Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
970Dans un commentaire pour UPI, le 12 juillet 2010, Arnaud de Borchgrave explique pourquoi il lui paraît probable qu’une attaque contre l’Iran aura lieu.
D’abord, Borchgrave explique que les sanctions ne peuvent marcher parce qu’elles n’empêcheront pas l’Iran d’avoir l’essentiel, qui est le pétrole raffiné dont il a besoin (40% de son pétrole raffiné est exporté). Cela, à grâce à… l’Irak, où la situation politique est chaotique, avec l’impossibilité de former un gouvernement stable, et par conséquent l’Irak étant aujourd’hui sans direction assurée et avec une influence US en déclin sinon en retraite, – au profit de l'influence de l’Iran.
«There is no better illustration of the futility of the $1 trillion Iraq war than news photos of a long line of gasoline tankers lined up bumper to bumper as they leave Iraq to enter Iran.
»The U.N. Security Council decision to strengthen economic measures against Iran and U.S. President Barack Obama signing into law draconian new legislative sanctions against Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, leave Iraq's defeated government unable to act.
»The Iraq Study Group, led by Lee Hamilton, the prominent Democrat who heads the Woodrow Wilson International Center, and James Baker, whose Institute for Public Policy is at Houston's Rice University, warned in 2006 that Iran, now rid of erstwhile enemy Saddam Hussein, was already wielding more influence in Iraq than the United States.
»The only sanction that would seriously undermine the mullah's military regime is a severe shortage of gasoline. Iran is awash in oil but lacks refining capacity and has to import 60 percent of its gasoline. A lack of governance in Baghdad has allowed Iran to strike a sub-rosa deal for gasoline imports.»
Borchgrave relève une montée accélérée du “parti de la guerre”, notamment dans les pays arabes “modérés”, c’est-à-dire alignés sur les USA et, implicitement, dans les grandes affaires stratégiques, sur Israël. Borchgrave cite le discours de l’ambassadeur des EAU à Aspen, dans le Colorado. Il note qu’à Washington également, certains milieux d’habitude plus modérés évoluent en faveur de la guerre. Enfin, argument moral imparable, il y a le fait que le président Obama, devant la déroute persistante en Irak et la débâcle en Afghanistan, pourrait juger une troisième guerre excellente pour le parti démocrate aux élections de novembre prochain.
«A former Arab leader, in close touch with current leaders, speaking privately not for attribution, told this reporter July 6, “All the Middle Eastern and gulf leaders now want Iran taken out of the nuclear arms business and they all know sanctions won't work.”
»In a joint op-ed, former U.S. Sen. Chuck Robb, D-Va., and retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Chuck Wald, the air commander in the opening stages of Operation ‘Enduring Freedom’ in October 2001, say the time is now to credibly prepare for a U.S. military strike. “Sanctions can be effective only if coupled with open preparation for the military option as a last resort … publicly playing down potential military options has weakened our leverage with Tehran, making a peaceful resolution less likely.”
»The temptation for Obama to double down on Iran will grow rapidly as he concludes that Afghanistan will remain a festering sore as far as anyone can peer into a murky future, hardly a recipe for success at the polls in November. With a war in Afghanistan, which is bound to get worse, and a military theater in Iraq replete with sectarian violence, the bombing of Iran may give Obama a three-front war – and a chance to retain both houses of Congress.»
dedefensa.org
-
