Un commentateur US interpr\u00e8te une intervention de l’ambassadeur de France, le 1er f\u00e9vrier \u00e0 Washington, comme l’indication d’un possible\/probable tournant radical (\u00abradical shift<\/em>\u00ab) de la politique iranienne de la France. Il s’agit de Gareth Porter, sur Antiwar.com<\/em> aujourd’hui<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tPorter \u00e9crit notamment:<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abAmbassador to the United States Pierre Vimont told a conference on Iran at the Middle East Institute in Washington Friday that one reason Iran has refused to give up its nuclear program is its perception of potential threats in the Middle East.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bb \t\u00bbVimont then called for a shift in the Western diplomatic posture. If we all agree that what Iran is looking for is to play a larger role in the region, he said, we have to make it clearer that we are willing to support that.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t()<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbBut the tone of Vimont’s speech was notable for the absence of any accusation about Iran as a threat to peace. The ambassador’s call for support for Iran’s regional role, which was not reported in media coverage of the speech, suggests that France is now seeking a significant adjustment in the negotiating position of the coalition of states that have backed sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tL’int\u00e9r\u00eat de cette chronique de Porter tient \u00e9galement et en bonne partie \u00e0 l’auteur lui-m\u00eame. Gareth Porter a montr\u00e9 \u00e0 plus d’une reprise qu’il avait des sources bien inform\u00e9es dans des milieux directement int\u00e9ress\u00e9s \u00e0 la question iranienne, notamment des milieux officiels oppos\u00e9s \u00e0 une attaque de l’Iran. C’est Porter qui a donn\u00e9 des d\u00e9tails in\u00e9dits sur l’opposition de l’amiral Fallon<\/a> \u00e0 cette attaque, officialisant ainsi l’opposition officieuse du chef de Central Command et de l’U.S. Navy \u00e0 la politique iranienne de l’administration GW Bush.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tDans un tel contexte, on peut supposer que Porter n’a pas publi\u00e9 cette supputation sur la position fran\u00e7aise \u00e0 la l\u00e9g\u00e8re. Il ne para\u00eet pas indiff\u00e9rent qu’il l’ait fait quatre jours apr\u00e8s l’intervention de l’ambassadeur Vimont, en insistant sur l’absence de r\u00e9actions de la presse (\u00abThe ambassador’s call for support for Iran’s regional role, which was not reported in media coverage of the speech<\/em>\u00bb). Cet aspect de la publication de l’article pourrait renforcer l’hypoth\u00e8se que Porter intervient \u00e0 la suggestion de certains de ses correspondants, soit pour appuyer le ballon d’essai fran\u00e7ais, soit pour signaler aux Fran\u00e7ais que certains milieux US seraient int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par une \u00e9volution de la position occidentale vis-\u00e0-vis de l’Iran. Dans tous les cas, il para\u00eet justifi\u00e9 d’envisager que Porter a consult\u00e9 ses sources washingtoniennes habituelles avant de publier.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 5 f\u00e9vrier 2008 \u00e0 15H54<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Un commentateur US interpr\u00e8te une intervention de l’ambassadeur de France, le 1er f\u00e9vrier \u00e0 Washington, comme l’indication d’un possible\/probable tournant radical (\u00abradical shift\u00ab) de la politique iranienne de la France. Il s’agit de Gareth Porter, sur Antiwar.com aujourd’hui Porter \u00e9crit notamment: \u00abAmbassador to the United States Pierre Vimont told a conference on Iran at the… <\/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":[6296,2773,3319,6333,2671,7407],"class_list":["post-69657","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-fallon","tag-iran","tag-navy","tag-porter","tag-us","tag-vilmont"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69657","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=69657"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69657\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69657"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69657"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69657"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}