Forum

Ces spéculations d’un affaiblissement de la position de l’Iran sur le dossier nucléaire sont d’une absurdité sans nom puisque aucun des candidats aux élections ne remettait en cause le développement du nucléaire iranien.
S’il y a un sujet sur lequel le gouvernement iranien quel qu’il soit n’est pas affaibli, c’est bien celui-ci.

C’est pourtant une évidence pour un pays comme l’Iran :
- Il dispose de grandes ressources d’hydrocarbures (Fars Field notamment) dans un contexte d’épuisement progressif des gisements et la traversée de l’Iran est le plus court chemin entre la mer Caspienne (riche en pétrole) et l’océan Indien.
- Il est exposé aux armées nucléarisées d’un grand nombre de pays : USA, GB, France, Israël, Russie, Pakistan, Inde, Chine pour qui la tentation pourrait être forte de mettre la main sur ces gisements.

C’est du pur bon sens que de vouloir se doter de l’armée de dissuasion par excellence et l’élite iranienne est probablement unanime sur le sujet. Le pays n’est donc pas affaibli sur ce point et de telles spéculations ne font que souligner l’aveuglement occidental.

Surpris de ne pas voir mentionner l’action déstabilisatrice d’une partie du gouvernement. Obama,celle la plus soumise aux influences pro-israelienne d’ou probablement des divisions profondes au sein du gouvernement US.ET qu’en a-t-il été lors des élections libanaises ? De toutes façons ainsi que l’a précisé Obama lui-même il n’y a guère de différences entre l’extrémiste et le modéré,alors,pourquoi tant de peine ??

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article11401.html

Un aperçu passionnant et pas trop long par F.William Engdahl

relevé de ses articles :
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/UserInfo-F_William_Engdahl.html

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3876

Rien n’est joué à terme (..) pour le duo infernal, ni pour les Israéliens Likoudistes,ni pour Mahmoud..

Extrait d’une réaction assez flashy parmis d’autres ...Sacré Pepe toujours le mot pour rire!

Theali, I know all that. You, however, are obviously not privy to the relationship Ahmadinejad has built with Putin/Medvedev and Beijing’s brass over the past 4 years (guess what, I am). Although any president in Tehran wouldn’t necessarily discontinue Moscow/Beijing’s momentum with Tehran, the former prefer Ahmadinejad because he is privy to the deals that they and the SCO/BRIC nations have set forth. Separately, Washington is involved in the current rioting in Iran - however subtlely - despite Pepe Escobar’s denials. Witness: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/17/obama-iran-twitter

simplement une operation de destabilisation.

Tout a fait d’accord avec Bilbao. L’Iran n’est pas affaibli par cette operation de destabilisation de nos services.

De la a parler de crise iraniene c’est du wishful thinking de notre part. Peut etre aimerions nous bien que d’autres que nous subissent aussi des crises…

Pour plus d’info sur cette destabilisation de l’Iran lire
http://www.voltairenet.org/article160639.html

Information et désinformation, nous sommes tous victimes de la manière dont on nous raconte l’histoire. C’est l’éternel mythe de la caverne.
On peut chercher à ouvrir les yeux et essayer de voir une autre vérité cachée derrière le miroir ou bien se voiler la face et se contenter du politiquement correct et de la pensée convenue, voire formatée.

Sur les événements iraniens, il est intéressant d’avoir un autre point de vue ou une autre interprétation que celle donnée par les médias dominants.
lire “le laboratoire iranien”
http://www.voltairenet.org/article160639.html

Il faudrait penser à débrayer chez dedéfensa , votre analyse certes brillante mais qui manque un peu de relief date déjà un peu…Formatage de la pensée critique ou gerontisme civilisationelle ,“eux et nous”..  c’est de l’expressionisme en goguette,qui se visite sur le chemin de l’abreaction du déterminisme gesticulant,bipolarisant..

Tant pis je débraie pour la colonie des travestis en paralléle ..,ou quand William Pfaff débraye la caravanne qui double l’ombre chaotique .
Columns : Iran’s Deepening Crisis
on 2009/6/19 18:00:00 (205 reads)
aris, June 18, 2009 – An important change is evident in what since Samuel Huntington’s time has been mistakenly identified and manipulated as a war between Muslim and western civilizations.

