{"id":68402,"date":"2007-01-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-12T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/01\/12\/des-patriot-aux-typhoon\/"},"modified":"2007-01-12T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-01-12T00:00:00","slug":"des-patriot-aux-typhoon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/01\/12\/des-patriot-aux-typhoon\/","title":{"rendered":"Des Patriot<\/em> aux Typhoon<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Certains observateurs ont not\u00e9 que GW Bush avait, dans son discours du 10 janvier, mentionn\u00e9 dans la rubrique renforcement le d\u00e9ploiement d’un nouveau groupe de porte-avions dans le Golfe et la livraison de missiles sol-air Patriot<\/em> aux pays amis autour du Golfe. Parmi ces pays amis, on devrait compter sans aucun doute l’Arabie Saoudite. (Le Patriot<\/em> fait partie des grandes fables am\u00e9ricanistes. L’inefficacit\u00e9<\/a> de ce syst\u00e8me est prodigieuse, voire l\u00e9gendaire, \u00e0 mesure inverse de son prix et de la propagande \u00e9hont\u00e9e faite autour de ses pr\u00e9tendus exploits de guerre. Cela rassure les Saoudiens.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa r\u00e9f\u00e9rence aux Patriot<\/em> rejoint une autre \u00e9trange et r\u00e9cente nouvelle concernant les Saoudiens. Les Britanniques ont \u00e9t\u00e9 surpris par le z\u00e8le soudain des Saoudiens pour boucler<\/a> le contrat Typhoon<\/em>\/Yamamah<\/em> alors que l’on n’est pas sorti<\/a> de toutes les cons\u00e9quences de l’enqu\u00eate du SFO ; puis de leur insistance pour se faire livrer tr\u00e8s rapidement<\/a> les premiers exemplaires. L’explication suivante \u00e9tait donn\u00e9e par le Times<\/em> de Londres : \u00ab The Saudis are happy to have the air-defence Typhoon to replace the Tornado F3, which is no longer seen as viable for taking on the perceived biggest threat in the region the F14 Tomcats flown by the Iranian Air Force, bought from America in the 1970s.<\/em>\u00bb (Explication sur laquelle il y aurait beaucoup \u00e0 dire. S’il s’agit des F-14 originaux de 1976, on peut douter de leur capacit\u00e9 \u00e0 op\u00e9rer encore. Il est par contre possible qu’il soit implicitement question d’autres<\/a> F-14.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tDe tout cela et d’autres indications qu’on conna\u00eet, certains proposent la conclusion d’un encha\u00eenement d’attaques contre l’Iran, comme partie (\u00e0 peine) dissimul\u00e9e du plan de GW Bush. Patrick J. Buchanan est un de ceux-l\u00e0, ce matin<\/a> sur le site Antiwar.com<\/em> :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abwhile the surge is modest, Bush has in mind a different kind of escalation widening the war by attacking the source of instability in the region: Tehran.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbI recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region, said Bush. We will deploy … Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbBut there is no need for more carrier-based fighter-bombers in Iraq. And the insurgents have no missiles against which anyone would need Patriot missiles to defend. You only need Patriots if your target country has missiles with which to retaliate against you.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbWhat Bush signaled in the clear Wednesday is that air strikes on Iranian networks are being planned. That would produce an Iranian response. That response would trigger US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, for which Israel and the neocons are howling.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 12 janvier 2007 \u00e0 09H32<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Certains observateurs ont not\u00e9 que GW Bush avait, dans son discours du 10 janvier, mentionn\u00e9 dans la rubrique renforcement le d\u00e9ploiement d’un nouveau groupe de porte-avions dans le Golfe et la livraison de missiles sol-air Patriot aux pays amis autour du Golfe. Parmi ces pays amis, on devrait compter sans aucun doute l’Arabie Saoudite. (Le… <\/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":[3259,2870,3198,2773,3950,6219,3129,4364],"class_list":["post-68402","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-arabie","tag-attaque","tag-gw","tag-iran","tag-patriot","tag-sfo","tag-typhoon","tag-yamamah"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68402","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=68402"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68402\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68402"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68402"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68402"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}