oil even more than the United States? Saudi Arabia is one of Germany's most important trading partners in the region. Iran is the other. During Gerhard Schroeder's last year in office, German exports to Iran rose by 33.4 percent (3.6

Germany's Iran Policy: It's the Economy, Stupid!

Germany is opposed to military actions in the context of Iran's nuclear ambitions, even though purely diplomatic approaches might eventually lead to the annihilation of Israel. And Germany's powerful  trade associations even reject economic sanctions against Iraq. The reason for Germany's peacenick policy?

Definitely not humanitarian considerations.

It's the economy, stupid.

More comprehensive sanctions [i.e. including commercial sanctions] would be tied to ever higher costs also for the West – and, in particular, for Germany. Should commercial sanctions be applied, it would be first and foremost the EU states that are affected. In 2004, Germany was the most important supplier of Iran (12.3% of all imports), followed by France (8.5%), Italy (7.9%), and China (7.5%). (...)

Current German policy in fact actively encourages exports to Iran: notably by having the German state assume the financial risks of German firms exporting to Iran (via the so-called "Hermes" program of export credit guarantees).

Read John Rosenthal's Trans-Int blog for more...

Anglofritz on Medienkritik

A blog named Anglofritz recently posted an interesting take on Davids Medienkritik and Germans' apparent confusion over the United States and Iran.

Germans: U.S. More Dangerous than Iran

According to this poll, more Germans consider the U.S. to be a danger for world peace than Iran.

45 % of Germans call the U.S. a "greater threat to world peace" than Iran. 28 % think that Iran is a greater threat. For 16 %, the U.S. and Iran pose identical threats.

The results don't surprise me at all.

I mean, Iran is economically extremly promising for Germany. And Iran has made it clear what it expects in return for economic favours: "The international deputy of Iran's Chamber of Commerce, Dr. Fereidoun Entezari, believes that business relations will surely improve if the Europeans do not pollute the economic issues with the political ones."

Germany got the message...

(For more on the topic, check Ray's posting "Appeasing Oppressors: A Proud German Tradition Continues".)

Appeasing Oppressors: A Proud German Tradition Continues

(By Ray Drake)

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust "a myth." He's called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." He's the head of one of the most repressive governments on earth. And, as far as most German authorities are concerned, he's a welcome guest at this summer's 2006 FIFA World Cup.

German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble (CDU) recently stated that Ahmadinejad is welcome at the World Cup because Germany wants to be "a good host." Schaeuble, who is considered conservative by German standards, said that he would "talk to him about his statements" in the event of a visit and added that "it will not be entirely simple."

"Thank you very much for the kind words, Herr Schaeuble! I am already happy about coming to the land of my great idol..." (cartoon via Politically Incorrect)

Once again, German leaders are paying lip service to ideals that they have no intention of honoring. One day they pose as moral paragons of virtue, the next they are in bed doing deals with the world's most repressive regimes. It doesn't matter if you're the leader of a brutal theocracy who has denied the Holocaust and called for the destruction of Israel. Germany's special historic responsibility to the millions of murdered Jews and the state of Israel is apparently less important than being "good hosts" and rolling over to placate tyrants. What really matters is that the World Cup goes smoothly and serves German interests.

In a story on the potential Ahmadinejad visit, the FAZ newspaper detailed all of the problems with Iran and its President but pointed out: "On the other hand, German-Iranian trade is being promoted." Just another reason not to rock the boat! When in doubt, appease and call for more "dialog." If this is any indication of Germany's sincerity in negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program, the American "friends" ought to be quite concerned.

The only person who seems to have any sense in this is Edmund Stoiber, Governor of Bavaria (CSU). Stoiber warned that Iran's President would be less than welcome for his "tirades against the Jewish state and contesting the Holocaust." But even he wasn't willing to challenge the national government's right to allow Ahmadinejad into the country.

The ultimate question is how other World Cup attendees will react to the German government's weak-kneed stance on a potential Ahmadinejad visit. If a major player decides to pull out rather than participate in an event attended by Iran's notorious head of state, the German appeasement gamble could backfire quite badly indeed.

Endnote: You can contact Wolfgang Schaeuble at: wolfgang.schaeuble@bundestag.de. Read more on this in German here.

On another note, German entrepreneurs of a special sort are busily preparing for this summer: Berlin readies giant brothel for World Cup. According to MSNBC, "Experts estimate as many as 40,000 prostitutes may travel to Germany to offer their services to fans during the tournament." Here is a past Medienkritik post on the topic.