Forum

“Le 11 septembre 2001, l’Amérique a cru pouvoir conclure sa longue guerre d’Indépendance contre l’Europe. Cette dernière bataille, elle s’y prépare depuis sa fondation. C’est la seule qui lui importe réellement.” American parano, août 2006, p. 228.

On entendra pas la France avant que le cirque présidentiel ne soit terminé, et la fin de la récré sifflée:
1. SG s’est déjà fait ramassée plusieurs fois sur les questions militaires et diplomatique… Elle ne tentera rien à ce niveau.
2. NS garde un mauvais souvenir des réactions acerbes lors de son passage eclair à la maison blanche pour la photo à la sauvette avec GWB. Il sait les français très chiens sur les rapports avec les USA.

Reste Chirac ... décidément le grand absent de l’affaire….

On aimerait entendre la France voler au secours de son allié allemand. Mais silence. Faut-il attendre les élections? Et qu’en pensent les candidats? Lellouche et Sarkozy, je le crains, ont déjà dans l’idée qu’il ne faut pas s’opposer aux américains.

L’Iran Nucléaire, Nader Barzin’s book on the Iranian nuclear industry has been qualified by specialists as the most thorough and well-documented reference on the subject in the world.

The book not only documents in detail Iranian nuclear activities from the 1950s to today, but it analyzes developments in light of regional geopolitical evolutions and those of the international nuclear sector. Three scenarios provide insight to the possible future outcomes of this crisis. 

Dr. Barzin holds a PhD in International Political Economy (Harvard, EHESS), and was administrator in charge of industrial development at the UN in the 1990s. He has held positions of responsibility at various US, UK and French multinationals, including Renault and Booz-Allen & Hamilton. He teaches Strategy at the HEC, School of Management in Paris, and is advisor to various governments and multinationals.

Pr. Barzin appears regularly on international media to comment nuclear and Iranian issues. He is perfectly fluent in English, French and Persian.

(For interviews contact the press attaché, Mlle Robert at +33 (0)1 4046 7923, at l’Harmattan, 5 rue d’Ecole Polytechnique 75005 Paris, France, or :

.)

L’Iran Nucléaire can be ordered at:
Harmattan: http://www.editions-harmattan.fr
Fnac: http://www.fnac.com
Amazon: http://www.amazon.fr

US missile shield plan risks sowing EU disunity
19.02.2007 - 09:23 CET | By Mark Beunderman

EU disunity is looming over US plans to build an anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech republic, with Germany saying over the weekend that Russia should be consulted over the scheme.

Washington has asked Warsaw and Prague, two of its strongest allies, to host a system aimed at intercepting ballistic missiles fired from states in the Middle East such as Iran - a plan which has been endorsed by key Polish and Czech politicians.

The move has sparked strong criticism from Russia, with its president Vladimir Putin telling a Munich security conference this month that the system would “completely neutralize’’ the deterrence threat posed by Russia’s own nuclear missiles.

Moscow may develop an “asymmetric response” of its own to “overcome’’ such systems, he added.

Germany has now expressed understanding for the Russian position, with German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier telling daily Handelsblatt over the weekend that “in view of the strategic nature of these sorts of projects, I am pleading for caution and for an intensive dialogue with all the partners directly and indirectly affected.”

“Because the sites for the stationing are getting nearer to Russia, one should have talked about it with Russia beforehand,” Mr Steinmeier said, with reports indicating that existing US anti-missile facilities are currently limited to bases in the US itself.

The remarks of Mr Steinmeier - the former cabinet chief of ex-German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder who maintained close ties with Mr Putin - were echoed by German defence minister Franz Josef Jung, who is a member of the more Russia-critical conservatives.

Mr Jung told the daily Neue Osnabruecker Zeitung that “Given our common security interests we should make sure that also in the future, NATO and Russia are developing on the basis of partnership.”

Germany’s stance risks colliding with that of Poland and the Czech Republic, which have indicated they are interested in responding positively to the US request.

“We are preparing an answer that I think we will give to the American administration by diplomatic means within two weeks,” Polish defence minister Aleksander Szczyglo told PAP press agency over the weekend.

Polish prime minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski indicated last week that “the government, the president and myself, are in favour of the anti-missile shield,” according to Reuters.

Czech president Vaclav Klaus and foreign minister and Czech foreign minister Karel Schwarzenberg have come out in favour of the US scheme, but some Czech politicians are pressing for the bases to come under NATO, not just US command.

The issue risks reviving EU rifts over the transatlantic relationship which came to a height in the run-up to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq - supported by ex-communist states in central Europe but opposed by a camp of states led by France and Germany.

The planned US missile shield also highlights fundamentally different perceptions within the EU of Russia.

