Enfin des preuves

C’est donc la première fois que les USA fournissent des preuves de l’implication iranienne en Irak, conformément au plan de la “nouvelle stratégie” en Irak présentée au peuple américain le 10 janvier dernier. L’opération est en tous points similaire à celle qui mit l’Irak en accusation en 2002-2003 et mena à l’invasion de mars 2003. Elle est aussi élaborée, aussi précise, aussi imaginative, aussi fondée et aussi corroborée par les faits. A la place des armes de destruction massive de Saddam et de l’uranium enrichi pour construire la bombe des Irakiens, on trouve les IED (Improvised Explosive Devices) qui tiennent en échec la plus puissante armée du monde, et semblent même la conduire à une défaite si ignominieuse que Washington juge nécessaire de se tourner vers Téhéran pour élargir le champ de cette défaite.

Il est question d’IED nettement iraniennes, qui ont tué précisément (la précision bureaucratique est convaincante) 170 soldats US et blessé 620 autres. Il est question d’une implication iranienne “au plus haut niveau”, ce qui est encore plus grave ; on pourrait pardonner d’un sous-fifre ce qui ne peut l’être d’un haut dirigeant qui devrait montrer sens de la responsabilité et respect des lois internationales, — à l’image de la direction américaniste. En un sens, cette agression extérieure contre des troupes américanistes dont on sait qu’elles sont en Irak dans la plus complète légalité, pour une tâche humanitaire dont le monde entier leur est reconnaissant et dont le peuple irakien les remercie chaque jour, frappe de plein fouet la conscience internationale.

Ainsi, explique Patrick Cockburn dans The Independent aujourd’hui, les USA «sets stage for a new confrontation». L’emploi d’un terme théâtral pour qualifier l’opération de communication de Washington a ici sa place.

Nous donnons ici une partie de la présentation que fait Cockburn de cette opération. Elle est excellente, bien argumentée, bien informée, avec le sens critique qu’il faut pour remettre la politique américaniste au niveau de misère intellectuelle et de manipulation sans vergogne où elle évolue.

«The allegations by senior but unnamed US officials in Baghdad and Washington are bizarre. The US has been fighting a Sunni insurgency in Iraq since 2003 that is deeply hostile to Iran.

»The insurgent groups have repeatedly denounced the democratically elected Iraqi government as pawns of Iran. It is unlikely that the Sunni guerrillas have received significant quantities of military equipment from Tehran. Some 1,190 US soldiers have been killed by so-called improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But most of them consist of heavy artillery shells (often 120mm or 155mm) taken from the arsenals of the former regime and detonated by blasting caps wired to a small battery. The current is switched on either by a command wire or a simple device such as the remote control used for children's toys or to open garage doors.

»Such bombs were used by guerrillas during the Irish war of independence in 1919-21 against British patrols and convoys. They were commonly used in the Second World War, when ‘shaped charges’, similar in purpose to the EFPs of which the US is now complaining, were employed by all armies. The very name — explosive formed penetrators ¬— may have been chosen to imply that a menacing new weapon has been developed.

»At the end of last year the Baker-Hamilton report, written by a bipartisan commission of Republicans and Democrats, suggested opening talks with Iran and Syria to resolve the Iraq crisis. Instead, President Bush has taken a precisely opposite line, blaming Iran and Syria for US losses in Iraq.

»In the past month Washington has arrested five Iranian officials in a long-established office in Arbil, the Kurdish capital. An Iranian diplomat was kidnapped in Baghdad, allegedly by members of an Iraqi military unit under US influence. President George Bush had earlier said that Iranians deemed to be targeting US forces could be killed, which seemed to be opening the door to assassinations.

»The statements from Washington give the impression that the US has been at war with Shia militias for the past three-and-a-half years while almost all the fighting has been with the Sunni insurgents. These are often led by highly trained former officers and men from Saddam Hussein's elite military and intelligence units. During the Iran-Iraq war between 1980 and 1988, the Iraqi leader, backed by the US and the Soviet Union, was able to obtain training in advanced weapons for his forces.

»The US stance on the military capabilities of Iraqis today is the exact opposite of its position in four years ago. Then President Bush and Tony Blair claimed that Iraqis were technically advanced enough to produce long-range missiles and to be close to producing a nuclear device. Washington is now saying that Iraqis are too backward to produce an effective roadside bomb and must seek Iranian help.

»The White House may have decided that, in the run up to the 2008 presidential election, it would be much to its political advantage in the US to divert attention from its failure in Iraq by blaming Iran for being the hidden hand supporting its opponents.

»It is likely that Shia militias have received weapons and money from Iran and possible that the Sunni insurgents have received some aid. But most Iraqi men possess weapons. Many millions of them received military training under Saddam Hussein. His well-supplied arsenals were all looted after his fall. No specialist on Iraq believes that Iran has ever been a serious promoter of the Sunni insurgency.

»The evidence against Iran is even more insubstantial than the faked or mistaken evidence for Iraqi WMDs disseminated by the US and Britain in 2002 and 2003. The allegations appear to be full of exaggerations. Few Abrams tanks have been destroyed. It implies the Shias have been at war with the US while in fact they are controlled by parties which make up the Iraqi government.»

Mis en ligne le 12 février 2007 à 04H59