Que font les Iraniens en Irak ?

Depuis le 10 janvier (discours de GW), la question est posée et ouverte : y a-t-il des Iraniens en Irak et qu’y font-ils ? The Observer consacre un long article à cette question aujourd’hui, analyse assez équilibrée et qui met bien en évidence la complexité du problème.

En réalité, estime l’analyse, le problème tel qu’il est posé par l’administration GW, pour des raisons d’abord intérieures d’ailleurs, l’est d’une façon incomplète et parcellaire. Il n’est pas sûr que les uns et les autres parlent de la même chose. Aux accusations du plus haut niveau répondent les constats des forces occidentales, notamment britanniques, qu’il n’existe aucune preuve sérieuse, et même aucune preuve du tout de “réseaux” iraniens alimentant les insurgés, résistants, etc., en Irak. Puis on aboutit à ce qui est finalement l’essentiel : la perception de la situation.

Il semble que les Américains aient, d’une part, bien du mal à comprendre la réalité de la situation en Irak, notamment la proximité naturelle entre les chiites irakiens et les Iraniens, renforcée par les liens tissés durant l’ère Saddam. D’autre part, il y a surtout le constat par l’article que le véritable enjeu, finalement, concerne l’influence grandissante de l’Iran aux dépens de celle des USA dans la région, renforcée par la perception du recul de la puissance israélienne, avec les intentions israéliennes de frapper l’Iran à cause du développement de ses capacités nucléaires.

Quelques extraits :

«What is clear is the US intention. In a newspaper interview on Friday, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice revealed that Bush had decided to undertake a broad military offensive against Iranian operatives in Iraq. “There has been a decision to go after these networks,” Rice said, adding that Bush had decided to act acted “after a period of time in which we saw increasing activity” among Iranians in Iraq, “and increasing lethality in what they were producing”.

(…)

»But there is another crucial issue — of perception. For what America sees as “evidence” of Iranian meddling, including the presence of numbers of Iranian officials, in Iraq, is not quite so obvious viewed from the perspective of Iraq's Shia political parties, many of whose senior figures lived for two decades and more in exile in Iran, and look to its powerful Shia neighbour as both a friend and a religious and political exemplar in the midst of crisis. Iraq's most senior Shia cleric was born in Iran — although he rejects the role of the clerics in the Iranian state. Many of the returning “Iranians”, as Iraqis who stayed under Saddam have dubbed the returning exiles, speak Farsi as comfortably as Arabic and when they want a break from the violence they holiday in villas in Iran.

»Seen from this point of view, many Shias would argue, it is the Americans who are meddling, not their Iranian “brothers”.

»Which brings the growing confrontation with Iran in Iraq down to a more fundamental issue: a straight competition for influence in the Middle East between the US and the growing power of Iran highlighted in last week's 'National Intelligence Estimate' by director of national intelligence John Negroponte. Rice's willingness to discuss the issue so openly reflects a new hostility to Iran that was first evident in Bush's speech to the nation last week, in which he accused Tehran of providing material support for attacks on American troops and vowed to respond.

»The reality is that the policy of turning the screw on Iran is being driven by Washington's wider regional concerns. Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has warned that Iran's nuclear programme will be critical over the next 12 months and officials have hinted broadly that Israel might attack Iran unilaterally if the US does not act.»

Mis en ligne le 14 janvier 2007 à 14H18