German businesses complain that bans on certain exports only benefit their foreign competitors.

The ongoing western policy of pressure, threats and sanctions against Iran has failed and there is a need for a new western approach, a leading German expert said on Thursday.
According to IRNA, the former head of Berlin-based German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), Christoph Bertram wrote in an op-ed piece for the Hamburg-based weekly Zeit news magazine that western plans to impose tighter sanctions against Iran are doomed to fail as well, citing 30 years of futile US sanctions policies towards Tehran.
“It does not make sense to stick to this policy any longer,“ Bertram stressed.
“Anyone who wants an Iranian change of mind or even concessions must stop threatening Iran and engage in a new, cooperative relationship with Tehran,“ he added.
The ex-director of London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) has repeatedly called on western governments to engage in nuclear talks with Tehran without any preconditions.
Bertram has made clear that a western detente policy with Iran had to include Tehran’s right to enrich uranium for its civilian nuclear program and fair solutions for all remaining non-nuclear problems.
Such a western Iran initiative has to be led by the US, the scholar was quoted saying.
Bertram is among several prominent Mideast experts in Germany who have expressed deep skepticism over Berlin’s current Iran policy.

Seeking Lost Trade
German businesses have long complained about tough restrictions on trade with Iran, arguing that bans on certain exports only benefit their foreign competitors. Now a far-reaching court decision is posing a challenge to the government’s rigid policies, Spiegel Online wrote.
The tone of the letter to the German Foreign Ministry may have been polite, but the content was pointed. Over five pages, Martin Jager, the chief lobbyist for carmaker Daimler, explained why Berlin’s export restrictions on trade with Iran place German industry at a serious disadvantage.
According to Jager, the German government’s rigid position achieves only one thing, namely that goods being exported to Iran are no longer coming from Germany, but from countries like France and Sweden.
Instead of Daimler, the companies that benefit from trade with Iran include Renault, Volvo and Iveco, which are able to sell their goods largely unencumbered by restrictive regulations. Jager asked if that was really what the German government wanted.
The urgent letter, ironically, written by a former spokesman to Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, is a result of the German government’s decision to ban the export of German-made semi trucks to Iran.
In the past, Daimler has sold up to 1,000 trucks a year to Iranian companies. The company’s Actros series, assembled in the southwestern German town of Worth, is seen as a showpiece of German motor vehicle manufacturing.
A semi truck in the series sells for $138,000. As a result of the embargo, Stuttgart-based Daimler stands to lose millions of euros in annual sales.

Drawing the Line
The conflict over the semis is the most recent climax in a long-brewing conflict between the political and business communities. At issue is the difficult question of where to draw the line between foreign policy interests and economic freedom. Germany is not just the world’s export champion, but is also a frontrunner when it comes to blocking exports headed for the Persian Gulf region.
Now a decision by the Munich Higher Regional Court could force the government to change its hard line against Iran. The case brought before the Bavarian judges involved charges brought by the Federal Prosecutor’s Office against Saeed S., a German-Iranian from the western state of North Rhine-Westphalia who had supplied companies in Tehran. The investigators believed that the recipients were working for the government-run defense industry. In a decision with far-reaching consequences, the Munich judges not only refused to allow the case to proceed, but also called the entire German export monitoring system into question.
The judges found fault with the German government for its fear of international criticism. If Germany insists on pursuing its own national approach on the issue, they wrote, it must explain convincingly what it means by a “significant impairment of foreign relations“ and that simply making reference to German history is insufficient. The Munich judges revoked a warrant for the arrest of Saeed S. and ordered the $138,000 in bail money to be repaid.
German industry is also watching the legal tug-of-war with great interest. After year-on-year exports to Iran fell by roughly a third in January 2009, trade groups hope to see the courts relax sanctions.
If the Frankfurt judges concur with their Munich colleagues, Daimler’s prospects will likely improve. Just in case, the Stuttgart-based company has already applied for a permit to export its semi trucks to Iran--despite the embargo.