Germany, which currently holds the presidency of the EU, is seeking closer ties with Moscow, but Poland in particular deeply mistrusts its Eastern neighbour, with Warsaw also clashing with Berlin over a planned gas pipeline between Russia and Germany bypassing Poland.

http://euobserver.com/9/23525/?rk=1

Je dirais plutôt, ce qui est inquiétant pour l’équilibre mental des Américains, qu’ils sont, et pas seulement leur président, dans un état d’esprit suicidaire de style “vent divin” japonais ou “crépuscule des dieux” allemand.

S’ils perdent l’Irak ils perdent tout - et sur ce point Bush a parfaitement raison. Mais nous l’avons vous et moi écrit depuis longtemps.  Autant dans ces conditions tout essayer, car reculer ou retraiter aura les mêmes conséquences qu’échouer. Donc on va tout essayer, y compris sacrifier une puissance militaire qui, si elle ne sert pas aujourd’hui, ne servira plus jamais. Si l’Amérique perd en Irak, à quoi serviront les 8.000 Abrams, les 10 task forces de la Navy, celles de Marines, etc… sauf à rouiller à Newport ou dans les dépôts des lacs salés asséchés du grand ouest américain ? Pourquoi en 1945 préserver les deux super-cuirassés classe Yamato, si les Américains sont quoiqu’il arrive gagnants et doivent en faire des briquets (ou les brûler à l’atome aux Bikinis) ? C’est un réfexe “kamikasé” dans lequel entrent les Américains, non parce qu’ils sont illuminés comme les fous de Dieu (ce qu’ils sont d’ailleurs un peu) mais parce qu’ils vont tenter le tout pour le tout.

La vieille Amérique est donc bien (excusez-moi de me faire encore de la pub pour mes articles de Défense nationale depuis avril 2002 et mon ouvrage American parano) en train de perdre leur dernière guerre contre le reste du monde, et ils vont tout faire pour me donner tort. C’est au moment où elle croyait toucher le nirvana qu’elle a trébuché, c’est-à-dire très exactement, et je me répète encore, le jour où elle est entrée dans Bagdad en avril 2003.

Quant au film de Scott “Thelma et Louise” que j’ai revu récemment, sa dernière scène très mélo et emphatique a été critiquée à tort. Voilà deux femmes auxquelles le système américaniste ne laisse d’autre choix que de se tuer, parce qu’il leur refuse toute liberté. Oh, elles n’iront pas en prison, le flic joué par H. Keitel a parfaitement compris ce qui s’était passé, non, elle seront simplement remises dans une société autoritaire, phallocrate, stupide, machiste, clanique, où il faut marcher dans les clous, et elles le refusent au nom de cette pastorale américaine dans laquelle elles se précipitent dans une lumière blanche, dans ces paysages de l’Utah et du grand canyon qui sont le symbole même de la grande promesse américaine.

Et le film nous dit que la promesse n’a définitivement pas été tenue.

Quelle régression que celle que nous conte ce film, par rapport aux femmes libres du cinéma de Cukor ou de Vidor, aux K. Hepburn ou B. Stanwick ! Quelle régression que celle de l’Amérique !

When empires fall, their currencies fall first. Even clearer is the rising debt of empires in decline, because in most cases their physical expansion is financed with debt. In each case presented we have some useful statistical data to show the drama. Every case is different, but the common thing is that the currencies of each and every one of these falling empires lost dramatically in value ...

http://www.europe2020.org/fr/section_global/230107.html

13 February 2007

DEFENCE COMMITTEE HIGHLIGHTS RISKS OF DELAY TO THE NAVY’S AIRCRAFT CARRIERS

Progress in reshaping the industrial sector which builds the Royal Navy’s surface ships has been disappointing, says a report by the House of Commons Defence Committee published today (Sixth Report, Session 2006-07, The Defence Industrial Strategy: update, HC 177). The Committee says the MoD is right to insist on industry’s restructuring but it warns that further delays in the main investment decision to place contracts for the two new aircraft carriers may delay delivery of the carriers, leaving a damaging capability gap.

The Committee welcomes the Memorandum of Understanding signed with the US in December on the Joint Strike Fighter – following US assurances that the UK will be given all the technical information it requires to operate, maintain and upgrade the UK aircraft independently. But it says that the MoD would not provide the Committee with details of those assurances, and it has concerns about how things will work out in practice.

Overall, the Committee believes good progress was made in implementing the Defence Industrial Strategy during 2006 – in particular, in implementing changes to improve the way the MoD works. But it says the DIS will only deliver the anticipated benefits to the UK Armed Forces and the UK taxpayer if it is adequately funded in the Spending Review.

