DPA

Donald Klein, a keen angler, photographed during a vacation in 2005.

Iranian officials have responded to German appeals for his release by linking the case to that of Kazem Darabi, who is serving a life sentence in Germany for the 1992 assassination of four Iranian-Kurdish opposition leaders in a Berlin restaurant. The court that convicted Darabi in 1997 said the orders for the killings came from the highest state levels in Tehran.

The tourist, Donald Klein, 53, from Lambsheim in southwestern Germany, was jailed for 18 months by an Iranian court for illegally crossing a border. The sculptor, a passionate angler, had been on vacation in Dubai in November 2005 and had hired a boat to catch swordfish and parrot fish in the Persian Gulf.

His French skipper steered the vessel into the Strait of Ormuz and close to the island of Abu Mussa, a restricted zone. They were arrested, interrogated and sentenced within weeks.

Klein's wife Karin has made numerous appeals for clemency to Iranian officials. When his mother died, she sent them a copy of the death certificate, hoping the mullahs would show compassion. There was no response.

DER SPIEGEL

Klein's fishing trip took him into Iranian territorial waters.

In her frustration Karin accused the German government of not doing enough to help him, but in truth it has been actively trying to secure his release. Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier wrote to his Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki, summoned Iran's Berlin ambassador to his ministry and asked former foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati, now an adviser to Iran's spiritual leader Ali Khameini, to mediate.

Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, his state secretary August Hanning and German members of parliament have been bringing up Klein's case whenever they have held talks with Iranian officials.

Appeal by German President

Shortly before Christmas 2006 President Horst Köhler sent a letter to Khameini asking for Klein's early release as a sign of mercy.

The Iranians, after months of silence, are now starting to link the name Klein with that of Darabi. After initial hints, Iranian officials mentioned Darabi quite openly in recent talks with German diplomats. The German government now knows that it could get Klein back immediately.

But would such an exchange be a justifiable act of government policy? Can an angler who cast his bait in the wrong place and faces only another four months in jail be swapped for a state terrorist who's serving a life sentence? After all, Darabi could be a valuable asset for German diplomats. They could dangle him to kick-start stalled talks about a prisoner exchange between Iranian-backed Hezbollah and Israel.

Besides, the German government doesn't want to set a precedent and be seen as vulnerable to blackmail. So it's decided to do all it can to help Klein while avoiding to link his fate with that of Darabi.

That's why the German Foreign Ministry sent Mützenich, a member of parliament for the center-left Social Democrats, to hold talks in Tehran. He's a board member of the German-Iranian society and spent three days in December discussing Klein's case with Iran's Science Minister and with fellow parliamentarians. "Anything other than an early release of Klein would put a burden on relations between Tehran and Berlin," he said.

The Germans don't know how to interpret the fact that Klein's living conditions in jail are now exceptionally good, and positively luxurious by Iranian standards. He can phone his wife as often as he likes.

Berlin is now hoping that Köhler's letter may prompt Tehran to release Klein for the February 11 anniversary of the Iranian revolution, a day on which the government has in the past granted amnesties.

But there's an alternative and sinister scenario too: That the Iranian government may decide to charge Klein with spying, an absurd accusation but one that would help the Iranians press for a Darabi deal. The possibility of such a charge is "hanging over the case like the sword of Damocles," say worried officials in Berlin.

Reporting by Jürgen Dahlkamp and Holger Stark

راجع به پرونده ی اقای دارابی اگه خبری دارین ممنون میشم.

Ben Behnke

Attorney Jens Lorek, a hobby astronomer, helps victims of attacks by aliens.

But now she has an explanation for her experience, thanks to Jens Lorek. The Dresden lawyer recently advertised his services in the mass-circulation Bild newspaper under the headline: "I'm Germany's first lawyer for alien victims." The hobby astronomer represents people who claim to have been harassed by extraterrestrials.

People like Ms J., for instance, who claims she was "plagued" by a green light. She also says that her tormentor "jabbed me in the shoulder." If this wasn't bad enough, there was also "a smell of coconuts and there were little white dots on my back."

This bizarre incident didn't require any legal action. It was an open-and-shut case for the disappointed Lorek. "Highly psychotic woman ... urgently needs medical attention ... nothing I can do," he wrote in his notes on their conversation.

Always clad in black, with a wide-brimmed hat, bat-like leather coat and cowboy boots, Lorek looks not unlike a being from another planet himself, at least compared to his lawyer peers.

