Pas d’attaque? Pas sûr

La divulgation de la NIE 2007 sur la situation nucléaire de l’Iran a déclenché une série de commentaires observant que cette divulgation rendait quasiment impossible une attaque contre l’Iran. Mais cette opinion n’est pas unanime. Du côté des neocons et autres hystériques, pas de surprise. Plus intéressante est l’opinion d’un anti-guerre notoire comme Justin Raimundo. Dans sa chronique d’aujourd’hui sur Antiwar.com, Raimundo avertit qu’à son avis, le danger d’une attaque contre l’Iran n’est pas écartée.

Raimundo détaille, avec un plaisir qu’il ne dissimule pas une seconde, les extraordinaires contorsions dialectiques des divers bellicistes et hystériques pour montrer que la NIE 2007, après tout, n’est pas autre chose qu’une incitation à partir en guerre plutôt qu’à n’y plus songer. Le principal de l'argument de Raimundo pour argument que “tout espoir” n'est pas perdu pour eux est 1) que les neocons et le reste sont encore plus fous qu’on ne croit, et 2) que le casus belli qu’ils attendent n’a rien à voir avec le nucléaire mais avec un incident de frontière (frontière Iran-Irak) ou tout autre incident grave entre Iraniens et soldats US en Irak.

«However, the nuclear issue has never been the primary thrust of the neocons' case for war with Iran: far more important has been the accusation that we are already at war with Iran because they're supposedly funding, harboring, and directing ''terrorist'' activities against U.S. troops in Iraq. According to what the administration has been saying for many months, the Iranians are killing U.S. soldiers – so when are we going to take them out? Hillary Clinton, too, is asking this question: that's why she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guards to be an official ''terrorist'' organization, the only time a military component of a foreign regime has been so defined. Kyl-Lieberman will give the president full authority to engage in “hot pursuit” and precipitate a cross-border incident with Iran that could easily escalate into a full-scale military conflict.

»It's a very long Iranian-Iraqi border that snakes through every enclave of ethno-religious tension in the region. Somewhere in that vast and volatile wilderness the first shots of what George W. Bush warns is going to be World War III will be fired: it's the most likely scenario, far more plausible and defensible than a strike at what the administration claims are nuclear facilities in or near heavily populated Iranian cities.

»War with Iran is no less likely now than it was last week, last month, or last year. Indeed, it is conceivable that the chances of just such a provocation occurring sometime before we get a new president have increased, precisely because the War Party has been dealt such a devastating setback on the nuclear front. Desperation makes people do very odd things, and in this case I would reverse one of Victor Davis Hanson and Michael Rubin's arguments and apply it to those seemingly intent on taking us into yet another disastrous war, including the president.

»Hanson and Rubin argue that the Iranians are not entirely of sound mind, that all that stuff about the Twelfth Imam returning indicates an irrational millennialism that can only end in a nuclear conflagration. In short, the Iranians are crazy.

»I suggest Rubin, Podhoretz, et al., take a good, long look in the mirror. Unlike Iran's hardliners, ours are openly calling for war. As crazy as Ahmadinejad and his pals may be, Podhoretz and his pals are even wackier.

»I'd sure like to believe that the relatively rational sectors of our government – the professional intelligence analysts, career diplomats, and assorted ''realists'' in the national security bureaucracy – have succeeded in putting a stake through the heart of the neocons and spiking the much-rumored war plans of this administration. Unfortunately, I owe it to my readers to tell it like it is: don't break out the champagne just yet. Oh, and keep your eye on the Iran-Iraq border, including the somewhat blurry line of demarcation in the Gulf. We aren't in the clear yet, not by a long shot, and we won't be until all U.S. troops are out of Iraq.»

Mis en ligne le 5 décembre 2007 à 18H24