The Rt Hon James Arbuthnot, Chairman of the Defence Committee, says “In many areas the MoD has done well in implementing the Defence Industrial Strategy, but there is still a lot to do. Industry in both the surface ship and submarine sectors must realise that their failure to come together to restructure is delaying the orders they want to see. If we do not see real progress in 2007, there is a risk that the Future Carriers will be late, leaving the Royal Navy without a carrier strike capability.”

The report is published at 00:01 15 February 2007. Embargoed copies will be made available from 11:00 on 13 February 2007.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmdfence.htm

Cher Philippe Grasset

Article intéressant, mais qui soulève moultes questions.

D’abord, ce sont les mêmes qui nous annonçaient un millénaire US qui disent exactement le contraire aujourd’hui. Que ne vont-ils cacher leur ridicule loin, très loin, et laisser leur place à ceux qui avaient prévu les choses dès l’origine ?

Ensuite ces gens n’anticipent pas, ni pensent pas, ils constatent : la guerre d’Irak est un échec. Bon, mais si demain l’US Army gagnait sa bataille de Bagdad, ne retourneraient-ils pas leur veste un nouvelle fois ? Paul Kennedy écrivait, comme JB Duroselle, que tout empire est appelé à périr. Et puis en 2003, il dit qu’il s’est trompé. Et puis aujourd’hui que tout bien pesé il avait raison il y a 15 ans. C’est ça qu’on appelle des intellectuels, des stratèges, des penseurs ? Et on s’étonne que l’Occident coure droit dans le mur avec un telle bande de pignoufs dans les antichambres de nos princes.

Enfin si je comprends bien l’article du FT, l’Amérique bute sur la réalité du monde. Fort bien, mais le système US semble être étranger à cette crise. Or si l’Amérique ne comprend pas le reste du monde, c’est qu’elle-même est formatée pour ne pas le comprendre, et que, si je voulais faire du Todd, la cause profonde de la crise américaine réside dans l’Amérique elle-même.

Allons plus loin, et faisons une tautologie : la crise, c’est l’Amérique qui la provoque de par sa seule existence. Est-ce à dire que la crise se résoudra (du moins celle-ci) le jour où l’Amérique n’existera plus en tant que puissance mondiale ? Posé ainsi, cela va faire hurler tous les bien-pensants. Mais c’est finalement ce qu’il y a derrière le doute sur l’Amérique, puisque l’hypothèse d’un monde sans elle (titre du dernier chapitre de mon “American parano”) est désormais sérieusement envisagé, et sera plus tôt qu’on ne croit souhaité comme solution à la crise.

Les USA de Bush se seraient effondrés au coeur d’une cascade de scandales financiers (d’Enron jusqu’aux faillites immobilières en cours) sans les fantastiques transferts financiers de la Chine, du Japon et de l’Europe.

Qui avait prévu que la globalisation serait la prothèse financière de l’empire. Les économies émergentes n’ont aucun intérêt à voir disparaître leur premier client ni la source principale des transferts technologique. Les défis climatiques joueront t’ils les “deus ex-machina ?

Mais qu’en est il des thèses de Paul Krugman, qu’en est il de l’analyse de Donald Rumsfeld comparant le Pentagone à la bureaucratie soviétique : principale menace pour les USA (le 10 septembre 2001 ... avant le 11 novembre) ? De la thèse Poutinienne de l’effondrement de “l’autre grand bloc” : vulgaire iceberg de la guerre froide?

Comment réinterpréter ces supputations au crépuscule Miterrando-Chiraquien ... testament d’une génération ?

Article intéressant, mais les auteurs (ainsi que tout le site Dedefensa -par ailleurs excellent)semblent faire l’amalgame entre la prise de pouvoir par Chavez et la baisse de la production, tout en n’évoquant même pas le désormais fameux pic de Hubbert (“Peak Oil”).

En effet, la production vénezuelienne décline. Ca n’est pas du à Chavez et un gouvernement pro-Américain n’aurait pas pu augmenter la production non plus : Les vérités géologiques ont la vie dure…

Par ailleurs, Dedefensa n’adresse pas du tout les problèmes d’approvisionnement énergétique, ou si peu, alors qu’il s’agit de secteurs clés, en particulier pour les questions de défense et de sécurité stratégique ou économique.

Congress eyes getting more info released

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
Thu Feb 15, 9:28 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Congressional Democrats are looking at ways to strengthen open government laws and force the Bush administration to release more documents under the Freedom of Information Act.
Rep. Lacy Clay, D-Mo., said legislation he is considering would be broader than an open government bill last year which sought to reduce the number of disputed     FOIA requests and improve reporting requirements to Congress. The legislation never reached a vote in the House or Senate

Clay said the old bill will be the starting point for a new one that will take direct aim at the administration’s practice of using the threat of terrorism to withhold “nonsensitive information.”