The specialist for employment and social law decided to branch out because he wanted a change from covering benefit claims cases for the unemployed. Germany recently implemented reforms known as "Hartz IV" which dramatically reduced welfare benefits, reportedly increasing the suffering of the jobless.

So what does the lawyer propose to do with the crowd of clients who come to him with strange and curious tales of encounters with beings from outer space?

Unsurprisingly, Lorek has reached the same conclusion in each of the alien cases he has reviewed to date: "No trace of extraterrestrials."

Instead, he has been investigating whether supposed alien encounters can be attributed to mistreatment and traumatization at the hands of very real earthlings. This could allow him to sue for compensation from the state under a so-called "victim compensation law."

Nevertheless, a surprisingly large number of people regard attacks by aliens as perfectly conceivable. An American study found that almost 4 million US citizens think they have been abducted by aliens at some point. And a recently published poll by the Emnid research institute on behalf of Reader's Digest Germany found that 37 percent of Germans believe Earth has been visited by beings from other planets.

The victims often claim to have been subjected to "a variety of very painful examinations and experiments," he says. "Blood or tissue samples are taken, thin probes are shoved in various bodily orifices or through the skin, and sometimes implants are inserted."

He says the accounts may be explained as a "specific case of so-called false memory syndrome," in which people's memories are distorted through questionable medical treatments such as hypnosis.

Lorek used a similarly cold and rational approach to explain Ms P.'s alien molestation experience. He found out that on the day of her trauma, Dec. 24, 1949, the planets Venus and Jupiter were close together in the night sky. The young girl probably mistook them for glowing eyes, he thinks.

Combined with the possibility that a bird of prey was flying toward her, she probably had the illusion that she was being attacked by an alien. Case closed.

That wasn't enough to secure compensation from the state, though. In fact, Lorek's alien attorney service hasn't exactly proved lucrative so far. He hasn't earned a single cent from it yet.

Just hours after United States President George W. Bush presented his new strategy for Iraq to the American public, US forces raided the Iranian consulate in the northern Iraq city of Irbil and arrested five employees, according to a report by the Iranian news agency IRNA.

The soldiers raided the building in the wee hours of Thursday morning local time and confiscated computers and documents in addition to the detentions. The US military issued a statement indicating that it had arrested six people in the Irbil region, but did not specifically mention the consulate raid. But a Shiite official in Baghdad confirmed the raid to AP, though he requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the information.

"Around 5:00 a.m., after disarming the guards, they broke into the office without giving any explanation and arrested five employees," IRNA reported. Iran has sent a letter of protest to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry according to the report.

It is the second time in the past month that the United States has staged a raid on Iranian interests in Iraq. In December, the US military in Baghdad arrested a number of Iranians, including diplomats, accusing them of planning attacks against Iraqi forces.

In his speech on Wednesday evening in Washington, Bush announced he intends to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq in a last-ditch effort to improve the disastrous security situation in the country.

cgh/ap/reuters

کاش یکی دستور می داد ۴-۵ تا امریکایی گروگان بگیرن یا یکی از ناوهاشون را بزنند.

جدی میگم.

DPA

What next Mr. Bush?

Still, despite his admission that things in Iraq were not going well, and his effort to improve stability in Baghdad and Iraq, criticism has been widespread. On the one hand, there are those who think that Bush should be withdrawing troops from Iraq rather than sending more. On the other are those in favor of a troop increase who think that an extra 20,000 soldiers aren't nearly enough.

Marina Ottaway, the director of the Middle East program for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told SPIEGEL ONLINE that the military too is not convinced that Bush's troop increase will make much of a difference. "Everyone I have talked to says that from the military's point of view, 20,000 divided between Anbar and Baghdad is not really going to be sufficient to bring about stability by force."

Most German dailies on Friday devote their lead editorial to the Bush speech.

Center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung was scathing in its commentary, beginning with the claim: "This war was wrong from the very beginning." The paper writes further:

"The entire world now knows that it will take at least another two years before America will withdraw from its (second) lost war ... Bush wants to pass on the ignominy of defeat to his successor. This president even believes that a victory in Iraq may still be possible ... Bush hopes to be able to extinguish the fire in Iraq with American blood.

The center-right Franfurter Allgemeine Zeitung sees the Bush strategy as a means of preventing the outbreak of all-out civil war in Iraq.

