US hawks see strikes on Iran as less likely now, influential thinkers who backed a US-led invasion of Iraq now say containment, not confrontation, is best for Iran.<\/em>\u00bb.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tLe journal nous explique le processus de cette fa\u00e7on, rejetant l’argument de ceux qui pr\u00e9voient toujours une attaque (notamment le non-vote par la Chambre d’une restriction contre l’attaque):<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\u00bbEarlier this month when House leader Nancy Pelosi struck a provision from a $100-billion spending bill that would have specifically required President Bush to seek congressional approval before any military strike on Iran, it was seen as a victory for the hawks in Washington.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbAfter all, the Democrats took control of Congress last year in large part because of voter anger over the Iraq war. If they were saying that Bush doesn’t need their permission to take action against Iran, then his all options are on the table rhetoric looks stronger, and raises the possibility of expanded conflict in the Middle East.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbBut war with Iran, or even targeted air strikes at presumed nuclear facilities, is looking less and less likely. Despite tough rhetoric from both sides and increased tension over Iran’s move to detain 15 British sailors last week, a variety of influential thinkers who championed the US-led invasion of Iraq are now saying that containment, not confrontation, is the best approach to Iran.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tSuit une ribambelle d’avis d’experts, plus authoritative<\/em> les uns que les autres. Tout cela ne correspond \u00e0 rien de pr\u00e9cis ni \u00e0 rien de d\u00e9cisif. Pour le tournant actuel tel que le d\u00e9crit le Christian Science Monitor<\/em>, il semble y avoir une prise en compte implicite des limites du projet d’attaque (et des moyens limit\u00e9s dont disposent les USA) plut\u00f4t que la soudaine d\u00e9couverte des vertus des sanctions, m\u00eame si celles-ci sont d\u00e9sormais par\u00e9es de toutes les vertus. Ce qui est le plus remarquable avec ce changement d’\u00e9tat d’esprit, c’est le constat que la politique \u00e9trang\u00e8re des USA est devenue une politique de gesticulations dans tous les sens et selon l’humeur, dont l’effet est d’accentuer le d\u00e9sordre ext\u00e9rieur et, \u00e0 Washington m\u00eame, d’accentuer la parcellisation du pouvoir central avec une fortune variable pour les diff\u00e9rents centres de pouvoir qui agissent.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 28 mars 2007 \u00e0 11H22<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
D\u00e9sormais, on vous dit \u00e0 Washington que l’attaque de l’Iran, perspective si s\u00e9duisante sinon acquise il y a quelques semaines, nous appara\u00eet compl\u00e8tement pass\u00e9e de mode. Le Christian Science Monitor, dans son \u00e9dition du jour, nous explique la chose, sous le titre : \u00abUS hawks see strikes on Iran as less likely now, influential thinkers… <\/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":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[2870,2773],"class_list":["post-68662","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-attaque","tag-iran"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68662","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=68662"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68662\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68662"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68662"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68662"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}