Germany and the Run-Up to the Iran War

Even as Iraq collapses into the violent maelstrom of civil war, the Bush administration is ratcheting up its war rhetoric, comparing the "War on Terror" with the battle against Nazis, Communists, Fascists, and .....(name your own flavor of evil).  Iran looms large as the next target, and the neocon pundit class in Washington ceaselessly urges miltary action - even a nuclear strike - while Fox News alternates between segments on Jon Benet Ramsey and "analysis" of the Iran's nuclear program and the necessity of a new war.  Given all of this bellicose rhetoric coming out of Washington, it is understandable that some commentators in Germany have concerns about deploying German troops in Lebanon as a part of a UN peace-keeping force.  Today, Roland Heine has an op-ed piece in the Berliner Zeitung, where he asks whether the politicians in Berlin have thought through what a possible US war with Iran would mean for German troops deployed in Lebanon:

(trans.) “What happened this summer in Lebanon was a preliminary war for the planned offensive against Iran... But now a western-dominated international force, including German soldiers, is to be stationed in Lebanon or on its borders as a buffer between Israel and the Hizbullah. If the USA goes to war against Iran and the Hizbullah reacts accordingly, the units from the German Armed Forces will inevitably be used to protect Israel – which means they will be drawn into the war. It takes very little imagination to work out the likely consequences. Given the way the war would escalate, it would probably be almost impossible to withdraw the German troops, especially if the conflict comes to a head... The way the German government is ignoring the obvious connection between the Lebanon crisis and the Iran crisis is distinctly odd.”

But ex-foreign minister Joshka Fischer points out (quite cogently, in my opinion) that Germany and Europe have a strategic interest in the Middle East, and having troops on the ground in Lebanon is vital for Europe's security.  Moreover, having troops at risk in a potential confrontation with Syria and Iran will force the European powers to bring about real change in the dynamics of the Middle East.  This has nothing to do with Condoleezza Rice's "birth-pangs of a new Middle East" brought  about by the blood of Lebanese civilians. but rather a peaceful transformation. 

In view of the risk to its troops, Europe will be compelled to influence and even proactively bring about strategic changes to the political environment in the entire Middle East. With its decision in favour of the mission in Lebanon, the EU crossed a military Rubicon. It must now back up its growing weight in the Middle East with political initiative. This must include three key elements: a negotiated solution for Syria; a resumption of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians; and a common strategic understanding with the US of the political strategy of the west for the region (which addresses the region's most dangerous conflict, Iran). This common understanding will be the pivotal challenge for the future of the transatlantic relationship,

So the mission in Lebanon is a transformational moment for the EU, and could mean a transformation of the EU's relationship with Washington.  Incidentally, Fischer published his comments in interactive "Comment is Free" offering of The Guardian, where any reader can post a comment.  It is interesting to read some of the highly-inflammatory comments. 

Comments

[Bill]

It's good that you picked-up Joschka's piece on the EU contributions to the Israel-Lebanon peacekeeping mission UNIFIL at the Guardian's "Comment is free" blog. Do you think that Joschka Fischer reads comments from his readers and enters into dialogues with them? Nah, I don't think so either.

Surely YOU don't believe that Israel's attack on the Hezbollah in Lebanon and the destruction of so much infrastructure and lives was a U.S.-backed plan for a "run-up to a war with Iran"??

Certainly not, but if that scenario did develop let's say over the next 12-18 months, would Berlin immediately withdraw the Deutsche Marine (Navy) and any ground forces and civillian personell from Lebanon? How would the German public react in your opinion? Would they demand that Germany support the views held by Fischer in his article, or would they demand an immediate withdrawal of German forces and abandon their longtime strategic friend in the region___ Israel?

[David]

@Bill,

Good question. Right now, Berlin is offically in lock-step with Washington on the issue of to how to deal with Iran. I could see, however, that support for German involvement in Lebanon would evaporate if Washington would once again pursue unilateral military action in the region using hyped intelligence as justification.

[Olaf Petersen]

Ha. Don't be afraid, the USA won't go to war with Iran. They are neutralized in Iraq (and in the whole middle east) and can't risk any conflict with the local Shia: Iraq has an army dominatet by shiites now, one signal from Tehran and they turn their weapons against the US Army. Bush knows that, Ahmadinejad knows that and the Hezbollah knows that, too. Iran could easily shut the Straight of Hormuz or destroy the oil-fields in Saudi-Arabia.

Iran is the winner of Operation Iraqi Freedom - and Russia the power behind. Russia wants access to the Israeli energy market, wants to run his pipeline 'Blue Stream' to the near east, but therefore Russia has to demonstrate that it is a better garant of Israel's interests than the USA.