"More American soldiers on Baghdad streets means more targets for insurgents and terrorists. But in light of the current state of Iraqi security forces, they will presumably also offer the only protection against them completely losing control."

"Although it is true that no sensible strategy can only be based on military means, it is also true that there can be no development without security, and that cannot be provided by the Iraqi army or police forces. Without the Americans a large part of the country would become the prey to opposing forces.

"But it remains Bush's mistake that the American troop numbers were not sufficient from the beginning. That he is only now making up for this, after all the victims, is only of small comfort."

The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung rips Bush on Friday:

"Those who had hoped the president's speech would reveal a change in strategy ... have been disappointed. Although a majority of the American public clearly indicated to George W. Bush and the Republicans that they wanted a change in Iraq policy, Bush has shown himself to be deaf.

"For the Europeans, it is extremely disconcerting that the president and commander-in-chief of the West's leading power shows himself to be so confident but at the same time so disconnected to reality and immune to advice. In his speech, Bush argues that the conflict in the Middle East is more than just a military one: 'It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time.'

"Even it this were true, this fight can never be won militarily. It requires convincing political and economic initiatives ... But (without such initiatives) they appear as the ugliest Americans of all time, who bring endless suffering instead of freedom, prosperity and democracy."

"No makeup, no promises, no magic spells -- nothing but cold, hard reality."

"Should Bush have left Iraq to Saddam Hussein? The tyrant possessed dangerous and criminal tendencies. He had the talent of hate and murder. He had the will to unhinge that part of the world which he controlled.

"The cycle of terrorism hasn't yet been broken. Whether you call it a mistake or a failure, Bush is trying to avert a tragedy. He swims against the current. His opponents rant and bluster, but they offer no alternative!"

The conservative Die Welt sees Bush's strategy as one of escalation:

"Bush's strategy is reminiscent of Nixon's invasion of Cambodia in 1970: spreading the fight while vowing withdrawal. The threat to Tehran and Syria should not be ignored, nor should the consequences of these words. Bush is increasing his troop numbers not against Iraqi bombers, but against their Iranian backers, and that opens up the way towards escalation.

"No one should be under any illusion about where the situation is beginning to head -- towards a massive final struggle for the Middle East, and for regime change in Damascus and Tehran, in order to safeguard regime change in Baghdad."

The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung berates President Bush for his "brazen" new strategy in a piece under the headline, "Bush Remains Stupid":

"Two years before the end of his term and in the comfortable knowledge that he doesn't have to face re-election, Bush announced more of the same, and thus ignored everything that experts, the opposition majority, and the US public want.

"One thing is clear: As long as Bush is president, there will be neither a change of strategy in Iraq nor a significant troop withdrawal ... Bush says that any US withdrawal would been a defeat in the war on terror and a danger for the US. So he cannot leave, regardless what the Iraqis do."

The Financial Times Deutschland describes the Bush's decision to send in more troops as the "least worst option."

"It's easy to outline the weaknesses of the plan: The violence in Iraq has already reached such a scale that it can't be quelled by a few thousand more US soldiers"

"The decisive factor will be whether the Iraqi forces are strong enough and motivated enough to take up the fight themselves against the radicals, so that a new dynamic in Iraqi domestic politics can occur. The time is long past that the Americans could have any significant affect on developments ... It is a tragedy of the new deployment that it is probably far too late and too ineffective."

"But the offensive plan is still better than the alternatives. The status quo in Baghdad can no longer be maintained. A US withdrawal would not only be an unprecedented triumph for the extremists, be it al-Qaida or Iran, who would feel vindicated. It would probably also lead to a bloodbath and political shockwaves in the entire region."

-- Charles Hawley and Siobhán Dowling, 12:45 p.m. CET

January 12, 2007

When it comes to its alleged nuclear weapons and what it intends to do with them, Israel likes to keep the world guessing. Hence it came as no surprise that Israel has denied a report that it is preparing for a nuclear strike on Iran's purported nuclear facilities -- a report which may serve Israel well as a means of psychological warfare, even if it makes the rest of the world's hair stand on end.

AP

A British newspaper reported Sunday that Israel has drafted plans to strike targets in Iran with low-yield nuclear weapons. In this July 2006 file photo, an Israeli F-16 warplane takes off for a mission from an air force base in southern Israel.

