\tIl est int\u00e9ressant de rappeler, pour fixer les id\u00e9es, que des s\u00e9nateurs r\u00e9publicains comme Hagel, Lugar et Warner ont vot\u00e9 contre la r\u00e9solution Lieberman-Kyl d\u00e9signant la Garde Islamiste iranienne (IGRC) comme une organisation terroriste et donnant ainsi, dans l’interpr\u00e9tation de certains, une sorte d’\u00e9ventuel blanc-seing \u00e0 une possible attaque contre l’Iran. (Que de pr\u00e9cautions de langage n\u00e9cessaires, traduisant la complexit\u00e9 de la situation washingtonienne.) Cela permet de mieux faire comprendre le r\u00f4le du s\u00e9nateur Hagel, qui s’impose comme le chef de l’opposition \u00e0 une guerre contre l’Iran aux USA.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tAujourd’hui<\/a>, sur Antiwar.com<\/em>, Jim Lobe d\u00e9taille et analyse l’initiative de Hagel, par ailleurs r\u00e9v\u00e9l\u00e9e hier<\/a> par Steve Clemons sur son site The Washington Note<\/em>: une lettre du s\u00e9nateur r\u00e9publicain du Nebraska au pr\u00e9sident Bush, demandant d’engager des entretiens direct, complets et inconditionnels avec l’Iran. (La lettre date du 17 octobre, avec copie \u00e0 Rice, Gates et Hayden; il semble qu’elle n’a re\u00e7u pour l’instant aucune r\u00e9ponse.) <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tHagel \u00e9crit \u00e0 propos de sa suggestion d’entretiens inconditionnels:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abAn approach such as this would strengthen our ability across the board to deal with Iran. Our friends and allies would be more confident to stand with us if we seek to increase pressure, including tougher sanctions on Iran. It could create a historic new dynamic in US-Iran relations, in part forcing the Iranians to react to the possibility of better relations with the West. We should be prepared that any dialogue process with Iran will take time, and we should continue all efforts, as you have, to engage Iran from a position of strength.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbWe should not wait to consider the option of bilateral talks until all other diplomatic options are exhausted. At that point, it could well be too late.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tJim Lobe s’emploie \u00e0 mettre en position de jugement contrast\u00e9 la position de Hillary Clinton par rapport \u00e0 celle de Hagel, de m\u00eame que la situation dans les deux partis par rapport \u00e0 la position de Hagel. Le vote d’Hillary Clinton en faveur de la r\u00e9solution Lieberman-Kyl a port\u00e9 un rude coup \u00e0 son cr\u00e9dit g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, notamment sur ce point qu’elle ne puisse pas r\u00e9sister \u00e0 des volte-face politiques selon l’opportunit\u00e9 des situations.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abWhile the major Republican candidates, including front-runner Rudi Giuliani, former Gov. Mitt Romney, and Sen. John McCain, have been at least as hawkish as the administration on Iran indeed Giuliani’s foreign policy team is dominated by neoconservatives who have openly called for attacking Iran if it does not freeze its nuclear program, Democrats have appeared somewhat more divided.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbFrontrunner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been the most hawkish to date. Of the four serving senators in the Democratic race, she was the only one who voted earlier this month for a resolution co-sponsored by the two honorary co-chairs of the neo-conservative Committee on the Present Danger, Sens. Joseph Lieberman and John Kyl, that urged Bush to list the IGRC as a terrorist organization. The resolution passed 76-22, with Democrats roughly evenly split on the measure.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe other Democratic candidates have assailed her vote, claiming that it could be used by the administration to justify a cross-border attack on IRGC bases that could precipitate a larger conflict.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbSince the vote, Clinton has repeatedly tried to reassure voters that her vote should not be construed as justifying war with Iran, going so far as to co-sponsor another bill that would require Bush to seek Congressional approval before taking major military action against Tehran.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tAvec sa lettre \u00e0 GW Bush, Hagel, par ailleurs tr\u00e8s int\u00e8gre, tr\u00e8s populaire dans les cercles dirigeants mod\u00e9r\u00e9s, appara\u00eet effectivement comme une sorte de chef de file d’une opposition informelle qui se constitue contre l’attaque de l’Iran, selon une formule tr\u00e8s in\u00e9dite \u00e0 Washington. Cette position est d’autant plus int\u00e9ressante que Hagel ne se repr\u00e9sente pas au S\u00e9nat en 2007 (ce qui, justement, fait une part de son originalit\u00e9, comme si le fait de quitter le syst\u00e8me lui donnait une autorit\u00e9 suppl\u00e9mentaire.) D’une part, cela le laisse plus libre pour exprimer son opinion. D’autre part, il pourrait trouver dans cette opposition qui n’est plus tout \u00e0 fait dans le cadre du S\u00e9nat ni du parti r\u00e9publicain une voie pour un poste important dans la prochaine administration (Clemons, tr\u00e8s proche de lui, milite pour que Hagel obtienne un poste important, comme celui de secr\u00e9taire \u00e0 la d\u00e9fense, dans une future possible administration Hillary Clinton).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 1er novembre 2007 \u00e0 13H34<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Le chef de l’opposition \u00e0 l’attaque contre l’Iran : le s\u00e9nateur r\u00e9publicain Hagel Il est int\u00e9ressant de rappeler, pour fixer les id\u00e9es, que des s\u00e9nateurs r\u00e9publicains comme Hagel, Lugar et Warner ont vot\u00e9 contre la r\u00e9solution Lieberman-Kyl d\u00e9signant la Garde Islamiste iranienne (IGRC) comme une organisation terroriste et donnant ainsi, dans l’interpr\u00e9tation de certains, une… <\/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":[6179,934,4841,3278,2773,1094],"class_list":["post-69371","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-clemons","tag-clinton","tag-hagel","tag-hillary","tag-iran","tag-lobe"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69371","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=69371"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69371\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69371"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69371"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69371"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}