It was a media engagement that shouldn’t have caused him any trouble.
Chancellor Friedrich Merz, sitting in front of a scenic Rocky Mountains ridge in Kananaskis, Canada, gave a live interview to public broadcaster ZDF on the second day of the G7 summit–the morning after US President Donald Trump had left dramatically late at night to “manage” the war Israel had launched against Iran four days earlier.
Relaxed and apparently untroubled, Merz told his interviewer, Diana Zimmermann, that Trump’s early exit from the G7 was only understandable. In contrast to French President Emmanuel Macron, who had said that Trump was going to “mediate” and later warned that trying to bring about “regime change” in Iran through military means would be “the biggest mistake,” the German chancellor had a different approach. If Tehran rejected negotiations on its nuclear program, he said matter-of-factly, then there would possibly be no other option than to “completely destroy” the program “militarily.” Israel did not have the required weapons, Merz added, “but the Americans do.”
When Zimmermann put it to him that the “Israelis are doing the dirty work,” by implication for others, against a regime that was widely seen as a “disruptive element,” Merz went out of his way to “thank” Zimmermann for using the term “dirty work” (Drecksarbeit in German). He argued that the government of Benjamin Netanyahu was doing “us all” a favor, since “we all” had been affected by the “Mullah regime.” It had brought “death and destruction” to the whole world. One day later and back in Berlin, Merz doubled down, saying that he had received “a lot of praise” for using the term and saw no reason to reconsider.
Still Abiding by International Law?
A certain kind of tin ear is required to really think that his “dirty work” comment went down well. The center-left Social Democrats (SPD), coalition partner of Merz’ center-right Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU), are certainly worried. Upholding international law has been the key tenet of Germany’s postwar foreign policy—and while there is no question that the “Islamic Republic,” since its revolutionary inception in 1979, has vowed, and tried hard, to bring “Death to Israel,” it is questionable whether Tehran was really that close to building a nuclear bomb that a full-blown preemptive attack was justified. And there is of course the danger that the war could spiral out into a much wider conflict.
SPD foreign affairs spokesman Adis Ahmetovic confirmed that Merz’ choice of words had caused deep irritation among members of his party. “De-escalation” should be the primary aim in such a highly inflammable situation, Ahmetovic said, and the chancellor’s rhetoric was “not helpful.” The Greens’ Deborah Düring called Merz comments “cynical and unworthy,” the hard-left Linke’s parliamentary leader, Sörgen Pellmann, said that Merz had followed the “disastrous logic” of “the right of the more powerful,” destroying Germany’s reputation at the United Nations and within Europe.
German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, who last Friday joined his French and British counterparts as well as EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, in Switzerland for last-ditch “E3” negotiations with Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, tried to take the sting out of the debate, saying that assessing whether Israel’s actions were legitime under international law was impossible right now. It was part of a screeching about-turn. One confused, and confusing, press release later, the government’s line, press spokespersons confirmed, was that Germany stood firmly at Israel’s side while pushing for de-escalation.
On the Hoof
The “dirty work” comment speaks of a Merz weakness that has been well known and has now manifested itself on the international stage for the first time. The new chancellor likes to improvise–shoot first rhetorically if it “feels right” and only ask questions later.
Domestic examples of such unforced errors are numerous. Early this year, he pushed, without need, a vote in Germany’s parliament while relying on votes from the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) to get tougher immigration laws adopted, which clearly contravened European law. In 2023 he claimed, out of thin air, that failed asylum seekers would populate dentists’ waiting rooms and keep ordinary citizens from getting appointments. In 2022, he even echoed a Kremlin propaganda line when speaking of “Ukrainian social security tourism.”
With his “dirty work” interview, Merz not only appeared to distance Berlin from Paris and London (Prime Minister Keir Starmer has been strongly in the de-escalation camp, too), not to mention the European Union. He also seemingly still accepts the “neocon” logic of the early 2000s when the CDU/CSU leadership, then in opposition and already in the hands of Merz’ arch-rival Angela Merkel, supported US President George W. Bush’s war against Iraq, which started in 2003 and ended up massively empowering Iran. Merz at the time called Germany’s then-SPD Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who opposed the intervention, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s “crown witness” (Schröder later became a paid apologist for Russian President Vladimir Putin).
Seen in this light, Merz appears stuck in the past while unable to think strategically and further ahead—at a moment when the Europeans’ attempts to try everything to build an “off-ramp” for a US president who is clearly out of his depths is the most sensible thing to do. Given the fast-forward world dominated by an unpredictable Trump, the debate about Merz’ choice of word is likely to move on. But the term “dirty work” is likely to linger. It has raised eyebrows and questions as to which foreign policy role the German chancellor is going to carve out for himself. Merz will soon need to give more convincing answers.
The problem came into sharp focus again after the US bombardment of Iran’s nuclear program sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, on June 22. Merz’ office managed to put out a joint E3 statement with Macron and Starmer this time, which took note of the US strikes, reaffirmed the position that Iran “can never have a nuclear weapon,” and vowed to continue “our joint diplomatic efforts to defuse the situation.” However, amid growing signs that Trump had ordered the US strikes after seeing how well the Israeli campaign “played” on Fox News, Merz told an audience at the Federation of German Industries (BDI), that, in his view, there was “no reason” to criticize Israel or the United States. The next morning, he published a joint op-ed together with Macron in the Financial Times, making the case for European rearmament by arguing that “war rages, norms erode.” On the evidence of the past few days, it is hard to say what Merz’ norms actually are.
Henning Hoff is executive editor of INTERNATIONALE POLITIK QUARTERLY.