Two Israeli air force squadrons have been training to blow up an enrichment plant in Natanz using tactical nuclear weapons known as "bunker busters," the newspaper reported, citing Israeli military sources. Two other sites at Arak and Isfahan would be targeted with conventional weapons, it said.

According to the plan, a conventional laser-guided bomb will first be used to blow a shaft down through the layers of hardened concrete at the Natanz site. Nuclear warheads would then be fired into the plant, exploding deep underground in an attempt to reduce radioactive fallout.

The newspaper reported that Israeli pilots have recently been flying as far as Gibraltar to simulate the 2,000-mile (3,200 kilometer) round trip to Natanz. Three possible routes to Iran have been mapped out, including one over Turkey.

Germany's papers Monday expressed alarm at the report and called on the West to stand firm on Iran so that Israel would not feel pressured into taking matters into its own hands.

The business daily Handelsblatt writes:

"It's not easy to believe Israel's denials (that it is planning an attack), because top Israeli politicians and military officers regularly threaten Iran with violence. Deputy defense minister Ephraim Sneh said in November he did not want to rule out a military option against Iran as "a last resort." In October Prime Minister Ehud Olmert sent a similar warning to Tehran. (...)

"The Israeli public is being systematically prepared for a possible military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Hardly a day goes by without top politicians, generals, intelligence officers or security-political think tanks musing about military options. They evaluate possibilities and weigh up their consequences.

"They may argue over the details, but in one question there is a reckless consensus: that the Iranian regime can not be dissuaded from developing the bomb using diplomatic means alone."

The left-of-center daily Berliner Zeitung writes:

"Israeli politicians have not ruled out a pre-emptive strike against Iran in theory, and the fact that Israel has already bombed a foreign nuclear installation, in Iraq in 1981 -- albeit with conventional means -- speaks for the validity of the Sunday Times' report.

"On the other hand, the obvious question is whether the article was deliberately planted in the media. Officially Israel is following a policy of ambiguity as to the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons. Recently, however, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert included the country in the ranks of the nuclear powers. Before that, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates had classified Israel as a nuclear power. Is the new report a new attempt to threaten Tehran with the bomb, without doing so directly -- and also to test the reaction of the West?"

The conservative daily Die Welt writes:

"The headlines about Israel's alleged attack plans against Iran can be clearly seen as a weapon of psychological warfare. Israel profits from such news: It makes the Iranians aware of the consequences of their policies and puts the world under pressure to not simply accept Iran's nuclear program. (...)

"This in turn can not be in the interests of the Americans and the Europeans. For this reason, they should deter the Israeli government from acting by itself. This however means resolutely confronting Iran and, if necessary, acting against Tehran even without a United Nations mandate. In short: (The West) cannot allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons under any circumstances."

-- David Gordon Smith at 1:30 p.m. CET

REUTERS

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert: "Any compromise that will lead to Iran being unable to create nuclear weapons is a step in the right direction."

Olmert: I do not expect a change of American policy towards Israel. The right way to advance our relations with the Arabs is by means of bilateral negotiations. The Iraq issue is a domestic subject of the United States. However, we always felt that the removal of Saddam Hussein was a major contribution to stability of our part of the world.

SPIEGEL: One of the recommendations made by the Baker Commission is to offer Syria the Golan Heights in exchange for a constructive role in the Middle East. Is this in Israel's interest?

Olmert: The question of what we will give to the Syrians interests me less than the question of what they will offer us.

SPIEGEL: Washington is also thinking about direct talks with Iran and Syria. Do you support this new approach?

Olmert: In my view, Syria's subversive operations -- its support for Hamas or Hezbollah, for example -- do not give much hope for negotiations with Syria any time soon. I do not know what the American president will decide to do with the report. I can only say that, in our talks, he did not favor American-Syrian or Israeli-Syrian negotiations. I count on his judgment and responsibility.

SPIEGEL: And what do you think about direct talks with Iran?

Olmert: Any compromise that will lead to Iran being unable to create nuclear weapons is a step in the right direction. As long as the final result of talks with Iran is an end to their nuclear program, I am not against them.

SPIEGEL: But are you dissatisfied with the delays by the international community in taking action against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Olmert: I am not happy at all with the pace. I expect more dramatic steps to be taken. Here is a leader who openly says that his goal is to wipe Israel off the map. Israel is a member state of the United Nations. For someone in the year 2006 to be able to say that publicly is absolutely outrageous.

