Variation sur le thème de la “robotisation”

Variation sur le thème de la “robotisation”

La poussée de fièvre favorable à une attaque de l’Iran, – une de plus, bien entendu, – relève du processus de “robotisation” que nous avons évoqué le 4 août 2010. C’en est une variante, plus alerte, mais le processus est similaire, qui s’exprime par une uniformisation du jugement tel qu’il est diffusé par les grands médias de communication.

Sur Atimes.com, ce 5 août 2010, Kaveh L. Afrasiabi, expert de la question iranienne, d’origine iranienne mais qui travaille en général en Occident (USA, France), s’exclame devant la subite transformation de l’argumentation. Cela est visible, notamment, depuis l’intervention de l’amiral Mullen, elle-même notablement plus enjouée que les précédentes sur les conditions de l’attaque. «That was then. Now, all of a sudden, the US media is inundated with hatched commentaries on “the case for attacking Iran”, often by pro-Israel pundits trying to minimize the risks of an attack on Iran, some portraying this as a convenient “surgical strike” to knock off Iran's nuclear installations and thus set back Iran's program for many years.»

Désormais, tout paraît idyllique et l’attaque contre l’Iran apparaît comme une partie de plaisir, d’ailleurs contre un pays dont la culpabilité est avérée, sans l’ombre de la nécessité d’un procès. Après avoir rappelé les réelles perspectives à cet égard, extrêmement dramatiques, Afrasiabi conclut par une appréciation en règle du comportement de l’establishment des experts aux USA, avec l'aide des médias bien entendu.

«Indeed, it would have been appropriate for the host of NBC's news program to whom Mullen revealed that war plans had been drawn up to ask the admiral “what do you think are the likely conséquences” of an attack on Iran? Unfortunately, as for the most part they have sheepishly toed the official line, compliant US television networks have produced no meaningful debate, with pro-Israel pundits thirsting for war enjoying nearly unchallenged sway over public opinion.

»The entire machinery of US print and electronic media has adopted as an article of faith that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons and is getting dangerously close to acquiring the nuke “capability”. What should be an open question has been treated as rather moot and self-evident, with an array of “experts” from Harvard and other elite universities and think tanks lending authority to this conclusion, thus removing it from the realm of genuine debate. Hardly any of the experts bother to pose the question, “What if we are witnessing a recycling of the run-up to the Iraq war, in other words, another WMD hype that may turn out to be false just as it was with Iraq?”

»Such disconcerting “what if” questions are cast away from the mainstream American discourse on Iran and, instead, we are witnessing the total absence of any “Iraq lesson” applied to the case of Iran, perhaps save the lessons about counterinsurgency. The “unintended conséquence” of failing to learn from history is, however, that the world could be imposed upon with the horror and devastation of another war of choice that could still be avoided through prudent diplomacy from both sides of the on-going nuclear standoff.

»Ironically, Mullen's statement on NBC coincided with the news from Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, that Iran had received “positive signals” from the Vienna Group – comprising the US, Russia, France, and the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) – regarding proposals for a nuclear fuel swap. Clearly, the US is playing a double-handed game with Iran, its mixed signals indicating a conflicted administration that may neutralize efforts of its own that could result in a small yet significant breakthrough via the fuel swap; efforts which can transpire only in a calm environment.

»But, as the IAEA prepares the ground for a new round of Iran-Vienna group meeting, the US's incendiary rhetoric is simultaneously poisoning the environment conducive for a nuclear breakthrough. That is one “unintended conséquence” that Mullen and other US officials do not seem terribly concerned about.»

dedefensa.org