Current Concerns
P.O. box 223
CH-8044 Zurich
+41-44-350 65 50

April 20, 2014
The monthly journal for independent thought, ethical standards and moral responsibility The international journal for independent thought, ethical standards, moral responsibility,
and for the promotion and respect of public international law, human rights and humanitarian law
Current Concerns  >  2012  >  No 7, 25 February 2012  >  Iran war: An open letter to the German Federal Government, 24 January 2012 [printversion]

Iran war: An open letter to the German Federal Government, 24 January 2012

by Christoph R. Hörstel, Germany

Dear Ms Chancellor,
Dear Mr Foreign Minister,

We are now in a situation1,2 in which the world is only a step away from a great open and symmetrical war, a war that NATO has been waging in a covered and asymmetrical way under United States pressure for more than ten years.

As representatives of our government you are guiding our country straight into the current, completely unnecessarily aggressive position, despite the many thousands of warnings from home and abroad, not least of our Russian neighbors,3 whose legitimate security interests we are permanently violating within the NATO alliance, anyway.

Deeply worried, the world watches two highly provocative steps of Western leading powers that would entitle Iran – if law still applied on our planet being misguided by the US-ally – to shoot immediately at the US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf and the French and British escorts. Allow me to say that I neither approve of nor forget about the manifold human rights violations, the perversion of justice and the corruption in Iran. However, it was our American ally whose Attorney General justified torture during the Bush era, who founded the torture camp at Guantanamo and is still running it, and who has directly or indirectly contributed to the deaths of some three million Muslims in the last 20 years.4 Fortunately, Iran has a centuries-old tradition of peace, which Germany, the United States and the NATO in total can only dream of. Let me explain this as follows:

The European Union – on Monday morning decisively announced by you, Mr Westerwelle – decided on harsh sanctions against Iran; these sanctions must hit the people in this cultivated as well as originally pro-German country harder than our previously ill-advised policy. Such sanctions intended to keep a country from maintaining orderly international trading relationships the result of which will fundamentally affect its economic, political, and social functioning. These sanctions are only comparable with the aggressive US naval blockade of the regionally highly aggressive and oppressive Japan, which forced the import-dependent country to counterattack with the Japanese Air Force at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941. The war ended with the well-known American terrorist crime of dropping two atomic bombs on the big cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now the US once again put a country in this situation where its last resort is to make use of those weapons that have already been used by other NATO countries. This time, the country is Iran. US politics make an extended war ever harder to avoid. And Germany is always on hand, as if there were no yesterday and no tomorrow.

Today huge 15-ton uranium bombs are stored on the US naval base of Diego Garcia, specifically for use against Iran.5 Israel was given hundreds of heavy uranium bombs, especially for the planned attack against Iran. These arms cause injuries due to their non-specific broad impact, which must necessarily hurt the civilian population, violate international law and should have been banned long ago. Acting unlawfully, Germany has not done anything to help bring about such a ban. Mr Westerwelle, when our country’s best experts approached your ministry to explain the devastating effects of these genocidal weapons and urged you to take political action against our most important allies’ continued use of these weapons, your officials coldly dismissed them. Germany, that meritoriously does not make use of uranium weapons itself, becomes an accessory to the corresponding crimes, because it is allied and cooperates with countries that are actively doing so.

Getting back to the sanctions against Iran we must state that Europe and the USA base these sanctions on alleged Iranian misconduct in the pursuit of both their legitimate and rightful nuclear program.6 Yes, it is true in the early years Iran did not disclose its activities correctly. However, the US, Germany and other Western countries have been working hard for decades to sell all the necessary equipment and parts directly both to Iran’s main supplier Pakistan and Iran itself. They also saved buyers in both countries from persecution by Western officials and security forces and literally “accompanied” the nuclear programs of both countries. In the US, even a CIA witness willing to give information on these operations has been severely harassed and his career and private life has been ruined. It might be true that the supply policy of the United States was partly sabotaged. These documented and witnessed facts are only exceeded by the unprecedented corruption of Western, especially American, policy with respect to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. Not enough that the former IAEA director Mohammed El-Baradei came under strong pressure to distort objective evidence of his authority to fit into the aggressive US subjection policy against Iran. It culminated in illegal eavesdropping operations on the agency which have to be seen in the context of continuous US eavesdropping attacks against the UN. Not enough that our US ally heavily interfered in the decision for a second term of office for El-Baradei, violating all rules of decency. Now a willing IAEA Director is in office, who behaves almost complacently toward the USA and who severely damages both office and agency with this attitude.7 It would also have been Germany’s duty to repel these dangerous intrigues and to prevent that the Western community continues to lose its reputation which has anyway been tarnished worldwide by numerous aggressive violations of laws.

