Voici un article du plus grand int\u00e9r\u00eat, celui du New York Times<\/em>, de H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Cooper et David E. Sanger, sur la d\u00e9cision US de rejoindre les n\u00e9gociations avec l’Iran (\u00ab A Talk at Lunch That Shifted the Stance on Iran<\/em> \u00bb, publi\u00e9 le 4 juin<\/a>). Il nous donne une description pr\u00e9cise et un tableau convaincant de l’\u00e9volution am\u00e9ricaine dans la crise iranienne durant ces trois derniers mois, jusqu’\u00e0 la d\u00e9cision-surprise des USA d’accepter de n\u00e9gocier avec les Iraniens au sein de la coalition.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t• L’enjeu : la d\u00e9faite, simplement. L’article observe : \u00ab Mr. Bush’s aides rarely describe policy debates in the Oval Office in much detail. But in recounting his decisions in this case, they appeared eager to portray him as determined to rebuild a fractured coalition still bearing scars from Iraq and find a way out of a negotiating dynamic that, as one aide said recently, the Iranians were winning.<\/em> \u00bb En d’autres termes: compte tenu du refus cat\u00e9gorique de n\u00e9gocier directement avec les Iraniens qui a caract\u00e9ris\u00e9 jusqu’alors la position US, la d\u00e9cision am\u00e9ricaine d’y consentir appara\u00eet simplement comme une d\u00e9cision ultime pour emp\u00eacher une victoire iranienne.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t• …Quelle victoire des Iraniens? La d\u00e9sint\u00e9gration de la fragile unit\u00e9 des puissances, le constat de plus en plus pressant que la coalition (c’est-\u00e0-dire l’unit\u00e9 entre les cinq autres et les USA) \u00e9tait en train d’\u00e9clater: \u00ab On a Tuesday afternoon two months ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sat down to a small lunch in President Bush’s private dining room behind the Oval Office and delivered grim news to her boss: Their coalition against Iran was at risk of falling apart. <\/em>[…] On March 30, Ms. Rice traveled to Berlin for what turned into a fractious meeting with representatives of the other four permanent members of the Security Council and Germany. She questioned what kind of sanctions would be effective. The conversation went nowhere. That led to Ms. Rice’s warning to Mr. Bush over lunch, on April 4, that the momentum to confront Iran was disintegrating…<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t• Le poids des Russes a \u00e9t\u00e9 consid\u00e9rable dans la d\u00e9cision am\u00e9ricaine de rejoindre les n\u00e9gociations. Cette remarque \u00e0 propos du d\u00eener crucial du 12 mai le met en \u00e9vidence, puisque c’est \u00e0 ce moment que Rice se convainquit que les USA devaient franchir le pas : \u00ab Her meeting in New York with her European counterparts turned testy, particularly an exchange with Mr. Lavrov, who was still smarting from a speech by Mr. Cheney denouncing Russia for its increasingly authoritarian behavior. But the discussion, while fractious, convinced her that the only way to break the stalemate was to offer to join the negotiations.<\/em> \u00bb (Le d\u00eener eut lieu le 12 mai au Warldorf Astoria. Un article du Daily Telegraph<\/em> du 14 mai<\/a> en d\u00e9crivait bien l’atmosph\u00e8re. Cet article, ainsi que celui du New York Times<\/em> qui est d\u00e9taill\u00e9 ici, est repris sur notre site, dans notre rubrique Nos choix comment\u00e9s<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t• Une remarque, en passant dans l’article, tend \u00e0 confirmer ce qu’on a pu d\u00e9j\u00e0 ressentir : les Russes \u00e9taient les plus r\u00e9ticents devant l’attitude des Am\u00e9ricains, mais avec eux se trouvaient, fort proches, les Allemands : \u00ab While Mr. Bush initially told Ms. Rice that others could work out the final negotiations, Ms. Rice told the president that only you can nail this down, apparently a reference to keeping Ms. Merkel and Mr. Putin on board<\/em> \u00bb Il semblerait logique de conclure que l’attitude allemande, proche de celle des Russes, alors que les Am\u00e9ricains tenaient Merkel pour une super-atlantiste apr\u00e8s l’\u00e9pisode Schr\u00f6der, a d\u00fb peser lourd dans l’\u00e9volution US de ces derniers mois.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t• L’article termine par une observation qui donne son sens \u00e0 la situation actuelle. Loin d’avoir une position de force avec leur entr\u00e9e dans les n\u00e9gociations, les Am\u00e9ricains sont sur la corde raide et jouent gros : \u00ab But Mr. Bush, led by Ms. Rice, is taking a significant risk. He must hold together countries that bitterly broke with the United States three years ago on Iraq. And now, he seems acutely aware that part of his legacy may depend on his ability to prevent Iran from emerging as a nuclear power in the Middle East, without again resorting to military force.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t• Et un enjeu essentiel pour les USA, l’enjeu principal, selon nous, est moins le cas iranien que l’unit\u00e9 des puissances de la coalition (Bush \u00ab must hold together countries that bitterly broke with the United States three years ago on Iraq…<\/em> \u00bb).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 5 juin 2006 \u00e0 09H11<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Voici un article du plus grand int\u00e9r\u00eat, celui du New York Times, de H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Cooper et David E. Sanger, sur la d\u00e9cision US de rejoindre les n\u00e9gociations avec l’Iran (\u00ab A Talk at Lunch That Shifted the Stance on Iran \u00bb, publi\u00e9 le 4 juin). Il nous donne une description pr\u00e9cise et un tableau convaincant… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[2773,2697,3256,3306,4199,2852,3257],"class_list":["post-67623","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-iran","tag-negociations","tag-new","tag-rice","tag-telegraph","tag-times","tag-york"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67623","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=67623"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67623\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67623"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67623"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67623"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}