{"id":69222,"date":"2007-09-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-14T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/09\/14\/dailleurs-les-neocons-nous-ont-avertis\/"},"modified":"2007-09-14T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-09-14T00:00:00","slug":"dailleurs-les-neocons-nous-ont-avertis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2007\/09\/14\/dailleurs-les-neocons-nous-ont-avertis\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2026 D’ailleurs, les neocons<\/em> nous ont avertis"},"content":{"rendered":"

Comme pour renforcer la th\u00e8se de Parsi concernant la v\u00e9ritable raison de la crise iranienne, qui est la comp\u00e9tition pour l’h\u00e9g\u00e9monie<\/a> entre les USA et l’Iran, Gareth Porter rappelle (le 13 septembre<\/a>, sur Information Clearing House<\/em>) que l’argument est d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 de fa\u00e7on tr\u00e8s claire par les n\u00e9o-conservateurs eux-m\u00eames. Cela montre qu’ils sont loin d’\u00eatre l’accident malheureux de la politique US qu’on a si souvent voulu en faire. Porter estime que la majorit\u00e9 politique \u00e0 Washington partage d\u00e9sormais cette vision de la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 d’assurer par tous les moyens l’h\u00e9g\u00e9monie des USA sur la r\u00e9gion : \u00abThe entire spectrum of political leadership in this country now appears to accept that idea, which is an indication of just how far U.S. military dominance has tilted the policy debate in this country.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tPorter d\u00e9veloppe cet aspect de la confrontation entre les USA et l’Iran, en la faisant remonter \u00e0 1992 pour ce qui en concerne l’inspiration, et effectivement venue des n\u00e9o-conservateurs. Cela rejoint le sch\u00e9ma historique que nous propose Parsi puisqu’il s’agit de la concr\u00e9tisation de la politique US apr\u00e8s la disparition du Shah et la disparition de la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 d’une strat\u00e9gie anti-sovi\u00e9tique, les deux arguments qui firent que les USA \u00e9vit\u00e8rent tout risque de confrontation directe avec l’Iran jusqu’\u00e0 cette date. Les n\u00e9o-conservateurs sont alors confirm\u00e9s comme les concepteurs \u00e0 visage d\u00e9couvert, y compris historiquement, d’une politique g\u00e9n\u00e9rale d’h\u00e9g\u00e9monie US que tout le monde, \u00e0 Washington, soutient aujourd’hui.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abThat quest for dominance over all other states in the Middle East can be traced back to the 1992 Draft Defense Planning Guidance, drafted by Paul Wolfowitz’s staff at the Pentagon Zalmay Khalilzad and Scooter Libby. It said, [We] must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbFor the neoconservatives and their allies, that has meant that Iran could not be allowed to emerge as a power center in the Middle East. Of course the Bush administration has had cover their designs in a fog of propaganda portraying Iran as the worst thing to come along since Hitler. But at least one insider in neoconservative circles has been honest enough to reveal the real problem the hawks in the administration have with Iran.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbTom Donnelly was the main author of the neoconservative September 2000 blueprint for military policy in the Bush administration, Rebuilding America’s Defenses which involved four prominent figures on the neoconservative right who would take prominent positions in the administration: Libby, Wolfowitz, Stephen A. Cambone, and John Bolton.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbIn a chapter in the book Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran, published in 2005, Donnelly admitted that, contrary to the official U.S. line depicting Iran as a radical state threatening to plunge the region into war, Iran was more the status quo power in the region in relation to the Bush administration’s project of regional transformation. The problem with Iran, he explained, is that it stands directly athwart this project of regional transformation.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe Bush project for bringing the magic of advanced capitalist democracy to the benighted Arab states of the Middle East has proven to be a neoconservative pipe dream in Iraq, Lebanon and in the Palestinian territories. But forget the spreading democracy ploy and think of that regional transformation as simply another layer of justification for exerting military pressure and, if necessary, war on states that refuse to fall in line. Donnelly cut through the fa\u00e7ade of official propaganda to write that the prospect of a nuclear Iran was unacceptable to the Bush administration mainly because of the constraining effect it threatens to impose upon U.S. strategy for the greater Middle East.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbIn other words, Iran could not be allowed to have even the option of a nuclear weapon capability, because the United States had to be able to operate with a completely free hand militarily in the region. What Donnelly did not say, but which follows from that posture, is that even a non-nuclear Iran that has links to strong allies such as Hezbollah and Hamas, could not be allowed to be a regional power.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(Peut-\u00eatre les Europ\u00e9ens pourraient-ils prendre un peu de temps pour penser \u00e0 cet aspect de la crise iranienne? Non, il ne semble pas qu’ils aient beaucoup de temps libre.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 14 septembre 2007 \u00e0 10H13<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Comme pour renforcer la th\u00e8se de Parsi concernant la v\u00e9ritable raison de la crise iranienne, qui est la comp\u00e9tition pour l’h\u00e9g\u00e9monie entre les USA et l’Iran, Gareth Porter rappelle (le 13 septembre, sur Information Clearing House) que l’argument est d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 de fa\u00e7on tr\u00e8s claire par les n\u00e9o-conservateurs eux-m\u00eames. Cela montre qu’ils sont loin d’\u00eatre l’accident… <\/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":[3228,3650,6751,2773,1104],"class_list":["post-69222","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-crise","tag-hegemonie","tag-historique","tag-iran","tag-neocons"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69222","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=69222"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69222\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69222"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69222"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69222"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}