“I am deeply concerned that this administration appears to be shielding information that ought to be accessible to the public,” said Clay, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s subcommittee on information policy.

The     American Civil Liberties Union urged the subcommittee on Wednesday to scrap what it said was the White House’s “policy of nondisclosure” outlined in a 2001 memo by then-Attorney General     John Ashcroft.

Ashcroft advised against releasing information when there was uncertainty about whether FOIA exemptions applied, such as for national security and law enforcement material. His memo reversed a Clinton administration policy that urged agencies to resolve FOIA requests by erring on the side of releasing, not withholding, government information.

“To this administration, secrecy is the default response,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero told the panel at a hearing on the FOIA law.

Another witness, Clark Hoyt of the Sunshine in Government Initiative, urged Congress to create an independent ombudsman within the federal government to improve training and compliance with the FOIA and act as a liaison for people frustrated in their efforts to use the law to obtain records.

    President Bush signed an executive order in 2005 directing federal agencies to be more efficient in dealing with requests for government information, but he left the Ashcroft memo in place. The order called on agencies to take several consumer-friendly steps, including streamlining the handling of requests under the FOIA and appointing senior officials to monitor compliance with the law.

Linda Koontz, director of information management for the     Government Accountability Office, said it is too soon to tell if the flow of disclosure has improved under the new executive order. But her agency’s study of FOIA request processing trends from 2002 to 2005 found that many agencies could not keep pace with the increase in requests they received.

Melanie Ann Pustay, acting director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy, pointed out that agencies face stiff challenges in fulfilling many FOIA requests because of the sheer volume and irregularity of documents that must be reviewed.

She also said that the Internet, among other sources, has caused FOIA requests to balloon to “millions” every year and that processing them costs more than $300 million annually

Dans la situation actuelle si les USA attaquent l’Iran, avec comme seule prétextes les bombes artisanales, ça leur fera une seconde guerre illégitime, et leur position sera intenable.

Par contre dans une autre situation, celle d’un conflit généralisé dans la région, ils pourront alors frapper ceux qu’ils veulent, profitant de l’instabilité et du chaos. J’espère que la Turquie n’entrera pas dans le nord irakien pour en chasser les terroristes du Pkk, protégés avec mansuétude par les USA…

http://michelonfray.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2007/02/11/les-habits-de-grand-mere-sarkozy.html

‘Catbird’ Avionics Test Bed Achieves Initial Goals; F-35 Lightning II Logs Flight Progress
(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued Feb. 12, 2007)

The Cooperative Avionics Test Bed, a highly modified 737 designed to validate the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II’s powerful avionics, has satisfied all test objectives within its initial flight-clearance envelope. 

The “CATBird,” which has completed eight test missions and logged 24.8 hours, is now poised to receive additional flight clearance. CATBird will develop and verify the F-35’s capability to collect data from multiple sensors and fuse it into a coherent situational awareness display in a dynamic airborne environment. 

“The CATBird test program is executing to plan, with no significant issues,” said Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager. “We will now open up the flight envelope, which is within the 737’s operating limits.” BAE Systems is responsible for the aircraft’s modifications. 

Meanwhile, the first Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II has successfully tested a wide range of aircraft systems and demonstrated uncommon reliability since its inaugural flight December 15. 
“F-35 AA-1 is truly proving its worth as a pathfinder air vehicle. Complex subsystems deemed high-risk just a few months ago are performing flawlessly,” said Brig. Gen. C.R. Davis, F-35 program executive officer. “Early flight test results show we are on a path to largely validate the design and aircraft systems – we are not entering a period of discovery.” 

The aircraft has made a total of seven flights and is proving its reliability through the flight test program as it proceeds toward airworthiness certification. “The F-35’s extraordinary reliability relates directly to the rigorous ground testing and laboratory testing our team used to validate systems before we ever flew,” said Doug Pearson, vice president of the F-35 Integrated Test Force. 

The aircraft so far has flown at 23,000 feet and achieved speeds of Mach 0.8 and a 16-degree angle of attack. The flights also served to calibrate the air-data system while evaluating basic maneuvering with the landing gear both retracted and extended. On the fifth flight, F-35 Chief Test Pilot Jon Beesley lit the afterburner for the first time and unleashed 40,000 pounds of thrust – more power than any fighter engine in history. The airborne tests also have evaluated the speed-brake function, the fuel-dump process, the approach power compensator (an auto-throttle mode for landing), and tests of the radio, communication and navigational systems. 

Revolutionary internal systems on the aircraft have performed exceptionally well, including unique actuators that drive control surfaces primarily using electricity instead of a hydraulic system. Another device that for the first time combines the engine starter, the generator, the emergency power supply and the environmental-control system into a single unit also has continued to operate successfully.