Question:

Mr Wadephul, the Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations has described the framework agreement between the United States and Iran on ending the war as being bad for Israel, America and the Gulf States. What is your view on that?

Johann Wadephul:

First of all, it is a memorandum of understanding. The positive is that the fighting will not continue. And it’s also a step in the right direction that negotiations are now taking place and Iran has given a commitment that it does not seek to possess nuclear weapons. It must now be discussed how this commitment can be verified and guaranteed in the long term. The real work in the next 60 days is therefore still ahead of us.

Question:

The framework agreement doesn’t come close to the Americans’ war objectives. The “freedom for the Iranian people” that US President Trump promised at the start of the war is no longer mentioned at all. Are the Iranians the true winners of the conflict?

Johann Wadephul:

It will only be possible to answer that once the negotiations are complete. But we can already see that Iran’s ballistic missile programme has very much been decimated. And if you are alluding to regime change – at no point did I believe that it is possible to topple this brutal regime through acts of war.

Question:

The opposite seems to be the case. Do you share the impression that the Iranian regime has a tighter grip on power than before the war?

Johann Wadephul:

We must acknowledge that the Revolutionary Guard has become stronger in relation to the country’s spiritual leaders. The regime remains draconian and inhumane. The people in Iran have not benefitted in any way – on the contrary, it is still they who are suffering.

Question:

Part of the framework agreement is a ceasefire in Lebanon. But just this week there were renewed Israeli attacks on southern Lebanon. What do you expect from the Netanyahu government?

Johann Wadephul:

The problem is neither the Israeli nor the Lebanese government, but the terror organisation Hezbollah, which continues to attack Israel. The greatest influence on Hezbollah is exerted by Iran itself. If the regime in Tehran sees to it that Hezbollah stops attacking Israel, a peaceful solution in the Middle East is possible.

Question:

One controversial issue is whether fees will have to be paid to Iran by ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz in future. What would be the consequences of that?

Johann Wadephul:

It would seriously call into question principles of international law. The Federal Government objects to fees being levied for passage through international waterways. We need clarity on this very soon.

Question:

Germany’s voice always carried a great deal of weight in the Middle East. Now, it seems, Germany is risking its influence by broadly tolerating Netanyahu’s policy on Gaza and Lebanon. Is this the downside of Germany’s raison d’état with regard to Israel?

Johann Wadephul:

I don’t share that assessment. We are doing a lot of mediation work, every single day. But we are not a party to the war. We are also more restricted in our use of military means, because we always require a mandate from parliament. Our partners, such as France and the United Kingdom, don’t need that. What characterises our diplomacy is reliable political and economic relations. Germany’s fundamental military restraint is also valued. And as far as Israel is concerned: yes, we have a special responsibility there. But that does not mean we are acting uncritically. I spoke to my counterpart in Jerusalem on the telephone just today. Israel’s settlement policy in the West Bank is a point where we truly disagree. That concerns principles of international law.

Question:

Germany’s foreign policy has always been heavily shaped by international law. Now it seems as if you’ve shifted the focus more towards pragmatism.

Johann Wadephul:

First of all, the phrasing “heavily shaped by international law” is correct. While international law always forms the framework, it is not the sole standard by which we can conduct our foreign policy. There are other aspects such as economic interests and systems of alliances that we must also take into account. Foreign policy sometimes comes down to a matter-of-fact look at what benefits Germany and Europe.

Question:

Is that also the reason why it frequently seems as if the Federal Government applies differing standards? You have sharply criticised the Ukraine war, but Berlin has had as little to say about Israel’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon as it has about the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Maduro by the United States.

Johann Wadephul:

Those are events that can hardly be compared with one another. Russia has been waging a war of aggression for over four years. Ukraine was attacked without having laid a finger on Russia. With regard to Israel, you cannot forget the terror attack of 7 October 2023, when 1195 Israelis were murdered by Hamas. And the case of Maduro in Venezuela is the case of a single individual. I do not mean to say that it is possible to ride roughshod over considerations of international law. But we must always look at the specifics of each case when making our assessment.

Question:

Nonetheless, it must be said after Germany’s failed candidacy for the UN Security Council that not everything is running smoothly in German foreign policy.

Johann Wadephul:

Well, I am the last person who wishes to sugarcoat the defeat of our candidacy for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council. It was a bitter disappointment that we are able to deal with. That’s all.

Question:

The G7 meeting at the start of this week put the spotlight back on Ukraine. New EU sanctions against Russia were approved. Putin seems unfazed by the sanctions thus far. So what do you hope to achieve with them?

Johann Wadephul:

There is no alternative to increasing the pressure on Putin while continuing to support Ukraine. I believe that a window for negotiations may open as a result, perhaps more quickly than many people think.

Question:

What do you base that belief on?

Johann Wadephul:

The Russians are under pressure militarily. The drone attacks by Ukraine, most recently on an oil refinery south of Moscow, are carrying the country’s own aggression and the war back into its heartland. There have been some statements from Moscow that there may be an opportunity for talks before the situation escalates further.

Question:

German politicians keep a clear distance from Moscow – except for the AfD, who maintain contact with Russia, seek consensus with it and were invited to the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. Couldn’t that have opened a door for you, too?

Johann Wadephul:

Certainly not. The visit by the AfD was irresponsible. It’s enough to take a look at recent history. After Russia’s annexation of Crimea, Germany did try to preserve the relations that we had developed with Moscow over the preceding decades. But we had to accept that that was wrong. Ultimately, Russia wanted war. We cannot – as the AfD have with their visit – convey a message of normality, convey that this aggression is accepted.

Question:

But if the war is not to be decided militarily, talks will be needed. So what happens now?

Johann Wadephul:

Currently there are no negotiations because Putin is not yet open to them. But we have diplomatic relations with Moscow, and we have an embassy there. I have decided that we will send one of our most experienced diplomats to serve as our Ambassador in Moscow, so that we can make progress should things change.

Question:

What is the most essential precondition for serious peace talks?

Johann Wadephul:

We have to talk to Russia about renouncing some of its war objectives. To date, Russia has always made maximalist demands, such as annexing the entire Donbas. But a ceasefire is needed first. You can’t negotiate and keep shooting at the same time.

Question:

In an interview a year ago, you described the Baltic Sea as one of the most important geopolitical spaces. What’s your view on that today?

Johann Wadephul:

The Baltic has become even more significant. We find ourselves in a situation of direct confrontation with Russia, which is repeatedly violating the sovereignty of NATO states. The Baltic states are repeatedly being subjected to massive provocations, such as violations of their airspace. The only positive aspect is that the countries on the Baltic Sea have drawn closer to one another. Finland and Sweden have joined NATO. We are growing closer and working together, including militarily. And I have not given up hope that Norway could some day become a member of the European Union.

Interview conducted by Dirk Jennert and Gerrit Bastian Mathiesen