attaques limit\u00e9es<\/a> de droit de suite \u00e0 partir de l’Irak.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00abThe Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbAlexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for pinprick strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities. They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military, he said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbDebat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same. It was, he added, a very legitimate strategic calculus.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tOn trouve dans ces observations la marque \u00e9vidente du processus bureaucratique habituel, expression d\u00e9sormais classique et bien comprise de la barbarie moderniste: puisqu’on peut casser plus, sinon tout pour le m\u00eame prix \u00e0 payer (la m\u00eame capacit\u00e9 de riposte des Iraniens), pourquoi ne pas le faire? \u00abA very legitimate strategic calculus<\/em>\u00bb, commente sobrement notre expert. L’\u00e9volution est tr\u00e8s logique et ne manquerait certainement pas de s\u00e9duire l’administration Bush, puisque la strat\u00e9gie s’orienterait alors vers un objectif naturel de changement de r\u00e9gime avec destruction consid\u00e9rable \u00e0 la clef. D’autre part, la forme m\u00eame de cette pens\u00e9e bureaucratique concorde parfaitement \u00e0 tout ce qu’on a pu voir et entendre de cette administration et du syst\u00e8me am\u00e9ricaniste en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral. Cela signifie qu’il est assez logique d’attendre, dans d’\u00e9ventuels projets d’attaque de l’Iran, une constante pouss\u00e9e vers l’\u00e9largissement et la gravit\u00e9 de l’attaque. Si l’on suit la logique exprim\u00e9e, l’attaque nucl\u00e9aire pr\u00e9senterait \u00e9videmment tous les avantages.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tTout de m\u00eame, derni\u00e8re r\u00e9serve de l’expert, tout bien r\u00e9fl\u00e9chi, voil\u00e0 qu’il y a un probl\u00e8me<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\u00abBut Debat believes the Pentagon’s plans for military action involve the use of so much force that they are unlikely to be used and would seriously stretch resources in Afghanistan and Iraq.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 2 septembre 2007 \u00e0 20H44<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Depuis une \u00e0 deux semaines, l’alerte g\u00e9n\u00e9rale \u00e9tant sonn\u00e9e pour une attaque contre l’Iran que l’on proclame une fois de plus in\u00e9vitable, les plans d’attaque, obtenus de toutes les sources possibles, ne cessent de se multiplier dans la presse, les d\u00e9clarations, etc. La publication de plans d’attaque contre l’Iran est devenue une activit\u00e9 lucrative du… <\/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":[2870,2623,6644,5709,2773,5833,2852],"class_list":["post-69181","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-attaque","tag-bureaucratie","tag-debat","tag-expert","tag-iran","tag-sunday","tag-times"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69181","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=69181"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69181\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69181"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69181"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69181"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}