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?
If there is need for talks, why not a nameless Parliamentary State Secretary who meets a nameless member of the Iranian opposition?
The support consists in legitimizing Pahlavi. Meeting the current chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee has less gravitas than being received with full military honors but there is still gravitas. It not fully confirms but suggests that he inherited the leadership and that the reign of his father was legit. It also signals that regime change is possible. If we would oppose the war we wouldn’t do that.
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?
If there is need for talks, why not a nameless Parliamentary State Secretary who meets a nameless member of the Iranian opposition?
The support consists in legitimizing Pahlavi. Meeting the current chair of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee has less gravitas than being received with full military honors but there is still gravitas. It not fully confirms but suggests that he inherited the leadership and that the reign of his father was legit. It also signals that regime change is possible. If we would oppose the war we wouldn’t do that.