Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
1128L’excellent chroniqueur washingtonien Steve C. Clemons publie sur son site The Washington Note, en date du 24 mai, la nouvelle de ce que l’on pourrait appeler un “complot” monté par Cheney contre GW Bush, pour forcer à une attaque contre l’Iran.
L’idée serait de provoquer une attaque limitée (avec des missiles de croisière) amenant une riposte iranienne qui entraînerait une riposte US et un conflit au plus haut niveau ; le plan serait notamment renforcé par l’appréciation que le président iranien Ahmadinejad aurait intérêt à un tel affrontement pour renforcer son pouvoir, et saisirait l’occasion d’une telle riposte. La poussée de Cheney et de ses partisans se fait alors que, et parce que le président soutient de plus en plus les efforts diplomatiques vers l’Iran, conduits par Rice (département d’Etat), par Gates (Pentagone) et soutenus notamment par la CIA. Clemons cite une source dans l’administration selon laquelle les manœuvres de Cheney s’apparentent à une “insubordination criminelle potentielle” contre le président.
«There is a race currently underway between different flanks of the administration to determine the future course of US-Iran policy.
»On one flank are the diplomats, and on the other is Vice President Cheney's team and acolytes — who populate quite a wide swath throughout the American national security bureaucracy.
»The Pentagon and the intelligence establishment are providing support to add muscle and nuance to the diplomatic effort led by Condi Rice, her deputy John Negroponte, Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, and Legal Adviser John Bellinger. The support that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and CIA Director Michael Hayden are providing Rice's efforts are a complete, 180 degree contrast to the dysfunction that characterized relations between these institutions before the recent reshuffle of top personnel.
»However, the Department of Defense and national intelligence sector are also preparing for hot conflict. They believe that they need to in order to convince Iran's various power centers that the military option does exist.
»But this is worrisome. The person in the Bush administration who most wants a hot conflict with Iran is Vice President Cheney. The person in Iran who most wants a conflict is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Quds Force would be big winners in a conflict as well — as the political support that both have inside Iran has been flagging.
»Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.
»This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an ''end run strategy'' around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.
»The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).
»This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf — which just became significantly larger — as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.
»There are many other components of the complex game plan that this Cheney official has been kicking around Washington. The official has offered this commentary to senior staff at AEI and in lunch and dinner gatherings which were to be considered strictly off-the-record, but there can be little doubt that the official actually hopes that hawkish conservatives and neoconservatives share this information and then rally to this point of view…»
Mis en ligne le 25 mai 2007 à 10H46
-
