Man arrested for ‘spying' for Iran before possible attacks in Germany
German prosecutors on Tuesday said the man, identified only as Ali S under German privacy law, was suspected of conducting the surveillance 'in preparation of further intelligence activities in Germany, possibly including terrorist attacks on Jewish targets'.
It added that the individual was suspected of receiving the espionage orders from 'an Iranian intelligence service'.
German and Danish authorities said the man had been arrested in Denmark but would be extradited to Germany.
The Iranian embassy in Berlin decried what it called 'unfounded and dangerous accusations'.
'Previous discussions with relevant German authorities have already highlighted that certain third parties are attempting to divert public perceptions from the actual events through artificial staging,' the embassy said in a statement.Meanwhile, Germany's foreign minister, Johann Wadephul, said Iran's ambassador had been summoned after the arrest.
'If this suspicion were confirmed, it would be an outrageous incident that would once again demonstrate that Iran is a threat to Jews all over the world,' Wadephul said during a visit to Odesa, Ukraine, shortly after visiting a synagogue there.
According to Germany's Der Spiegel magazine, the suspect took photos of at least three buildings in Berlin in June.
They included the headquarters of the German-Israeli Society, which has lobbied the European Union to list Iran's Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) as a 'terrorist' organisation, and a building where the president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, Josef Schuster, was said to occasionally stay.
Der Spiegel reported that investigators believe the suspect was working on behalf of the Quds Force, the foreign operations arm of the IRGC.He was arrested in the Danish city of Aarhus by local police last week and was awaiting extradition to Germany.
During the 12-day war between Israel and Iran in June, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said his country was preparing 'in case Iran targets Israeli or Jewish institutions'.
He did not provide further details at the time.
Berlin has been a key ally of Israel and vocally supported the attacks on Iran, which began with surprise strikes on June 13.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Palestinians deserve a state now for the same reasons Jews did in 1948
Soon, the Palestinian people will be recognized as a sovereign nation in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank by most countries. They now have the political and moral momentum toward achieving this goal. The world owes Palestinians independence and sovereignty for the same reasons it granted the Jews living in British Mandatory Palestine their independent state in 1948, only a few years after six million Jews had been gassed to death in German concentration camps. This will happen despite an expected U.S. veto next month in the United Nations, and in spite of the political alliance between President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump is pragmatic; he will come to support the creation of a Palestinian state, as most Americans already do. This is because the case for Palestinian independence has been getting clearer and more urgent with every Israeli bombing of mostly innocent Gazans, and with every death from starvation caused by Israel's withholding of food. Most countries now recognize a sovereign Palestinian state. In total, 147 members of the United Nations, or 76 percent of its members, have already recognized the Palestinian state. And of the five members with power to reject Palestinian independence, China and Russia are already known supporters. France and the United Kingdom said they will support sovereign Palestine next month before the U.N. votes on the matter. The lone veto is expected from the U.S., but Trump is likely to change his mind. Ehud Olmert, Israel's Prime Minister from 2006 to 2009, supports an independent Palestinian state. A large segment of Israelis already supports the creation of an independent Palestine, though such support has has declined as the war has progressed. Hundreds of high ranking past members of the Israeli government, the Israeli Parliament, and Israel Defense Forces support Palestinian independence. And for the first time, Israeli human rights organizations such as B'Tselem, and medical associations are calling on the international community to stop the indiscriminate killing of Palestinians by the Israel's Defense Forces. The Arab League of twenty-two Arab nations has called Hamas to disarm and relinquish the Gaza Strip to make peace possible. According to recent Gallup poll, 55 percent of Americans and 41 percent of Republicans support an independent Palestine. And according to The Times of Israel, President Trump recently said that the destruction, killing, and starvation of Palestinians in Gaza were done by Benjamin Netanyahu to keep him in office. This points to a likely U.S. backing of independence. Furthermore, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) — a ardent Trump supporter — recently characterized Israel's actions against the Palestinians in the Strip as genocide. Netanyahu himself is partly responsible for the expected creation of an independent Palestinian state because of his increasingly brutal tactics and strategies against the Palestinians. For example, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel's actions have violated the Genocide Convention and issued a warrant for Netanyahu's arrest. Israel had worldwide sympathy and empathy when Hamas invaded its territory and savagely murdered 1,200 Israelis. That action led to a declaration of war against Hamas. But the situation has since changed. The war quickly devolved into a war against all Palestinians in the strip. If the strategy were to get rid of them through indiscriminate killing and mass starvation of innocent people, I am not sure what they would be doing differently. Netanyahu's failure has led much of the world community to believe that that the war in Gaza is no longer a retaliation against Hamas for the atrocities of October 2023, but rather a war to do away with a whole people. The world community in the U.N. will soon reject such behavior and vote to grant independence to Palestine. It is about time for the U.S. to join such cause.
