L’inquiétude de Rumsfeld : les sources se recoupent



Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.



La question de la position du secrétaire à la défense Rumsfeld vis-à-vis de la crise Israël-Hezbollah et, par conséquent, de la question d’une attaque contre l’Iran, apparaît particulièrement vive et ouverte. Dans un commentaire du 14 août, Juan Cole, citant notamment Hersh et le confirmant, appuie cette thèse d’un Rumsfeld de plus en plus inquiet, et d’une politique spécifique du secrétaire à la défense.

«  …Any US attack on Iran could well lead to the US and British troops in Iraq being cut off from fuel and massacred by enraged Shiites. Shiite irregulars could easily engage in pipeline and fuel convoy sabotage of the sort deployed by the Sunni guerrillas in the north. Without fuel, US troops would be sitting ducks for rocket and mortar attacks that US air power could not hope completely to stop (as the experience of Israel with Hizbullah in Lebanon demonstrates). A pan-Islamic alliance of furious Shiites and Sunni guerrillas might well be the result, spelling the decisive end of Americastan in Iraq. Shiite Iraqis are already at the boiling point over Israel's assault on their coreligionists in Lebanon. An attack on Iran could well push them over the edge. People like Cheney and Bush don't understand people's movements or how they can win. They don't understand the Islamic revolution in Iran of 1978-79. They don't understand that they are playing George III in the eyes of most Middle Eastern Muslims, and that lots of people want to play George Washington.

» By the way, Hersh maintains that US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has at least some inkling of all this, which is one reason he hasn't been enthusiastically cheering on the Lebanon war.

» I had this second hand, from someone who knows someone in the know. It confirms Hersh's account:

» “Rumsfeld is very uneasy with the unquestioning support for the Israeli offensive because of the impact it will have on American troops in Iraq. His point to Bush and Rice is that Iraq's Shias will not stand by while their Lebanese Shia brothers are destroyed. He has pointed out to them — to Rice and Bush ¬ that there are close family and political ties between the Moqtada al-Sadr family and the Musa al-Sadr and the close friendship between Maliki and Nawaf Moussawi, the foreign minister of Hezbollah. That Hezbollah worked to free the Dawa 17 at one point in its history was a surprise to Rice, as well as to Bush. With American casualties mounting in Iraq Rumsfeld does not believe we need to make enemies of the Shia. The demonstration of last week shook him ¬— and American commanders.”

» If Hersh and my correspondent are correct, we are beginning to see an ‘India Office’ effect in the US government. When Britain ruled India, the British Government of India often developed its own foreign policy and priorities that were not the same as London's Foreign Office. Rumsfeld does have Iraq interests for which he has to speak, however much he hates Hizbullah and Iran. »

15 août 2006 à 08H46