The negotiation with the Iranian regime about a nuclear deal, while the traffic light is sticking to the planned nuclear phase-out in Germany, is one of the biggest political curiosities at the moment.
In addition to the problem of final storage, German politicians justify the nuclear phase-out primarily with security issues. And at the same time, the federal government, together with France, is committed to guaranteeing nuclear power for one of the most dangerous regimes in the world. The problems that nuclear power plants bring with them in the hands of aggressive, expansive dictatorships can be observed at the Ukrainian Zaporizhia nuclear power plant.
The Iranian regime is demonstrably not only concerned with the civilian energy industry. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the regime is enriching uranium that is weapons-grade. Nevertheless, my colleagues and I experience a kind of political “groundhog salute” when discussing how to deal with the Iranian regime.
Everyone is aware that Iran is not complying with IAEA guidelines, that it can actually produce nuclear weapons within a few weeks, that it is waging war in the Middle East through its protégé Bashar al-Assad, and that it is funding terrorist groups that regularly attack Israel. Nevertheless, no course change is in sight.
Anyone who thought that belief in negotiations and change through trade had been shaken by Putin’s war of aggression was wrong. More precisely, he is already delusional about the basic assumptions that precede most negotiations with criminal regimes. Because the unspoken basic assumption is usually not that negotiations could bring about an improvement, but merely that “we” will somehow be spared.
As long as regime incursions only affect others, a convenient solution is to settle for talk and indulgence. But this strategy is not only morally questionable, it is also downright ignorant. This applies in particular to dealings with Iran.
To date, there have been “only” around 100 members of the opposition who the Iranian regime has murdered abroad. It “only” planned or even carried out attacks on Jewish, Israeli and opposition institutions and people in Europe, as at the Bulgarian airport in Burgas in 2012. It “only” takes dual nationals as political hostages when traveling to Iran. It “only” attacks women like Masih Alinejad in the US who are demanding human rights for Iranian women. “Only” journalists like the German-Iranian Jamshid Sharmahd are being kidnapped from Dubai to Iran, where Sharmahd is currently being tortured in a show trial under a judge known for the death penalty.
The Presidents of Russia, Turkey and Iran met in Tehran. The talks are supposed to be about the war in Syria. But observers assume that the Russian invasion of Ukraine will also be an issue.
Source: WELT/ Marco Reinke
But the Iranian regime’s will to expand is not limited to the goals mentioned. The regime has included the export of the Islamic revolution in its constitution. What sounds ridiculous to Western ears is meant seriously, it is the basis of the regime’s outward aggression.
Hence the hunt for Salman Rushdie, who has nothing to do with the Iranian regime. Hence, as recently confirmed by the Foreign Office, the first hostage-taking of a German without dual citizenship by the regime. Hence the relentless persecution of women’s rights activists living abroad, for women’s oppression is the basis of the Islamist revolution.
In contrast to democratically elected politicians, the regime does not depend on approval. He doesn’t care if attacks bring bad publicity. In contrast, in the event of an attack, the public in Europe will ask themselves why European politicians were still courting another criminal regime after the Russian attack on Ukraine, instead of taking away its livelihood with stricter sanctions.
Rebecca Schönenbach is an economist, specialist in Islamism and board member of Women for Freedom. She advises international companies and authorities on measures to counter extremism.