[Doctor]

Its interesting to read the childish American view. I wonder if these American Christian pro_Killing league realise how much blood they already have on their hands. From the recent 180,000 + Iraqi murders to their forefathers massacres of natives in America. They are all the same band. I wonder if they know at all that Iran has not murdered a single American soul, but US has been responsible for the murder of more than one million Iranians. From 1953 CIA orchestrated Coup that resulted in tens of thousands of Iranians screaming democracy,killed by CIA and shah to full US support for Saddam against his agression against Iran in 80s to killing women and children on an Iranian civil airliner which was shot down by US Navy. Iranians would be fool not to develop nuclear weapons for their defence against the most cruel regime on earth. Otherwise they must get prepared for their men to be executed and their 13year old daughters to be gangraped by USArmy soldiers who had the American humility to kill her afterwards and set her body on fire in Iraq. The American version of democracy ofcourse. Its a strange world indeed, out of all those Americans who promote "Democracy" in Iraq, how many of them would have the balls going to Iraq for a vacation perhaps to see how much democratic Iraq is really or for that matter Afghanistan. The best US friends like Saudi Arabia are the most anti democratic Gov.s in the world. Iran by comparison is much a better democracy unlike what is portrayed in US media. There is much more varied political platforms to choose among the presidential candidated in Iran than in US presidential election with its two party system. Iran is not perfect but is fast progressing, unlike Iraq or Afghanistan. And the last but not the least important is for Americans to realise the fact that their Army is impotent against Iran. Iran is a far bigger adversery than Iraq or Afghanistan with a more challenging terrain bigger population and greater area and a very strong army. To add to problems Afghanistan was not even a country when America attacked her. It did not have an army and the annual budget of the Afghan Gov. was only a minimal 40 million dollars. There are colleges in Iran with a bigger budget than that. As for Iraq which did not have even the simplest Industries and food production capabilities with 11 years of complete sanctions and no International sympathies at all, at least not in Muslim world that saw him as a traitor, America did have a victory against HIM but not against Iraq yet. Compare these facts to Iran which has far reaching influence and relations in international community and has been preaching for freedom of countries from American meddling in their affairs for the past 30 years and taking in to calculation that Alqaeda Taliban and Saddam were staunch US allies in past as opposed to Iran and all these allies have been in one way or the other at war with Iran in past, a completely diffrent picture emerges that must be a revelation to American readers with their short and OFFICIAL knowledge of history which usually comes to them from CNN and FOX.
By the way do Americans really think CIA was this stupid to misjudge Iraq instead of N.Korea as a threat? Even a school boy knew N.Korea had kicked out inspectors and explicitly announced to make the bomb while the inspectors in Iraq were working hard and finding nothing as is the case with Iran. IAEA has not found anything yet in Iran.
And a very strategic comment:
The muslim world is really angry with US, If any one who has travelled to Iraq, Afghanistan, syria, Pakistan and .... can testify, the US embassy in those countries is being gaurded by Tanks and Armoured fighting vehicles and even mines and surface to air battries. Hardly an embassy. All these weapons are around these building because of extreme hatred of the majority of population. This hatred is specially high in southern Afghanistan and Northern pakistan and kashmir just towards the east of Iran. Now you have to go and look up in a map to see that this volatile region is being seperated from another Jehadi land in Iraq syria lebanon and Saudi Arabia by Iran. If Iran falls as Iraq in a war with US, a huge land mass with most of the oil and gas reserves of the world will fall to chaos and Jehad. Afghan drugs would move with ease to europe and would finance a global jehad against US and its puppet Gov.s in this land mass. With local population mostly conservative and antiwest the gov.s of Saudi and jordan egypt and ... would fall in a grand jehadi revolution with total cutoff of oil in the world. The jehadis goal as it has always been would be to make a unified caliphate in this land which would cut the hand of US and west from its resources. The fight will not be against submarines and high altitute bombers and industrial complexes. It will be against a rural population living in small villages sabotaging the bigger armies in a gorilla fashion making the use of nuclear weapons highly ineffective and inconsequential to the outcome of the event. As a result US will implement draft and would make a huge foot army to suppress a continental uprising and insurgency. Biggest affected segment of US society would be middleclass youths 17-50 years old males who would be rounded up and send to desert villages in Saudi Arabia and Iraq to protect the vital oil flow with their blood. It will be a long fight a very long one indeed in which by all odds the US will lose at the end.
Infact this is very well understood by the American Gov. and Iranian Gov. thats why you see the game that you are seeing right now. Other wise US would have already attacked Iran and got over with it just like it did in Iraq. But Iran is not Iraq. Just please go, and look at a map, find kashmir and afghanistan and taliban locations and then look out for Iraq lebanon and Israel with a military eye and you will see why US can not attack Iran. The costs are too high for US and West. Unlike most other countries in the world unlike saudi or afghanistan or Iraq and kuwait Iran is not a creation of occupation by western forces and decolonization of local lands in the past century. Iran is older than the west itself and stands among the old civilizations of china Rome and Greece. Iranians have survived 3000 years for good or bad. They will survive this one too. The first superpower of the world in human history (persian empire) is not going down without a fight because the most important thing in a war is not weapons and strategy its the ideology, Russia had more atomic bombs than the US and europe combined but lost the war on ideological grounds. saddam and taliban didnt have an ideology because they were puppets. Iran is totally a different breed. Iranians think today as themselves to be a superpower in coming years and are working hard towards that end developing ideologies towards that goal. You have to look closely to understand it. While US is bleeding in Iraq and Afghanistan's biggest achievement with democracy has been to produce enough opium to provide every human being on earth with a sustainable line of herion, Iran is begining to think big. And when nations start to think big, it gets impossibe to roll them back without a large scale destruction and possibly a world war. I personally think Americans will have to learn to live with a Nuclear Iran competing with US ideologically, unlike the chinese N.koreans europeans Indian etc. who dont have any ideology to make their powers important or threatening. Iran is a different story as its already winning hearts and minds from middle east to latin America. Just this time US idealogies may not survive the new cold war. But this one is going to be a longer one.