SPIEGEL: Do you rule out a military strike?

Olmert: I am talking about effective measures that will be accepted by the international community to stop the Iranian danger.

SPIEGEL: So you don't rule out a military strike.

Olmert: I don't rule out anything.

SPIEGEL: Your neighbor to the north, Lebanon, is on the verge of a new civil war. Are you concerned about the images of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's beleaguered office in Beirut?

Olmert: Of course I am not particularly happy with these pictures. It is important that democracy in Lebanon is protected and that Hezbollah will not be supported by outside forces like Syria and Iran. But I must weigh my words carefully, because if it appears that the Israelis are defending Siniora, it will not help him in Lebanon. I would have loved to meet with Siniora for peace negotiations. There isn't much that separates us. In one meeting we could agree on everything.

SPIEGEL: When Hezbollah kidnapped the two Israeli soldiers in July -- a declaration of war from the Israeli point of view -- you also publicly blamed the Siniora government. Do you regret today that you did not do more to stabilize him?

Olmert: There was nothing that could help Siniora more than the weakening of Hezbollah. The present turmoil in Lebanon is not the result of the strengthening of Hezbollah. Hezbollah suffered a major loss as a result of the war and is today fighting for its political survival. We tried a great deal to defeat the forces that are threatening Siniora.

SPIEGEL: But you did not defeat them. On July 18, six days after the start of the war you said: "Only the return of the abducted soldiers will stop the operation." The war stopped long ago but the two kidnapped soldiers are still being held. What went wrong?

AP

Olmert on the appropriate response to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's calls to wipe Israel off the map: "I don't rule out anything."

SPIEGEL: How optimistic are you that you can reach some sort of deal with Hezbollah to get the soldiers back?

Olmert: I am not happy with the reaction of Hezbollah. They are trying to use the same old techniques: They want everything in advance before they let us know the status of the soldiers.

SPIEGEL: What concessions are you ready to make in order to get the soldiers back?

Olmert: Reasonable concessions. This regards the release of prisoners, but I will not go into any details.

SPIEGEL: Brigadier General Doron Almog, who has been investigating the failures leading up to the kidnapping of the soldiers, says the Isreli army is experiencing a leadership crisis. Do you agree?

Olmert: This is an exaggeration. In Israel we tend to be carried away by our emotions. Yes, there were certain failures but I guarantee you that in every single military confrontation between our fighters and those of Hezbollah we always had the upper hand. I have ways of assessing what the Hezbollah leaders think: They know that they suffered terrible damage to their strategic power, which they have been trying to build over the last six years.

AP

A bombed-out building in Beirut on Aug. 13: "We always had the upper hand."

SPIEGEL: But what about the civilian victims. Are they attributable to the failures of Israel's army?

Olmert: What do you mean by "civilian victims"? How do you know that all of the victims were not members of Hezbollah?

SPIEGEL: There were women and children.

Olmert: I didn't say that there was not a single civilian killed. But I think the majority of them belonged to Hezbollah.

SPIEGEL: Hezbollah is trying to rearm itself. And the UNIFIL mission cannot prevent arms smuggling.

Olmert: This is what UNIFIL is supposed to do, according to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701. But if the UN soldiers don't exercise their authority in an appropriate manner, the outcome may be very bad.

SPIEGEL: Is the UNIFIL force -- which also includes German troops in their first post-World War II deployment to the Middle East -- useless?

Olmert: The problem is that the Syrian border is not guarded by the international force. It is supposed to be guarded by the Lebanese forces but we have good reason to doubt that the Lebanese are doing this.

SPIEGEL: Are the Israeli failures before and during the war the reason why your government is experiencing a loss of public support?

Olmert: Yes, the polls are certainly not very positive. The outcome of the war was not the one that Israelis would normally expect. But we have never had a war against a guerilla force. In the past we fought against regular armies and it was easier to present the victory so that people could identify with it.

SPIEGEL: Many Israelis feel that all attempts to solve the conflict with the Arabs have resulted in failure. The Israeli right ignored the conflict for a long time. The left believed in dialogue, but the Oslo Accords and Camp David talks ultimately failed. And the third way, a unilateral withdrawal which your predessessor Ariel Sharon started, is also leading nowhere.

Olmert: I have to correct you. The only ones who made significant peace treaties were the so-called right-wingers. We, I mean when I was in the right wing, ...

SPIEGEL: ... before you left the Likud and established the Kadima Party with Sharon ...

