Alors, quand est-ce qu’on attaque ?

Bloc-Notes

   Forum

Il y a 3 commentaires associés à cet article. Vous pouvez les consulter et réagir à votre tour.

   Imprimer

Parmi les suites du discours du 10 janvier, il y a les spéculations sur les possibilités d’une attaque contre l’Iran. Les termes du discours, l’implication explicite de l’Iran dans la crise irakienne, suivie (ou accompagnée) d’une action contre des diplomates iraniens en Irak, tout cela a largement alimenté la spéculation sur la possibilité d’une attaque.

Un argument souvent utilisé pour renforcer l’idée d’une attaque prochaine est que le temps laissé à cette possibilité, en fonction de facteurs divers, est très court. Diverses raisons sont avancées pour appuyer l’argument.

• Paul Craig Roberts (le 10 janvier, sur Antiwar.com) : «The answer might be that Israel has the chance now. The Bush administration is in its pocket. The White House is working with neoconservatives, not with the American foreign policy community represented by the Iraq Study Group. Neoconservative propagandists are in influential positions in the media. The US Congress is intimidated by AIPAC. The correlation of forces are heavily in Israel’s favor.»

• Selon Robert Parry, de ConsortiumNews (via Truthout, le 8 janvier), la présence de Tony Blair est indispensable dans l’aventure : «But there is also a clock ticking. Blair, who now stands to go down in the annals of British history as “Bush's poodle,” is nearing the end of his tenure, having agreed under pressure from his Labour Party to step down in spring 2007. So, if the Bush-Blair-Olmert triumvirate has any hope of accomplishing the neoconservative remaking of the Middle East, time is running out. Something dramatic must happen soon.»

• John Pike, de GlobalSecurity.com (sur RAW Story, le 12 janvier), est plus détaillé lorsqu’il exprime son avis après le discours de GW : «Several analysts consider parts of President Bush's latest speech as an obvious threat to Iran. One, John Pike of GlobalSecurity, notes that U.S. actions could signal a conflict in the near future.

»“It's really unclear what the President was saying,” Pike said. “It's a little more clear what the United States is actually doing, [President Bush] was basically calling on Iran not to interfere with Iraq, not to further interfere with Iraq.”

»Pike added, “But, also, look at what he said the United States is going to do. As previously reported, several weeks ago, the aircraft carrier, John Stennis, is being dispatched to the Persian Gulf. That gives the United States two aircraft carriers in the Gulf. Round the clock operations. He also, surprisingly, announced that the United States was going to be deploying Patriot anti-missile interceptors to the region. It's difficult to imagine whose missiles those would be shooting down other than Iran. It's looks to me like the United States is, at least, raising its capabilities in preparation for possible military confrontation with Iran.”

»Pike provides a time frame in which the U.S. or Israel might first strike Iran, explaining, “I think the month of February is certainly a time of heightened probability. It's very difficult to understand exactly what the thinking is at the White House and in the Israeli government but for sometime now we've been saying that 2007 is probably the time, if there's going to be military action, it's probably going to come this year. Possible as soon as next month. Probably no later that August of this year.”»

Mis en ligne le 14 janvier 2007 à 09H20

Donations

Nous avons récolté 1785 € sur 3000 €

faites un don