After speaking to prisoners and informed sources at the recently closed Kahrizak detention center, the police have come to the conclusion that violations of detainees’ rights along with dereliction of duty are evident at the notorious center.
After being singled out as a “substandard prison“, Kahrizak was closed last month on the order of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, Presstv reported.
The huge controversy surrounding Kahrizak prompted an investigation.
A police statement released to the press on Thursday confirmed that serious violations took place at the detention center in southern Tehran following the bitterly disputed June 12 presidential elections.
The vote, which lead to the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president, was followed by massive protests by supporters of defeated candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi who have dismissed the vote as a fraud and demanded fresh elections.
Thousands were detained in the aftermath of the vote. Many of them have since been released.
According to the police statement, Kahrizak had been set up as a temporary detention center “for the rehabilitation of thugs and ruffians“ and thus created the “harsh living conditions“.
The statement comes after grim revelations surfaced about the state of the pro-reform demonstrators in custody--particularly those who were taken to Kahrizak. The statement suggests that the officials involved in the imprisonments related to the vote erred because living conditions were obviously unsuitable.
“Following investigations and interviews with the detainees, dereliction of duty and breaches by a number of the center’s managers, officers and staff has become manifest,“ the statement published by the Iranian Labor News Agency (ILNA) said.

Much Suffering
“The limited capacity of the detention center and the addition of the July 9 detainees rendered the wings overcrowded and led to unsuitable living and hygiene conditions [for the detainees] and caused them much suffering,“ the report noted.
Although the statement does not provide the identities, ranks or numbers of officials now in the firing line, it does indicate that punitive measures are underway for those who ignored the rights of the detainees and those whose acts amount to “dereliction of duty“.
Those found guilty will face legal proceedings and be subjected to “internal disciplining“ as well, according to the statement.
Two officers were “disciplined for acting autonomously and subjecting detainees to corporal punishment“ and two others have been sacked and will be penalized, the police statement stressed.
On the future of the center, national police chief Esmail Ahmadi-Moqaddam said on August 4 that Kahrizak would be reconstructed as a “standard“ prison and its supervision would be handed over to the pertinent body -- the Prisons’ Organization. He denied rumors about his deputy, Brigadier Ahmad-Reza Radan, personally taking part in mistreating the detainees.
“Rumors about Brigadier Radan and other senior officials are false. Such acts are inappropriate for commanders of the police and even staff several grades junior“ Ahmadi-Moqaddam told ILNA.

Pakistan’s Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud, who led a violent campaign of suicide attacks and assassinations against the Pakistani government, has been killed in a US missile strike, a militant commander and aide to Mehsud said Friday.
Earlier, Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi told reporters in Islamabad that intelligence showed Mehsud had been killed in Wednesday’s missile strike on his father-in-law’s house in Pakistan’s lawless tribal area, but authorities would travel to the site to verify his death, AP reported.
Pakistani and US intelligence officials said the CIA was behind the strike. All spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.
“I confirm that Baitullah Mehsud and his wife died in the American missile attack in South Waziristan,“ Taliban commander Kafayat Ullah told The Associated Press by telephone. He would not give any further details. Mehsud’s demise would be a major boost to Pakistani and US efforts to eradicate the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
However, Mehsud has deputies who could take his place. Pakistani intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Taliban commanders were already believed to be meeting in the lawless tribal areas Friday to choose a replacement.
Likely Successors
Three Pakistani intelligence officials said the likeliest successor was Mehsud’s deputy, Hakim Ullah, a commander known for recruiting and training suicide bombers. Two other prominent possibilities, the officials said, were Azmat Ullah and Waliur Rehman, also close associates of Mehsud.
Whether a new leader could wreak as much havoc as Mehsud depends largely on how much pressure the Pakistani military continues to put on the network, especially in the lawless tribal area of South Waziristan.
Mehsud had Al-Qaeda connections and has been suspected in the killing of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Pakistan views him as its top internal threat and has been preparing an offensive against him.
For years, the US considered Mehsud a lesser threat to its interests than some of the other Pakistani Taliban, their Afghan counterparts and Al-Qaeda, because most of his attacks were focused inside Pakistan, not against US and NATO troops in Afghanistan.