The Hill
36 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump doesn't have to quit UNESCO again because we never lawfully rejoined
President Trump recently announced that the United States was quitting the United Nations Economic, Social, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for the third time. This is good news – UNESCO has championed gender ideology in education, discriminatory DEI policies, and the entire litany of woke doctrines. It has also worked to erase Jewish history in the Holy Land. But the administration did not need to bother with formally withdrawing from the treaty — from a constitutional perspective, the U.S. hasn't been a member at least since Trump first quit it in 2017. When Biden sought to rejoin the Paris-based agency in 2023, he neglected to seek authorization from Congress. No one made a big deal of it then, but it means that, for domestic law purposes, the U.S. never actually rejoined. This is an important point with implications for numerous international organizations, especially as the administration sets out on an agenda of U.N. reform. Membership in international organizations was not supposed to be a political revolving door. Congress authorizes membership at the outset. After the U.S. leaves, a whole new congressional authorization must be obtained by any president wishing to rejoin. Under the Constitution, the president can only bring the country into a treaty with the 'consent' of two-thirds of the Senate. That is a substantial hurdle, and deliberately so: Commitments to foreign countries can be harder to pull out of than domestic ones. They can become a way of imposing obligations on the country that are then out of reach of the democratic process. In the 20th century, presidents have often relied on the approval of a majority of both Houses instead, a dubious practice but now widely followed. When the U.S. first joined UNESCO in 1946 (and the World Health Organization in 1948), President Truman was acting pursuant a law passed by both Houses authorizing him to do so. But Congress did not reauthorize Biden's reentry to UNESCO. Instead, he treated the 1946 authorization as a lifetime membership, when in fact it was only a one-time pass. If the U.S. quit a treaty that the Senate had ratified — say the NATO treaty — then a decision to rejoin would be subject to a new requirement of advice and consent. Congressional authorization is a stand-in for Senate ratification and should be subject to the same rules. Consider a parallel case: If a president fires a senate-confirmed appointee, and he or a subsequent president wishes to return him to the same post, no one would argue that he could do so simply on the grounds that the Senate had previously confirmed him. Indeed, Andrew Jackson's Attorney General resigned from his position, and was then reappointed to it — only to be rejected by the Senate. As a statutory matter, the 1946 agreement on UNESCO allowed the president to 'accept membership' — not accept, and accept, and accept again. If a congressional authorization is good for infinite rounds of quitting and rejoining, it makes getting out of international agreements harder than getting in – exactly the opposite of what the Framers intended. The argument of perpetual authorization was invented by Jimmy Carter, who purported to rejoin the International Labor Organization in 1980 based on a 1934 authorization. President Bush neglected to seek congressional approval when he rejoined UNESCO in 2002, nearly two decades after Reagan quit. Neither instance attracted much attention, and two modern actions do not prove a constitutional rule. There is a good argument for the Trump administration having withdrawn from UNESCO as if it were a member — to avoid any doubt or subsequent quibbling. But the administration should clarify that it is 'quitting' only out of an excess of caution, and does not see the U.S. as properly joined, which is consistent with its nonpayment of any dues. To avoid abuse by future administrations, Congress should repeal the antiquated authorizations for UNESCO and WHO, which Trump also announced withdrawal from. If a subsequent president wants to rejoin, he should have to sell it to Congress on the organization's existing records, not the hopes and dreams of the 1940s.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
China Is the Big Winner of the Trump-Putin Summit