The latest IAEA report on Iran is full of false allegations, old stories the contents of which have been checked on site and which have long since been refuted;

the report is also based on false and fraudulent intelligence sources, draws the wrong conclusions, illegally lists names of alleged nuclear scientists, who are only partially working on Iran’s nuclear program. However in the face of the ongoing US-Israeli assassination program it threatens all their lives as well as that of the people in their immediate surroundings, including family members and other uninvolved innocent ones. All this happens despite what many courageous experts on the Iranian nuclear program, such as El-Baradei, and the US Atomic Energy Commission expert Clinton Bastin and many others clearly state, namely that Iran is neither working on nuclear weapons nor will it be able to produce corresponding weapons in the long run.

These activities and countless other assassinations, bombings and other secret operations by armed forces, up to the incitement of the population, including particularly riotous ethnic groups, and an artificially fed up opposition beyond its independent state rallying against the government in Tehran would hardly be conceivable without the US aircraft carrier off the Iranian coast. Consequently, it would mean nothing else but using its right to self-defense if Iran attacked a force that has been increasingly involved in aggressive, hostile activities against the territory and people of Iran over the years.

The second major challenge by NATO is that – contrary to the open and fair warning of Iran – two US aircraft carriers accompanied by French and British fleet have entered the Persian Gulf in the last few hours. A third carrier is kept within striking distance to Iran. Three aircraft carrier groups are enough to attack Iran, just like Iraq that was attacked illegally by military forces of this size in 2003.

Like thousands of other Germans I have sent both you and the parliament direct warnings and requests that in case of war, i.e. in case of any future US aggression Germany will automatically become a war partner violating international law making military use of US American air force bases on German soil. Germany is thus taken hostage. I reproach you both, Mrs Chancellor and Mr Foreign Minister, of not saving our country from this damage and all possible further damage in violation8 of our Basic Law (art. 26.1) although you once swore to do so in your oath of office. Mrs Merkel, at this point please allow the question, if you did not lift your hand prudently for your oath of office on these reasons and causes last 28th October 2009?9 If this were the case, all damaging breaches of law since your policy stood automatically on suspicion of intentional action.

The world stands on the eve of war, which may even extend to a world war, if other nations behave only half as aggressively as your policy and the NATO’s policy towards the relatively peaceful Iranian people has been for days, weeks, months, years and decades.

As you both have successfully completed your personal careers within this political landscape – is there anything that can move your hearts? Perhaps the statement of former Defense Undersecretary Willy Wimmer, Christian Democratic Union, a longtime member of the Foreign Committee of the Bundestag, who spoke on the Iranian radio10 of a trail of blood that the Western community of values had left in international politics since 1998? Is it the events of World War II, with 56 million deaths that obviously are so far away that no one seems to expect a repeat, although it is looming on the horizon these days? Is it not perverse that Germany would then be part of the third world war that it is responsible for, this time drifting in with the rights of a voluntary aid and a leader pursuing a policy of cowardice, weakness and corruption? I ask you: Are you just contributing to make Adolf Hitler’s aggressive wars look like predecessors of the criminal NATO policy?

Mrs Chancellor Merkel, in defiance of our Basic Law you have declared the security of the increasingly aggressive state of Israel a German reason of state. Do you think the current course of war could bring you closer to your goal – or make the region safer?

Do you think that the current German complicity with the US is good for the friendship between our peoples – and is actually not harmful to the ally, because he hopelessly goes politically astray? Apart from the people in both countries, who increasingly see their political leaders in a critical light, who do not know how to handle this ugly mixture of broken election promises, broken laws and corrupt politics and who do not know how to counteract this explosive mixture?

