In fact, Bush’s speech to the veterans in Nevada has several similarities to his address to the nation on Jan. 10. That was also slated as a major speech on Iraq, though it spelled out little new about Washington’s strategy except to call for staying the course. Instead, it revealed key elements of the U.S.’ new aggressive posture on Iran.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tIl s’agit bien d’une tactique interne, tendant \u00e0 obtenir des d\u00e9cisions et des soutiens \u00e0 la politique irakienne par le biais d’accusations contre l’Iran, en d\u00e9pla\u00e7ant le probl\u00e8me vers des accusations contre l’Iran. Avec le parall\u00e8le entre les deux discours (10 janvier et 28 ao\u00fbt), Parsi constate que, plus que jamais, il s’agit ici d’un affrontement entre la Maison-Blanche et le Congr\u00e8s, avec, comme enjeu, une attaque contre l’Iran, mais dans des conditions sans rapport direct avec la crise iranienne (nucl\u00e9aire) proprement dite. Mais, aujourd’hui, la situation est beaucoup plus grave qu’en janvier et le Congr\u00e8s est dans une position tr\u00e8s diff\u00e9rente pour \u00e9ventuellement freiner les intentions belliqueuses de l’administration contre l’Iran.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\u00abAt a hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee a day after the president’s Jan. 10 address, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska drew parallels with the Richard Nixon administration’s attempt to deceive the public regarding the U.S. government’s efforts to expand the Vietnam War into Cambodia.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bb [O]ur government lied to the American people and said we didn’t cross the border going into Cambodia. In fact we did, he told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out. I will resist it, Hagel continued.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbOther lawmakers publicly questioned the veracity of the president’s allegations regarding Iranian involvement in Iraq. All in all, the pushback from Congress in January is believed to have played a key role in preventing hawks in the administration from forcing the U.S. into a military confrontation with Iran.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbBut with Congress preparing for a fight over Iraq not Iran and with key lawmakers planning to pass legislation imposing harsh new sanctions on Tehran, Congress’ ability and willingness to simultaneously contain deliberate or unintentional escalation with Iran may be limited. If so, there may be little business as usual about Washington and Tehran’s intensified war of words.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 30 ao\u00fbt 2007 \u00e0 10H51<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Il est extr\u00eamement important d’admettre que lorsque les deux interventions sur l’Iran, celle de Sarkozy et celle de Bush sont mises en parall\u00e8le, les intentions et les possibilit\u00e9s de guerre qui sont \u00e9voqu\u00e9es ont toutes les chances d’\u00eatre tr\u00e8s diff\u00e9rentes. Sur le premier cas, celui des intentions, il y a ce commentaire d’Arnaud de Borchgrave,… <\/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":[1257,868,857,2773,6990,4590],"class_list":["post-69170","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-borchgrave","tag-bush","tag-irak","tag-iran","tag-parsi","tag-sarkozy"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69170","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=69170"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69170\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69170"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69170"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69170"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}