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The clear winner of the recent Anchorage summit was not the United States or Russia. Nor was it the European Union, NATO, or Ukraine, all directly affected by the war in Eastern Europe. The big winner, at least for the moment, is the People's Republic of China. And China's only military ally, North Korea, did not do too badly either. Both Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin at their post-meeting press conference tried to create the impression of momentum toward ending the three-year-old conflict in Ukraine. Putin used the word "agreement" and Trump mentioned "great progress." Russian President Putin and President Donald Trump pose for a photo during the welcoming ceremony prior to the meeting on the war in Ukraine on August 15, 2025, in Anchorage, Alaska. Russian President Putin and President Donald Trump pose for a photo during the welcoming ceremony prior to the meeting on the war in Ukraine on August 15, 2025, in Anchorage, Alaska. Getty Images Nonetheless, it was clear that the summit was a disappointment for the American side. There was, for instance, no ceasefire, which Trump publicly said he wanted. "There's no deal until there's a deal," an uncharacteristically somber Trump said after the shorter-than-expected face-to-face with Putin. "We didn't get there." No, they didn't. And no deal is precisely what China was looking for. Beijing, from all indications, hopes that the war in Ukraine will continue indefinitely. Hong Kong's South China Morning Post reported that Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told Kaja Kallas, the EU foreign policy chief, on July 2 that China does not want Russia to lose because then the U.S. would focus on China. In addition to the continuation of the conflict, the Chinese leadership got something else on Friday. "For Beijing, the Alaska summit confirmed its core belief: The world is a stage for great-power bargains over spheres of influence," Charles Burton of the Prague-based Sinopsis think tank told Newsweek. China's regime, which has a top-down concept of the world, likes the idea of big countries, by themselves, settling the world's problems. "Now, there is a crucial precedent for a future summit between Trump and the Chinese leadership, where China would press for major concessions in East Asia," Burton said. One of those concessions would be American diplomatic recognition of North Korea, noted Burton, who was a Canadian diplomat in Beijing. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, China's only formal military ally, also has an interest in the continuation of the war in Ukraine. "The Kim regime is likely content to see the United States diplomatically engaged on other fronts," Greg Scarlatoiu, president and CEO of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, told Newsweek. "That will buy Kim Jong Un more time to continue his for-profit exportation of instability, violence, and tools of death." Kim has filled regime coffers via the sales of artillery shells and short-range ballistic missiles to Putin—28,000 containers of weapons according to one recent count. Kim also sent soldiers, up to 12,800 troops, to the Russian-Ukrainian battlefield late last year. Moreover, the North is dispatching perhaps 30,000 more of them now. That will be on top of combat engineers and miscellaneous workers. Russia, according to South Korean intelligence, is paying Kim $2,000 per month per trooper. Russia is reportedly transferring weapons tech to the North as well. Whatever Putin is paying or bartering, the Ukraine war has been a bonanza for the Kim regime. Yet a proverb from ancient China reminds us, "No feast lasts forever." Trump can end the Chinese banquet quickly if he imposes costs on Russia and its enablers. He will, for instance, have to hit China hard to cut off its flow of cash to Moscow. No cash for Putin means no war in Ukraine. On August 6, Trump by executive order imposed a 25 percent additional tariff on India for buying Russian oil, but he did not tariff China, which purchases even more of that commodity from Russia. Trump last Friday said he did not think he had to tariff China at this time. In a conversation with Fox News' Sean Hannity immediately after his meeting with Putin, the president said, "I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something. But we don't have to think about that right now. I think, you know, the meeting went very well." Whether the meeting with Putin went well or not—we will know only later—Trump cannot entice bad actors with reason alone; he needs to give them incentives to stop doing what they're doing. For the moment, Russia and supporters are trying Trump's patience, seeing how far they can push him. As a result, the American leader is taking heat for what looks like weak diplomacy. My sense is that Trump is trying to be generous. There is, however, only so much generosity in global politics. Trump could end his indulgent policies soon, especially if Putin continues to be intransigent. "Trump is losing patience," said Burton, the former diplomat. "The Russians, Chinese, and friends should watch out. When Trump decides it's time to hit them, he is going to hit them really hard." Gordon G. Chang is the author of Plan Red: China's Project to Destroy America and The Coming Collapse of China. Follow him on X @GordonGChang. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
