Chatting with Markus Lanz on Israel's Actions Against Iran: Clarifying the Controversy
"This tale does not originate from Persian-Iranian mythology"
By Marko Schlichting**More Info****Facebook****Twitter****Whatsapp****Email****Print****Copy Link***
The Israeli attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities have left Tehran reeling. Although Iran's nuclear program appears intact, key figures have been assassinated and ordinary Iranians are fearful of an escalation of violence. Azadeh Zamirirad, an Iran expert, discussed the situation on Tuesday's Markus Lanz show, with guests debating the war and trying to understand Israel's motives.
Politics Weber on Iran Conflict: "Israel Performing Dirty Work, USA Provides Threat" Daniel Gerlach, editor-in-chief of the Middle East magazine "Zenith," believes that the Israeli leadership is trying to align US and Israeli interests: "The Israelis are setting things up so the Americans can intervene militarily in Israel's favor, saving face." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is counting on the US leadership's divisions and aims to have President Trump sell any military action as his strategy.
But why did Israel launch its attacks now? Lanz questions this decision, and many spectators are skeptical that Israel's aim was inevitable at this moment. Gerlach himself does not say it, but Philipp Peyman Engel, editor-in-chief of the "Jewish General," will later challenge him for this. The show centers around the heated debate between these two journalists.
Politics Israel: Video Shows Destruction of Iranian Fighter Jets Engel, whose Jewish mother escaped Iran for Germany in 1967, backs Israel. He claims that the Israeli government has closely monitored the Iranian nuclear program for many years. Prior Israeli governments hesitated to take military action because the risk was high, but Engel argues that it was now unavoidable.
Engel insists that we must judge Iran not just by its words but by its actions. The Iranian regime is a threat to global peace, and it has been responsible for the massacre of October 7, 2023, and the mass arming of Hezbollah in Lebanon, which led to the displacement of 80,000 internal refugees in northern Israel. "This was an attempted ethnic cleansing, and it was successful for more than ten months."
Politics Trump Demands "Surrender" Why a Military Operation by the USA Would Be So Risky The actions taken by Israel, in Engel's view, were inevitable: "There must not be an Iran with nuclear capabilities. It is a catastrophic risk for Israel, Israel’s potential destruction, and a threat to the West and the USA." Netanyahu has stated that he doesn't want to target civilian targets. "There are no civilian casualties, unlike in Israel." Lanz expresses disbelief at this statement, and Engel cites information from both Israeli and Iranian sources to support it. However, Lanz points out that these reports could be propaganda, and Engel admits a mistake in his citation. Over 200 people have been killed in Iran so far, while Israel reports 24 deaths.
Why Now?
Many question whether the Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear program was truly inevitable. For example, Azadeh Zamirirad of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. She cites evidence that Iran would not be capable of building a nuclear bomb for at least a year, and that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) does not believe there is currently any evidence of a structured, weapon-relevant program in Iran.
Zamirirad believes that Iran must be deterred from building nuclear weapons to prevent disastrous consequences for Israel and the greater Middle East region. Military action may be justified under specific circumstances, she suggests, but only if it is carried out under the UN Charter, is legally justified, exhausts other possible options, and takes place at a critical juncture when Israel can provide compelling evidence of Iran's proximity to a nuclear bomb. This was not the case in Israel's most recent attacks.
CDU foreign policy expert Norbert Röttgen shares Zamirirad's concerns about the potential for an Iranian nuclear weapon. He believes that Iran seeks nuclear capabilities because they offer immense power. If Iran were to possess nuclear weapons, the security landscape for Israel would change drastically. Currently, there are two options: negotiations and the military solution chosen by Israel. "The military option is risky, but if we propose negotiations, we give Iran more time. The regime has a history of stalling."
**Enrichment Data:**
Israel's recent attacks on Iran's nuclear program aim primarily to degrade and delay Iran's nuclear development capabilities, which Israel's leaders view as an existential threat. This involves striking key nuclear facilities, elite military units, and oil and gas infrastructure. The attacks' broader objective may also include regime weakening or destabilization. The actions are based on existential threat perceptions, and regional consequences include escalated military action, destabilized security dynamics, potential disruptions in global energy markets, and tensions among international actors. While Israeli experts claim the operations are successful if they delay Iran’s nuclear program, there remains uncertainty over their long-term effectiveness and escalation risks in the Middle East.
- The commission, given the recent escalation of war-and-conflicts in the Middle East, has also been asked to submit a proposal for a regulation on the protection of the environment, considering the potential environmental damage that may be caused by any further military actions or actions taken to protect national security.
- Despite the ongoing political events, such as Israel's attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities, the general news continues to cover a broad range of topics, including economic updates, social issues, and cultural events, providing a comprehensive understanding of the current global affairs.