Olmert: ... did not ignore the conflict. We were just skeptical about the negotiating paths that were opened by the left. But I can best speak for myself: I went through a process of change. I am ready to move forward. We don't look for excuses. I am ready to meet with Mahmoud Abbas, the chairman of the Palestinian Authority, at any time, any place, without preconditions. I will not leave one stone unturned in my efforts to solve the conflict.

SPIEGEL: So far, you've been all nice talk in your speeches, like the one you gave two weeks ago at the grave of the first Israeli Prime Minister Ben-Gurion. In that speech you said that Israel is willing to withdraw from many territories in the West Bank. How many?

Olmert: The majority.

SPIEGEL: What's the majority? Fifty-one percent? Ninety percent?

Olmert: This is a very delicate question. A prime minister must not promise things that can't be fulfilled. But my message is clear: I am ready to pull out of territories, which means that I am ready to dismantle settlements. You know how difficult that is. And we are ready to do it in such a way that will allow the Palestinians in the West Bank to have a contiguous territory for a Palestinian State. So the degree of the Israeli concession has to be at least such that it will allow the Palestinians to establish a Palestinian State on contiguous territory. I do not create any conditions that were not set forth by the international community.

SPIEGEL: You said in your election campaign that you want to create a border which will be recognized by the international community. The only internationally recognized border is the one set in 1967.

Olmert: I don't know if the whole world takes that view. For instance, President Bush's letter of April 14, 2004 does not necessarily suggest that America accepts the 1967 (border) as the only possible solution.

SPIEGEL: But you need the Europeans.

Olmert: That's right. I am ready to engage in serious dialogue. There was a time when Europe was not considered as balanced enough in terms of its political attitudes to take on an active role in the Middle East. That has changed substantially. And that is also due to the influence of Chancellor Angela Merkel. She appears to me to be one of the most serious, thoughtful and responsible leaders that Europe has had in years.

SPIEGEL: How does she differ from her predecessor Gerhard Schröder when it comes to the Middle East?

Olmert: I only met Schröder once when he was still premier of the state of Lower Saxony. At that time he was friendlier than when he was chancellor. But Chancellor Merkel is fantastic. She is certainly more open to hearing Israel's arguments. Therefore, I think it is premature to reach the conclusion that Europe would necessarily be united on the demand for the 1967 line.

SPIEGEL: Your education minister has ordered that the 1967 border be placed in all school textbooks.

Olmert: Mentioning the '67 borders as part of a broader historical context is legitimate, but it is the policy of my government that we should not return to the '67 line.

SPIEGEL: But what's the problem with the '67 borders?

Olmert: They are indefensible. And also that in the meantime, facts were created ...

SPIEGEL: ... created by Israel: the settlements.

Olmert: Of course by Israel. But also by the refusal of the Palestinians to accept the principles of human decency that could allow negotiations to take place 25 years ago. The fact is that even today the majority of the Palestinians are still totally dedicated to policies that are not acceptable to the international community.

AFP

An Iranian missile test

SPIEGEL: But the settlements are also not acceptable to the international community. Take, for example, the 130 settlement outposts that, even according to Israeli law, are illegal. In your government coalition agreement you actually announced that you would dismantle the outposts, but so far you haven't removed a single one.

Olmert: There was the outpost of Amona.

SPIEGEL: Not the whole outpost, only seven houses belonging to it. And that was before you signed the coalition agreement.

Olmert: It was an event of national proportions.

SPIEGEL: But since then nothing has happened.

Olmert: It will happen.

SPIEGEL: When?

Olmert: It will take time. You have to prepare the homefront for this. Since we pulled out from Gaza, there has not been one day without Qassam rockets falling on the heads of our people. There was the war in Lebanon. A prime minister has to keep a certain balance when dealing with sensitive issues. I currently don't have enough political energy to also enter into a major confrontation over the outposts.

SPIEGEL: Instead of dismantling outposts, you invited a promiment right-winger like Avigdor Lieberman to join your coalition. Both the Israeli public and the international community found that a little confusing -- to say the least.

Olmert: I have no doubt that the international community is intelligent enough to understand the wisdom of this move.

SPIEGEL: We do have some doubts.

Olmert: I haven't changed my policies. I needed a broader basis for the government, and if Lieberman helps build this broader base why should I be against his entry into the government? Is Angela Merkel entirely happy to have a coalition with the Social Democrats? This is politics.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Prime Minister, we thank you very

 much for this interview.