Have you considered how future school children around the world will judge your current decisions?

Can you deny that the world is sleepwalking into this explosive situation and an ensuing war because NATO’s leading power US as well as the European Union face an imminent crash due to greedy, stupid, and not least corrupt economic, fiscal and monetary policy? Do you think the people are so stupid not to notice this last dirty trick of your policy? Or do you think you can dig yourself in the government quarters in Berlin since there are direct energy weapons11, which can make protesters in front of the chancellor’s office fall down on the ground where they will be screaming in pain and the weapons leave no traces?

Normally a letter ends with polite greetings. My problem is that I do not know how to separate my respect for your office from my horror in view of the latest developments, my heartfelt rejection of your policy and my great concern for peace and for the future of us all. I beg your pardon: it is neither rudeness nor intention, but I am simply lacking the appropriate words.     •

www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,810695,00.html
www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,810732,00.html
www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,810732,00.html
4 Christoph R. Hörstel, Sprengsatz Afghanistan, München 2007, p. 167f
www.heraldscotland.com/news/world-news/final-destination-iran-1.1013151
http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/geostrategie/john-lanta/iaea-mit-unlauteren-trick-gege-den-iran.html
www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2010/nov/30/iaea-wikileaks
http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/geostrategie/john-lanta/auslaendische-kriminalitaet-friedensaufruf-stoert-die taeter.html  
http://www.rp-online.de/politik/deutschland/die-hand-beim-eid-blieb-unten-1.2297636
10 www.german.irib.ir/analysen/interviews/item/200391-interview-mit-willy-wimmer
11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System
(Translation Current Concerns)

Facts about the Strait of Hormuz

When learning about a possible escalation in the dispute about Iran’s nuclear facilities, the possibility of blocking the Strait of Hormuz by the Iranian Navy is also often discussed. That is reason enough to sharpen our view of this strait, particularly because most shares of the oil supplies intended for China, India and Japan are transported through it. Not least because of that the states mentioned before have been reluctant to participate in the boycott measures imposed against Iran …

Indeed, Iran’s Navy has much more capacities of influence in the Strait of Hormuz than most of the (superficially) observers are aware of. Actually, the entire shipping there is coordinated by them and by marine units of the Sultanate of Oman. The current procedures provide that all ships intending to enter the Persian Gulf, must necessarily pass through Iranian waters and ships going the opposite direction (from west to east) through Oman’s territorial waters.

So far, Iran has permitted this passage in good faith (and in accordance with the regulations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, section III) to all ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, provided that it is was “on a rapid and uninterrupted voyage between a seaport and the open sea”. In the UN Convention, this is provided for the Strait of Hormuz and other straits. But Tehran would – in legal terms – not be abliged to comply with the Convention because – by the way just as the United States – it signed the agreement but never ratified it. That might take its toll now: In a military conflict, Iran would be authorized – according to current international maritime law – to block its territorial waters which are somewhere in the Strait of Hormuz for any international shipping, without violating any international agreement!

In this case, the shipping would have to squeeze through Oman’s territorial waters in both directions, and in this case most nautical officers feer and expect disturbances. Besides, also the U.S. Navy would be affected, which currently has at least one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five major amphibious vessels cruising in the Persian Gulf. A “breakout” through the Strait of Hormuz seems hardly feasible due to its very cramped conditions if Iran does not comply. At its narrowest point, the passage is only about 12,427 nautical miles wide, and Iran has hundreds of small torpedo boats, each of them is capable to fire up to twelve missiles. Furthermore, there are well-trained frogmen (sea fighters) and other war material, which in case of emergency could become dangerous evenfor the best-protected ships just because of their physical proximity.

In a secret study the U.S. Navy is expecting – in case of an open confrontation in the Strait of Hormuz - the possible total loss of the entire naval unit and the death of up to 20,000 American soldiers! Not least because of these facts most of the Emirates are working with all their might on the construction of a pipeline to reduce the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz.

Source: Vertrauliche Mitteilungen (Confidential communications), Nr. 3964, 31.1.2012