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.
Pahlavi is a relevant figure of the Iranian opposition, whether you and I like that or not. Whether he meets Laschet or not. Especially for Iranians in exile, he’s the most prominent figure for an alternative to the current Mullah regime. And of course, regime change is possible - and desired by Iranians. Don’t forget that the regime had to kill more than ten thousand people on the streets who were protesting against them only three months ago and that after the news emerged that Khamenei is dead, people in Iran filled the streets to celebrate.
I have no problem. To me the reception of Pahlavi just means that we support him and do our part to maintain the momentum of the revolution. The revolution doesn’t seem to be very successful right now so that any assurance helps to keep the people motivated.
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.
Pahlavi is a relevant figure of the Iranian opposition, whether you and I like that or not. Whether he meets Laschet or not. Especially for Iranians in exile, he’s the most prominent figure for an alternative to the current Mullah regime. And of course, regime change is possible - and desired by Iranians. Don’t forget that the regime had to kill more than ten thousand people on the streets who were protesting against them only three months ago and that after the news emerged that Khamenei is dead, people in Iran filled the streets to celebrate.
So, what exactly is your problem here?
I have no problem. To me the reception of Pahlavi just means that we support him and do our part to maintain the momentum of the revolution. The revolution doesn’t seem to be very successful right now so that any assurance helps to keep the people motivated.
That can be your opinion. But you shouldn’t rule out other interpretations.
Everything is possible. As you mentioned, Laschet could just have voiced concerns, we don’t know.