And the government made clear there won’t be an official meeting. Instead, he met with selected members of the Bundestag (parliament). What are you trying to say?
The way he is paraded around in the German media suggests strong political support, though.
Supporting the Shah is a bit of a political tradition in Germany, he was a well liked (by the political caste) state guest back in the day when he was running the regime in Iran. His state visits even gave the German language a new word: “Jubelperser” - “jubilant Persians”, a euphemism for agents of his security service who would beat up counter demonstrators with iron rods under the watchful benevolent eyes of the German police.
As far as I read, he met with several foreign affairs politicians from various parliamentary groups in the Bundestag. The only named participant I know of is CDU’s Laschet. He was cited with “Of course I want to talk to Pahlavi, as he’s a person of relevance when it comes to transition in Iran.” Green’s Nouripour said, while he himself wouldn’t have attended that meeting, he yet thinks it is ok and even sensible of Laschet to speak with the various facets of Iranian opposition and that other members of his party will also attend the meeting. There are very critical voices from Laschet’s party as well as other parties. At least I do not know what they actually discussed in that meeting, so I am cautious to blindly assume they fully supported him and did not voice any concerns. Meeting a political figure from abroad does not automatically equal supporting them.
What are you trying to say? That that isn’t support? Laschet is the former chancellor candidate. That’s the highest ranking member of the CDU that still allows some form of denial. Obviously it works but why? How can the meeting be interpreted any different but as support?
So? Laschet is the current chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee. Call me crazy, but I guess meeting with influential foreign political figures might have more to do with that than some election a couple of years ago.
And while he might support Pahlavi, not even his party is unanimously doing so. Meetings of political figures can also be used to voice concerns and criticism.
Hence, to insinuate that Germany supports him is at best uninformed, at worst malicious.
Of course, the meeting can be held for the personal goals of Laschet but how likely is that? Current chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee, it can’t be much more official while the war is illegal.
Of course, the meeting can be held for the personal goals of Laschet but how likely is that?
No one here said that. When the current chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee meets such a person (together with foreign affairs politicians from other parties), the most obvious reason for that meeting would be their respective function in foreign affairs.
Given the criticism from across a plethora of parties - involved and uninvolved - and the clear message by the government to not meet him, your statement of ‘Germany’ supporting is false: either uninformed or malicious.
Problem is that you keep on filling the circumstances with your own personal opinions/assumptions and then confuse these for facts. It is your choice to interpret these things in the most negative way possible or suspecting a conspiracy/“something bigger”, but don’t be surprised if others won’t follow you on that path and grow tired of you trying to keep that wheel spinning.
The facts are: the government explicitly stated they won’t meet Pahlavi. Pahlavi met with foreign affairs politicians / members of the Bundestag from various parties. These parties also raised concerns about this meeting. Laschet himself was cited with “Of course I want to talk to Pahlavi, as he’s a person of relevance when it comes to transition in Iran.” Details of this meeting and participants beyond Laschet are not known.
Yet, for you this is all clear and you’ll happily interpret it as a sign of support. Not only by Laschet, but the whole of Germany. What’s there left to say to that?
If the meeting doesn’t mean anything why has the government not met him?
Because the government meeting Pahlavi is something else than Laschet meeting Pahlavi. One is our official government, where a meeting would undoubtedly convey some sort of support they apparently don’t want to display. The other is current chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee, where a meeting is much more normal and does not convey that gravitas. Isn’t that pretty obvious?
And the government made clear there won’t be an official meeting. Instead, he met with selected members of the Bundestag (parliament). What are you trying to say?
What they were saying is in the sentence following the one you quoted.
Of course, as you point out, they’re making wrong assumptions or deliberately mislead. With that, what they were saying falls apart.
The way he is paraded around in the German media suggests strong political support, though.
Supporting the Shah is a bit of a political tradition in Germany, he was a well liked (by the political caste) state guest back in the day when he was running the regime in Iran. His state visits even gave the German language a new word: “Jubelperser” - “jubilant Persians”, a euphemism for agents of his security service who would beat up counter demonstrators with iron rods under the watchful benevolent eyes of the German police.
Sure, there is strong political support for the idea of Pahlavi taking over again. But just not by ‘Germany’, as the user made it seem.
Important members of the biggest ruling party meeting with him suggests otherwise.
It’s a whole lot of support while still allowing some deniability.
As far as I read, he met with several foreign affairs politicians from various parliamentary groups in the Bundestag. The only named participant I know of is CDU’s Laschet. He was cited with “Of course I want to talk to Pahlavi, as he’s a person of relevance when it comes to transition in Iran.” Green’s Nouripour said, while he himself wouldn’t have attended that meeting, he yet thinks it is ok and even sensible of Laschet to speak with the various facets of Iranian opposition and that other members of his party will also attend the meeting. There are very critical voices from Laschet’s party as well as other parties. At least I do not know what they actually discussed in that meeting, so I am cautious to blindly assume they fully supported him and did not voice any concerns. Meeting a political figure from abroad does not automatically equal supporting them.
What are you trying to say? That that isn’t support? Laschet is the former chancellor candidate. That’s the highest ranking member of the CDU that still allows some form of denial. Obviously it works but why? How can the meeting be interpreted any different but as support?
So? Laschet is the current chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee. Call me crazy, but I guess meeting with influential foreign political figures might have more to do with that than some election a couple of years ago.
And while he might support Pahlavi, not even his party is unanimously doing so. Meetings of political figures can also be used to voice concerns and criticism.
Hence, to insinuate that Germany supports him is at best uninformed, at worst malicious.
Of course, the meeting can be held for the personal goals of Laschet but how likely is that? Current chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee, it can’t be much more official while the war is illegal.
No one here said that. When the current chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee meets such a person (together with foreign affairs politicians from other parties), the most obvious reason for that meeting would be their respective function in foreign affairs.
Given the criticism from across a plethora of parties - involved and uninvolved - and the clear message by the government to not meet him, your statement of ‘Germany’ supporting is false: either uninformed or malicious.
The government doesn’t meet Pahlavi because it looks bad. How does it not look bad if somebody else meets him who has deep ties to the government?
Problem is that you keep on filling the circumstances with your own personal opinions/assumptions and then confuse these for facts. It is your choice to interpret these things in the most negative way possible or suspecting a conspiracy/“something bigger”, but don’t be surprised if others won’t follow you on that path and grow tired of you trying to keep that wheel spinning.
The facts are: the government explicitly stated they won’t meet Pahlavi. Pahlavi met with foreign affairs politicians / members of the Bundestag from various parties. These parties also raised concerns about this meeting. Laschet himself was cited with “Of course I want to talk to Pahlavi, as he’s a person of relevance when it comes to transition in Iran.” Details of this meeting and participants beyond Laschet are not known.
Yet, for you this is all clear and you’ll happily interpret it as a sign of support. Not only by Laschet, but the whole of Germany. What’s there left to say to that?
If the meeting doesn’t mean anything why has the government not met him? Adding one layer of indirection doesn’t change much.
Because the government meeting Pahlavi is something else than Laschet meeting Pahlavi. One is our official government, where a meeting would undoubtedly convey some sort of support they apparently don’t want to display. The other is current chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee, where a meeting is much more normal and does not convey that gravitas. Isn’t that pretty obvious?