Mick Hartley

Matthias Küntzel is a German author whose works include Jihad and Jew-hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11 and, in 2014, Germany and Iran, which looked at the historic influence Germany has had on Iran, notably on modern Iranian antisemitism. In 2015 I posted a section of an interview Küntzel did with Karmel Melamed at the Jewish Journal:

In defending the nuclear deal with Tehran, President Barak Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry gave the impression that they view the regime’s anti-Semitism as an incidental problem; to take it seriously would be a waste of time. Others believe that Iranian anti-Semitism is merely a response to Israel's policies. I show in my book, that both assumptions are wrong. On the one hand, there was in the Shiite tradition always a strong anti-Jewish tendency. And there is, on other hand, still the after-effect of Nazi propaganda: Between 1939 and 1945 the Nazi’s anti-Semitism was exported via a daily Persian-language broadcast from Berlin to Iran. This broadcast was popular and its main radio speaker, Bahram Sharokh, a celebrity during those years. The Nazis based their anti-Semitic incitement in Persian language on Islamic roots. They radicalized some anti-Jewish verses of the Koran and combined them with the European phantasm of a Jewish world conspiracy. Ruhollah Khomeini was, according to Amir Taheri, a regular and ardent listener of “Radio Berlin”. His claim of 1971 that “the Jews want to create a Jewish world state” mirrored a classical trope of Nazi anti-Semitism.

Now Küntzel has an article in Tablet – Germany Can’t Stop Loving Iran – where he shows how Berlin still like to see itself as having a special relationship with Tehran, and how Trump has now, most uncharitably, rained on their parade:

German politicians were outraged by Trump’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in May 2018. Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke of a “split between the United States and the Europeans on Iran.” Most German media fumed with anger fueled by wounded pride.

The P5+1 negotiations over the nuclear deal had marked an elevation of Germany’s international status: For the first time, Germany was able to shape global policy together with the five veto powers of the United Nations. Indeed, Germany wielded considerable influence in the talks since it was represented twice: through both its national representative, and through the EU’s lead negotiator, Helga Schmid. Schmid—a former office manager for former Foreign Minister Fischer who has good relations with Chancellor Merkel—established herself as an authoritative figure in the talks with the Iranian side. What could possibly go wrong?

Second, for Berlin, the JCPOA served as a model for how much more could be achieved through patient diplomacy than by Iraq-style U.S. military operations. It was regarded as the prototype of a European foreign policy conducted on totally different lines than those of the United States.

On Jan. 15, 2020, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas explained how he sees this difference in the Bundestag: “We rely on reasonable diplomacy instead of maximum pressure” like the United States does. Maas forgot to add that Germany has no other choice. Germany is an economic superpower but a military dwarf. As soon as there is a threat of military action, Germany is no longer relevant. Maas, however, presents this shortcoming as a moral triumph: The Iran nuclear deal is held up as the best example of the correctness of the German insistence that changes can only be achieved through dialogue. Little thought, however, is given to what exactly 40 years of “dialogue with Tehran” have actually achieved.

In reality, framing “diplomacy” and “pressure” as opposites is spurious. It is an example of the “very real danger that distaste for Donald Trump is blinding European leaders to the realpolitik of the situation,” according to David Ibsen, the president of United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI).

Donald Trump, as both a person and a politician, has opened the floodgates of German resentment against the United States. His withdrawal from the nuclear deal caused this resentment—which is based on a mixture of legitimate critique of Trump, unfounded anti-Americanism, and great-power fantasies—to boil over: A rabid president, went the message, had torn a masterpiece of European diplomacy to shreds. […]

Instead of clinging to the failed JCPOA, whose provisions will soon expire anyway, Germany should use the end of this deal as an opportunity to fundamentally change its policy on Iran. Its current relationship is not based on a rational consideration of interests, but on nostalgia, illusion, and disregard for Israel’s survival interests. It is time to finally support those who are rising up against the Iranian terrorist regime instead of the butchers in the regime. It is necessary to use severe sanctions to force the regime to abandon its nuclear weapons ambition, so as to avoid the alternative of war. Finally, the need for the country that was responsible for the Holocaust yesterday to stop courting the country that denies the Holocaust today is long overdue.

As a postscript, it's perhaps worth noting that Küntzel has had his share of controversy:

On 14 March 2007 Küntzel was due to address University of Leeds in England on the topic ‘Hitler’s Legacy: Islamic Antisemitism in the Middle East.’ The university's student Islamic society complained about what they called the lecture's "provocative" title and the University removed the words "Hitler" and "Islamic" with the title amended to read: "The Nazi Legacy: The Export of Anti-Semitism to the Middle East." However, several hours before the talk was due to take place, the talk was unexpectedly cancelled due to "security concerns," following protest e-mails from some of the university's Muslim students claiming the lecture was an "open racist attack".