5 f\u00e9vrier 2007 — Pour avoir les r\u00e9actions de fond sur la \u00ab\u00a0performance\u00a0\u00bb de Chirac, tenons nous-en aux Anglo-Saxons, qui connaissent la musique.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
• L’article du Financial Times<\/em> du 2 f\u00e9vrier<\/a> est un classique \u00ab\u00a0pour rappel\u00a0\u00bb. C’est l’habituel monument d’hypocrisie pateline, tenant pour acquise la responsabilit\u00e9 de la nature des choses dans ce qui est implicitement constat\u00e9 comme une \u00ab\u00a0sottise\u00a0\u00bb monumentale, qui est l’affirmation chiraquienne qu'\u00a0\u00bbon peut bien vivre avec un Iran nucl\u00e9aire\u00a0\u00bb, laquelle affirmation n’est d’ailleurs absolument pas pes\u00e9e ni d\u00e9battue. C’est de la belle ouvrage : le propos est \u00e0 mettre au compte de son mauvais \u00e9tat de sant\u00e9 et de son \u00e2ge, ce qui suppose qu’il est absurde ; alors on discute de son mauvais \u00e9tat de sant\u00e9 et de son \u00e2ge, ce qui \u00e9vite d’avoir \u00e0 d\u00e9montrer l’absurdit\u00e9 du propos.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n De ce fait, certains passages sont surprenants. Un exemple est celui où Hubert V\u00e9drines est cit\u00e9, et la pr\u00e9sentation laisse ouvert le choix de savoir si Chirac a c\u00e9d\u00e9 \u00e0 un d\u00e9rangement mental ou au besoin (accidentel ?) de dire la v\u00e9rit\u00e9. Comme nous avons le choix entre l’une et l’autre explication pour la m\u00eame d\u00e9marche, il vient tr\u00e8s vite \u00e0 l’esprit que dire la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 est aujourd’hui l’\u00e9quivalent du d\u00e9rangement mental. Voici le passage : «Yet most experts said Mr Chirac’s gaffe sounded less like a mental aberration and more like an unguarded moment of honesty. \u00ab\u00a0Jacques Chirac said what many experts in the world are saying, even in the US,\u00a0\u00bb said Hubert V\u00e9drine, former Socialist foreign minister.<\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Bref, l’article dans la grande tradition de la prestigieuse presse anglo-saxonne, n’a qu’un seul but : d\u00e9molir un homme d\u00e8s lors qu’il est pr\u00e9sident fran\u00e7ais. C’est de bonne guerre mais cela nous en dit long sur ce canard de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence, plus que jamais \u00ab\u00a0canard\u00a0\u00bb. On ajoutera ce qu’il faut au jugement en pr\u00e9cisant que certaines appr\u00e9ciations dans l’article renvoient \u00e0 une inspiration, — ou disons une collaboration de l’\u00e9quipe sarkozyste \u00e0 Paris.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n • La m\u00eame intervention de V\u00e9drines est reprise par un article publi\u00e9 par l’International Herald Tribune<\/em>, le 3 f\u00e9vrier<\/a>, qui pr\u00e9sente des avis d’experts divers :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n «\u00ab\u00a0Jacques Chirac said things that many experts are saying around the world, even in the United States; that is to say, that a country that possesses the bomb does not use it and automatically enters the system of deterrence and doesn’t take absurd risks,\u00a0\u00bb Hubert Vedrine, the French foreign minister from 1997 to 2002, said Friday on LCI television.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n (…)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n » \u00ab\u00a0There is a growing realization that the international community is failing to stop Iran from acquiring a uranium enrichment capability,\u00a0\u00bb said Mark Fitzpatrick, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. \u00ab\u00a0The U.S. government wouldn’t accept it, but it’s becoming a fait accompli. Can the next step — a nuclear weapon — be prevented? Chirac skipped over that question and cut to the chase in saying that, ‘We can live with a nuclear- armed Iran.'\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\n D’une fa\u00e7on g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, cet article est tr\u00e8s laudateur pour le pr\u00e9sident fran\u00e7ais. Il ne cherche plus pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment \u00e0 distinguer ce qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 dit d’abord, puis la \u00ab\u00a0rectification\u00a0\u00bb, mais amalgame les deux pour en faire un ensemble qui pr\u00e9sente le cas d’une d\u00e9claration (celle de Chirac) venant pr\u00e9ciser le probl\u00e8me iranien sous une lumi\u00e8re beaucoup plus mesur\u00e9e, pragmatique, que l’anath\u00e8me primaire qui sert de politique officielle.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n «The Bush administration rejects the idea of an Iranian bomb and has made stopping it the object of an increasingly aggressive policy. Among the Europeans, however, there is an overwhelming consensus that the American-led war in Iraq has been an unmitigated failure and that Washington’s Iran strategy could end in an even more destabilizing military confrontation.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »It was Chirac who led Europe’s opposition to the invasion of Iraq, and in a told-you-so speech last month he said that his predictions that the war would spread more chaos, regional instability and terrorism had come true.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »In his remarks this week, he could have been speaking for most of Europe when he said that what he called \u00a0\u00bbthe Iraq affair\u00a0\u00bb has \u00ab\u00a0shifted red lines.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »Even inside the Bush administration, some officials have acknowledged over the past year that Iran eventually may have a nuclear weapon or at least the technology and components to assemble one quickly. Outside of government, the view that the world might have to coexist with a nuclear Iran was laid out in a study by two U.S.-government-financed scholars at the National Defense University in 2005.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »\u00ab\u00a0Can the United States live with a nuclear-armed Iran?\u00a0\u00bb the report asked. \u00ab\u00a0Despite its rhetoric, it may have no choice.\u00a0\u00bb The report added that the costs of rolling back Tehran’s nuclear program \u00ab\u00a0may be higher than the costs of deterring and containing a nuclear Iran.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »In a sense, Chirac was trying to make just that point when he said in interviews to three publications, including the International Herald Tribune, that a bomb would do Iran little good because it would never be able to use it without facing swift retaliation.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »He also made clear that Tehran must not be completely humiliated and isolated, but encouraged to become a positive regional player. \u00ab\u00a0How can we impose sufficiently strong constraints on Iran?\u00a0\u00bb he asked in the Monday interview. Calling the Islamic Republic \u00ab\u00a0a bit fragile,\u00a0\u00bb he said, \u00ab\u00a0One has to know what Iran can withstand or not.\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »The following day, he stressed the importance of having a \u00ab\u00a0dialogue\u00a0\u00bb with Tehran, which he said had an important role to play to stabilize the region.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n »What was lost in the furor over Chirac’s remarks was his clear statement that Iran was secretly trying to become a nuclear power. \u00a0\u00bbIran wants, through the enrichment of uranium, to make a bomb,\u00a0\u00bb he said. In the past several years, Chirac has tried to navigate between the United States on one side and Iran on the other. It was France, in the months after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, that conceived a diplomatic initiative joined by Britain and Germany in which Iran would freeze its uranium enrichment activities in exchange for political, economic and technological incentives.<\/em>»<\/p>\n<\/p>\nLa sinc\u00e9rit\u00e9 et la psychologie<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n