MEDIA REACTION: IRAN, GEORGIA-RUSSIA, AFGHANISTAN;BERLIN

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 BERLIN 001228 STATE FOR INR/R/MR, EUR/PAPD, EUR/PPA, EUR/CE, INR/EUC, INR/P, SECDEF FOR USDP/ISA/DSAA, DIA FOR DC-4A VIENNA FOR CSBM, CSCE, PAA "PERISHABLE INFORMATION -- DO NOT SERVICE" SIPDIS E.0. 12958: N/A TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO IR GG RS AF SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: IRAN, GEORGIA-RUSSIA, AFGHANISTAN;BERLIN ¶1. Lead Stories Summary ¶2. (Iran) Resumption of Talks ¶3. (Georgia-Russia) EU Report ¶4. (Afghanistan) Future Strategy ¶1. Lead Stories Summary Primetime newscasts opened with stories on the natural catastrophes in Samoa and Indonesia. Several papers showed front-page photos of the disasters. Broadcast and online media focused this morning on an additional earthquake in Sumatra. Most papers led with stories on the aftermath of the Bundestag elections. Editorials focused on the situation of the SPD and the surprisingly strong job market. ¶2. (Iran) Resumption of Talks Under the headline "Ahmadinejad's show," Frankfurter Allgemeine (10/01) editorialized: "The outrage Ahmadinejad is showing because his country has again been caught cheating with its nuclear program gives rise to speculation. Is Iran simply trying to improve its situation prior to the today's negotiations by appearing particularly tough? Even Medvedev indicated that Moscow is considering tougher sanctions. If this is the case, the noise from Tehran would be a good sign because it is only supposed to conceal diplomatic shortcomings. Or is this Ahmadinejad's negotiating strategy? Tehran wants to be diplomatically aggressive instead of being forced onto the defensive. One thing is clear: the willingness of Iranians to seriously talk about their program depends on whether they will really face tough sanctions if they reject negotiations. If Beijing and Moscow do not join in, the West must go forward." Under the headline "They are spitting on Obama's hand," Die Zeit (10/01) highlighted that "Iran's leadership is challenging the American president." The weekly adds: "Obama wants a peaceful solution to the nuclear conflict because he knows about the devastating consequences of a military strike, including an Israeli one. However, he must not allow others to make a fool out of him. His government is therefore now preparing tougher sanctions against Iran. To do this, he needs the Russians, and President Medvedev has at least suggested that sanctions are indispensible. There is hardly anything else that would hit Iran harder than stopping fuel deliveries." Sddeutsche (10/01) editorialized: "Prior to the talks in Geneva, western diplomats have reduced their expectations. The hurdle Iran has to take is very low. Tehran's envoys simply have to generally talk about the nuclear program, it was said.... The reason for the reservation is obvious: the West does not have good options in the BERLIN 00001228 002 OF 004 nuclear dispute with Iran. It is now about attaining what is possible and not losing sight of the goal: Iran must not get hold of nuclear weapons. Russia and China are unlikely to support tough sanctions. If you want to stick to the unity of the world powers, which was always seen as a condition for influencing Iran, you have to expect this. After 30 years of embargo, the U.S. alone can no longer impress Iran.... However, if Iran does not move at all, sanctions are the remaining alternative." Under the headline "The military option is getting closer," Tageszeitung (10/01) opined: "Today's talks on Iran in Geneva are doomed to fail. A precondition for success would be the willingness of at least one side to reach a compromise on the conflict over Iran's nuclear program. Barack Obama's gestures of dtente in the beginning of his presidency raised hope that a political solution could be found, particularly because the President did not repeat the demand for a complete stop of uranium enrichment activities. However, this was not enough to help moderate forces in Tehran who favor a compromise to succeed. Also because the Iranian president believed he would have more chances to be re-elected if he pursued a tough stance...." ¶3. (Georgia-Russia) EU Report All major papers carried reports on the EU report on the outbreak of the conflict between Georgia and Russia. All papers emphasized that, according to the report, it was Georgia's President Saakashvili who ordered his forces to fire the first shots. Sueddeutsche headlined: "Georgia Repudiates accusations of Guilt in Causing the War." Die Welt headlined: "Georgia Began Caucasian Conflict," and emphasized in a sub-headline that "Russia is Co-Responsible." Frankfurter Allgemeine carried a report under the headline: "Russia Welcomes Report on Georgia." Sueddeutsche (10/01) carried an editorial under the headline: "Looking Back To Dark Years," and judged: "Self-defense, which Georgian President Saakashvili has always used as a reason for the attack on the sleeping Tskhinvali until today, was nothing but a lie. Moscow has always said this.... But the EU report also documents the Russians' share in the war: Moscow deliberately destabilized the situation in Southern Ossetia; it