Mullen s’en va-pas-t-en-guerre

Mullen s’en va-pas-t-en-guerre

Sur fond d'un “mémo” de Robert Gates ayant été divulgué à la presse et annonçant que les USA n’ont pas de plan crédible pour attaquer l’Iran, ce qui est interprété de deux façons (“il en faut un” ou bien “nous n’avons pas les moyens d’en avoir un”), il y a ces déclarations de l’amiral Mullen, président du Joint Chief of Staff, au cours d’une conférence à Columbia University. Les interprétations diverses sont saisissantes. On en choisira deux.

• Celle du Times de Londres, ce 19 avril 2010, sous le titre : «Pentagon chief raises threat of attack as Iran taunts US with missile display». Le texte annonce l’impatience du Pentagone de lancer une attaque contre l’Iran.

«The Pentagon was ratcheting up pressure for military action against Iran last night as America’s top uniformed official said for the first time that a strike on nuclear targets would “go a long way” towards delaying Tehran’s uranium enrichment programme.

»The remarks by Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were his strongest yet in support of a strategy that both the Pentagon and the Obama Administration still regard as a last resort and possibly a recipe for a regional war. […]

»The war of words in Washington may reflect a power struggle between an Administration still committed to a diplomatic approach to Iran and an increasingly impatient Pentagon.

»Speaking at Columbia University, Admiral Mullen said last night of the Iranian nuclear programme: “Military options would go a long way to delaying it. That’s not my call. That’s going to be the President’s call. But from my perspective . . . the last option is to strike right now.” […]

»Such rhetoric reflects the worrying reality for Washington that Iran is more concerned about military encirclement by the US than by President Obama’s efforts to persuade it to end its pursuit of nuclear weapons.»

• Et puis l’interprétation du site Danger Room, de Noah Shachtmann, pas particulièrement anti-guerre et certainement tout aussi sérieux, sinon plus, que les appointés de la presse Murdoch, le 18 avril 2010. Le titre est : «Joint Chiefs Chair: No, No, No. Don’t Attack Iran.» Le texte est à mesure, à comparer avec le précédent.

«We are all screwed if Iran gets a nuke. And we may be just as screwed if the United States attacks Iran to keep Tehran from getting that nuke.

»Okay, I’m paraphrasing a bit. But that’s the core of the message from America’s top military officer, who reiterated today his canyon-deep reservations about any military solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. Sure, U.S. strikes might set back Tehran’s atomic weapons program — for a while. But the “unintended consequences” of a hit on Iran’s nuclear facilities could easily outweigh the benefits of that delay, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen told a forum at Columbia University.

»“Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilizing. Attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome,” Mullen said. “In an area that’s so unstable right now, we just don’t need more of that.”»

L’information? Faites votre choix…

dedefensa.org