I say mistakenly for several reasons, one of them being that Professor Huntington himself actually foresaw a war in which an alliance of Muslim and Chinese civilizations attacked the West, in an exaggerated cold war scenario. (The Chinese are now on the American side, where much of their fortune is tied up).

I say manipulatively because the Huntington thesis served the purpose of those Americans who believed in the inevitability of conflict with Islam as a whole – not just with individual states.

This was because 9/11 was not taken in the U.S. as an attack by a state, but as the action of a whole society “that hates Americans for their freedoms.” Islamic radicalism was not understood as a politico-nationalist reaction to foreign intrusion, composed of collective Arab enmity towards Israel because of its creation on Arab territory, and fear of a western strategic threat to the region’s strategic resources.

Washington, and many if not most Americans, have conceived of the affair as a conflict between us and them. “Them” might be composed of several states, including even those governed by elites with ties to the United States, as well as those dominated by radical anti-western forces. But ultimately, they were all “them.”

It followed from this bi-polar interpretation that “we” had to do something about “them.” Such as overturning or subverting hostile Muslim governments, or organizing international opposition or sanctions on those Islamic countries identified as “rogue” or “failing” (or “failed”) states, vulnerable to radical Islamic forces.

When all of this was added together it was simple for the West to sum it up as war by Islam against the West, dictating a western counteroffensive against this Islamic threat; and for the other side to interpret events as a war against Islam by the West. A war that began with the Crusades, was followed by imperialism in modern times, continuing with the seizure of Arab land to create Israel, and producing the Suez invasion, the western-organized coup in Iran in 1953, various Lebanon interventions, two wars against Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan—all part of a vast neo-colonial enterprise inspired by western religion and western oil interests.

The thesis of war of religion, promoted on both sides, neglected the existence of a vast part of Muslim society lying outside the Middle East and Central Asia, in Indonesia, Malaysia, China and Africa, all of it with other problems to think about than oil and Israel.

The West was wrong about this being a war of civilizations, and so were the Muslims. George W. Bush’s Great War on Global Terror, against Islamic radicalism and Muslim terrorism, and the Great Fear that came close to paralyzing America after 9/11, and continues to preoccupy the American and West European governments, are both fundamentally due to a crisis inside Islamic civilization: a double crisis, of modernity, and of religion.

Nothing could be clearer today in Teheran. Iran is convulsed by a struggle between its modernizing classes, reaching out to become part of a cosmopolitan international society, and to possess the respect of western nations (if necessary, through the dangerous possession of nuclear weapons, as well as other evidences of western modernity), and to be taken into the high councils of the modern world and be invited to participate in the rounds of international meetings where the Iranians no doubt think the world’s problems are today being settled over their heads and against their interests.

The Iranian modernizers want all this, while remaining an Islamic great power (the Islamic Great Power, if possible). They want it without losing their immortal souls and their civilization. They will of course, as others before them (as in Turkey, and on the Christian side, in Europe and the United States), find that this combination is not easily achieved.

That is why they also suffer a religious crisis. The Ayatollahs’ revolution in 1979 was a successful rejection by the Iranians of the flamboyant westernization efforts of the Shah Reza Pahlevi, America’s “gendarme in the Middle East.” In 1971 the Shah arranged a colossally extravagant party at Persepolis to celebrate the 2,500th anniversary of the founding of the Empire of Cyrus the Great, Zoroastrian in religion.

The guest list of the world’s great personages included Emperor Halie Selassi, King Moshoeshoe of Lesotho, and the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Ranier and Princess Grace. It extended to the Presidents Tito, Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania, and Mobuto of Zaire, Imelda Marcos, and Spiro Agnew.

The Ayatollah Khomeini, from his exile, called it “the Devil’s Festival.”

The Islamic revolution followed in 1979, and the Ayatollah then ruled Iran, in Muhammed’s name, as his successors do today. But the Iranian people are restless, unsatisfied, unsure of what they should want.

© Copyright 2009 by Tribune Media Services International. All Rights Reserved.