undermined Georgia's statehood by massively issuing Russian passports...etc. The report confirms what has been clear since those days in August: Georgia can bury its hopes for NATO, let alone EU, accession for a very long time to come, and the chances BERLIN 00001228 003 OF 004 for a return of the separated areas around Abkhazia and Southern Ossetia are not much better. However, the Tagliavini report does not reveal too much on the U.S. role. Even if it had revealed a more obvious role of U.S. military advisors in Tbilisi, it would not have produced much of an impact. The report has been postponed for such a long time that the political situation has profoundly changed. What value does Southern Ossetia have compared to Afghanistan, Iraq or even Lehman Bros? For Moscow, the Georgian conflict is part of the dark Bush years; but, in the meantime, all sides progressed and are showing greater responsibility. There will certain be no lack of opportunities to demonstrate this in the future." Under the headline: "There is no Room For Georgia in NATO," Berliner Zeitung (10/01) editorialized: "At the latest since yesterday it must be clear that there is no room for Georgia in NATO in the foreseeable future. Under the current leadership, the country would be a security risk for the Alliance as a whole. During the Bucharest summit in 2008, NATO promised to accept Georgia. Former President Bush wanted it that way. Fortunately, Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy were able to prevent the naming of a concrete date. In light of the findings in the report, it would now be reasonable to withdraw this promise for Georgia's accession. Since Russia has extended its military presence in Abkhazia and Southern Ossetia, an acceptance is no longer realistic." According to Die Welt (10/01),"it is important civil progress that such a report complains about the suffering of civilians, but the claim of the report that there are 'no winners in this conflict' is based on wishful thinking. Real politicians in Russia know that the Kremlin, with its punitive mission in Georgia, achieved an important victory whose sobering effect reaches far beyond the Caucasus. By creating a new mini state in the Caucasus, Russia created new facts. It does not require a report of the European Commission to recognize this." Tagesspiegel (10/01) judged: "As long as the same actors both in Georgia and in Russia are in power as during the brief war in summer, it is hardly imaginable that they will learn a lesson from the past. On the contrary, the tensions are beginning to rise again. That is why the question to the Europeans is all the more important: Why did they not act earlier? Let us remember one thing: after five days [of the war], France managed to achieve a cease-fire between he parties in BERLIN 00001228 004 OF 004 the conflict. Would a similarly courageous intervention in the preparatory stages of the war probably have prevented it?" Regional daily Volksstimme of Magdeburg (10/01) judged: "If more evidence had been necessary to discuss who caused the Caucasian war, then the EU report is delivering it. It was Georgia's President Saakashvili.... But the Russians only seemed to have waited for the opportunity to checkmate Georgia by using force. Both parties are to blame that the war almost turned into an international crisis. What is left is a humiliated Georgia and two mock republics at the mercy of Moscow. Not even the EU can change that." Regional daily Nrnberger Zeitung (10/01) argued; "What would have happened if Georgia had been a NATO member on August 8, 2008? Would Saakashvili's lie have been enough to prompt other NATO members to back Georgia and to plunge the Alliance into a conflict with Russia? Former Foreign Minister Steinmeier had always warned against a speedy enlargement to the East. The new government should continue to back this legacy." Badische Neueste Nachrichten of Karlsruhe (10/01) observed: "Western diplomats in Tbilisi already warned in May 2008 that there were active warmongers in the Georgian government. But the international community only watched and underestimated the seriousness of the situation; it acted too late and was not resolute enough. It did not succeed in preventing the hothead Saakashvili from stopping the escalation. The Caucasus is suffering from the consequences even today. But the West in particular will take years to restore damaged relations with Russia." ¶4. (Afghanistan) Future Strategy Frankfurter Allgemeine (10/01) headlined "Obama discusses Afghanistan" and wrote in its intro: "President Obama has started consultations over the future strategy on Afghanistan on Wednesday. In this first of five rounds of negotiations, VP Biden, Secretaries Clinton and Gates as well as Admiral Mullen and General Petraeus participated." Weekly Die Zeit (10/01) noted: "Afghanistan could be more dangerous to Obama than Iran. The President has made Afghanistan his war.... The war in Afghanistan is about to enter year nine and an increasing number of Americans can no longer see that it makes sense. Obama appears to be hesitating... If he does not stop the debate between the generals and the Vice President immediately, he will damage his authority." DELAWIE