Interview conducted by the SPIEGEL editors Martin Doerry, Christian Neef and Christoph Schult

.December 11, 2006

Angela Merkel's visit to Washington this week was all business: The German chancellor flew, talked, ate and then flew again. It was a working trip with a simple message: Hello America, life goes on and we're ready to work with you again.

AFP

Hello America, Let's work together.

Merkel traveled to Washington at Bush's invitation. It's not the complexities of EU policies that interest him, but rather Merkel's considerable influence across Europe. With Merkel at its helm, Germany has once again resumed its special role as being both pro-European and pro-American -- and that's something that Bush has come to appreciate during her first year in office. Merkel is one of the few European leaders who isn't the target of the prejudices many Americans harbor about the EU. Indeed, she actually has power to prove those skeptics wrong.

But how? Merkel has proposed closer trans-Atlantic economic cooperation. It's a reasonable idea precisely because it's so unreasonably visionary -- a rarity in European-American relations these days. The idea is to apply some of the core principles behind the EU -- namely reconciliation through trade -- to the US-EU partnership.

Of course, implementation will be a far more painstaking process than drafting the proposal -- and trans-Atlantic observers are far more skeptical than Merkel and Bush appeared on Thursday. The recent failure to forge a trans-Atlantic "open skies" treaty -- aimed at liberalizing international aviation markets -- underscores just how difficult cooperation can be in certain sectors. It could also take years before the two sides are able to consider the appropriate institutions to facilitate deeper trade ties. Still, even a slight increase in bilateral trade and closer trans-Atlantic coordination in the stalled Doha Round of WTO talks would be progress.

Mideast peace push

Even more pressing (and a greater threat to Germany's EU agenda in the coming six months) are the world's conflict regions. The suitcase of issues Merkel took to Washington was packed so full that some feared she might collapse under the strain before she even got there. It was bulging with new initiatives for the Middle East, Iran, adopting renewable energies and working to counteract dangerous climate change. In all of these areas, true progress is only possible with US participation -- and if the Americans refuse, Merkel risks standing alone.

Given how little Merkel has to offer the Americans, this is a daring act. She could offer to slightly step up Germany's efforts to train Iraqi police, boost the Bundeswehr's engagement in Afghanistan and Berlin's mediation efforts in Syria and the Middle East. But Bush's encouraging reaction to her Mideast proposal (he called it a "good idea!") and the announcement of Condoleezza Rice's plan to travel to the region shows that America is currently in a state of collective reflection. All of its strategies are under review and sentiment is even growing that the problem can only be fixed by working in concert with the Europeans.

Indeed, there was nothing coincidental about the fact that Brent Scowcroft, national security advisor under the first President Bush, published an editorial on the day of Merkel's visit echoing Europe's calls for greater US engagement in the Middle East peace process and talks with "rogue states" like Syria. Rather than obsessing over the same old debates about whether the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is the central conflict and whether the military option is "off the table" or still on it for Iran -- it's time to push for new initiatives.

But maneuvering with a president who is nearing the end of his career and whose successors will do everything they can to distance themselves from him, will be difficult. Indeed, during her next visit to the US, Merkel will have to carefully consider which presidential candidates she chooses to meet with. Nevertheless, two years is too long to wait -- and it was prudent of the chancellor to also include on her agenda issues like energy and climate protection that transcend partisan politics. These issues could actually present the greatest opportunities for trans-Atlantic cooperation.

Together, these developments have forced a slight change in Bush -- at least in his rhetoric. Bush said during his press conference on Thursday that the "stale debates" over climate change were behind him. Still, even if he does plan to comprehensively address the issues of energy and climate in his "State of the Union Address" at the end of the month, there is little chance one will hear the words "save energy" muttered by members of the current administration.

But perhaps his successor might dare to create an energy policy that would slowly put an end to a wasteful "American way of life" that sees gas-guzzling SUVs plying the streets and too little effort when it comes to improving energy efficiency. The crucial step now is to advance the discussion over emissions reduction targets for the period after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. And even if this is the only vision that remains at the upcoming EU-US summit in April, one word from Merkel's vocabulary from her former post as Germany's environment minister will still apply to her policies: sustainability.

Gregor Peter Schmitz heads the trans-Atlantic office of the Bertelsmann Foundation in Brussels.

January 05, 2007