On observe les premi\u00e8res d\u00e9clarations pr\u00e9cises, \u00e0 Washington, sur la possibilit\u00e9 d’un compromis sur la question du syst\u00e8me BMDE, dans ce cas clairement li\u00e9 \u00e0 la question iranienne. Une d\u00e9p\u00eache Reuters du 13 f\u00e9vrier<\/a> rapporte la chose, qui \u00e9tablit un lien direct (linkage<\/em>) entre une \u00e9volution positive (du point de vue de Moscou) de la position US dans la question du BMDE, et une \u00e9volution positive (du point de vue de Washington) de la position russe dans la question iranienne.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abThe United States signaled a willingness on Friday to slow plans for a missile defense shield in eastern Europe if Russia agreed to help stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.<\/em> […] If we are able to work together to dissuade Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapons capability, we would be able to moderate the pace of development of missile defenses in Europe, a senior U.S. administration official told Reuters.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbIt was the most explicit statement yet by an administration official linking the missile shield to Russia’s willingness to help resolve the international stand-off over Iran’s nuclear program. He spoke as Undersecretary of State William Burns held talks in Moscow, the most senior U.S. official to do so since U.S. President Barack Obama took office last month.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbBurns signaled the United States was ready to look at remodeling its missile defense plans to include Moscow. [Washington is] open to the possibility of cooperation, both with Russia and NATO partners, in relation to a new configuration for missile defense which would use the resources that each of us have, Interfax news agency quoted him as saying. Burns gave no details.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbIn another sign that strained relations may be thawing, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would meet Russia’s foreign minister in Geneva next month.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tCes nouvelles interviennent une semaine apr\u00e8s la r\u00e9union de Munich, renfor\u00e7ant ainsi l’interpr\u00e9tation positive<\/a> qu’on en a faite. Cette r\u00e9union a donn\u00e9 lieu \u00e0 des interpr\u00e9tations tr\u00e8s divergentes, jusqu’\u00e0 celle, extr\u00eame, que la position expos\u00e9e par Biden ne faisait que confirmer la politique agressive de l’administration Bush (voir l’analyse de George Friedman, de Stratfor.com<\/em>, le 9 janvier<\/a>). Au contraire, nous estimons plus que jamais que la r\u00e9union de Munich a \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9v\u00e9latrice d’une r\u00e9elle \u00e9volution US, et cette \u00e9volution tenant sans aucun doute \u00e0 la pression de la situation int\u00e9rieure US, sans rapport avec le moindre projet politique nouveau. Dans ce cas, la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 fait force de loi et donne certainement une plus grande assurance de la solidit\u00e9 de l’orientation, tant les seules orientations solides aujourd’hui sont celles qu’imposent les \u00e9v\u00e9nements.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n