Mr. Obama has made nuclear disarmament a bigger priority in part to undercut Iran’s and North Korea’s rationale for proliferation. His administration has begun negotiations with Russia on a new treaty to reduce U.S. and Russian arsenals. He also has expressed support for the fissile material treaty.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tA Prague, au cours de la rencontre USA-UE, Obama a beaucoup d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 l’id\u00e9e d’accords formels de non-prolif\u00e9ration et de d\u00e9nucl\u00e9arisation. Il y a ceux (notamment les Fran\u00e7ais du Quai d’Orsay) qui jugent qu’il s’agit d’une pr\u00e9occupation finalement annexe trop g\u00e9n\u00e9rale par rapport aux priorit\u00e9s, d’autres qu’il s’agit d’une orientation centrale, certes, et pr\u00e9cise, qui demande des trait\u00e9s, et rapidement, des trait\u00e9s contr\u00f4lant\/limitant la question de la production des mati\u00e8re fissiles. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\u00abDavid Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington think tank, said such a treaty would be the first step toward limiting the Israeli nuclear program. The question is how much of a priority is this for the Obama administration? he said.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbJohn R. Bolton, a former U.N. ambassador and undersecretary of state, said Israel was right to be concerned. If I were the Israeli government, I would be very worried about the Obama administration’s attitude on their nuclear deterrent, he said. You can barely raise the subject of nuclear weapons in the Middle East without someone saying: What about Israel?’ If Israel’s opponents put it on the table, it is entirely possible Obama will pick it up.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tQue pourrait-il se passer le 18 mai \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard? Netanyahou pourrait poser la question centrale de savoir si l’accord strat\u00e9gique informel \u00e9tabli par l’administration Nixon des USA \u00e9cartant toute possibilit\u00e9 que le nucl\u00e9aire isra\u00e9lien puisse \u00eatre mis en question, si cet accord tient toujours, s’il est remis en question, s’il ne m\u00e9rite pas une clarification. Les deux pays seraient brusquement catapult\u00e9s au cur de leurs relations strat\u00e9giques, et \u00e9ventuellement dans une crise sans pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMais les Isra\u00e9liens peuvent-ils se permettre une crise avec les USA sur le sujet central de leurs r\u00e9actions strat\u00e9giques avec les USA? Les r\u00e9centes indications montrent que le gouvernement Netanyahou prend une approche tr\u00e8s conciliante, parlant de son d\u00e9sir de paix sur la question palestinienne (sans indiquer une voie qui satisfasse celle que favorise BHO d’une solution impliquant deux Etats).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tD’une fa\u00e7on g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, il semble qu’on soit en train de d\u00e9passer le stade des vux pieux, des principes g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, des architectures th\u00e9oriques, et qu’il faille passer aux effets concrets. La pr\u00e9occupation nucl\u00e9aire de BHO, qui est un sujet g\u00e9n\u00e9ral embrassant diverses crises, passe par un accord avec les Russes (impliquant sans doute la fin du BMDE) et un accord au Moyen-Orient, impliquant un accord avec les Iraniens et une mise \u00e0 jour, avec les mesures de r\u00e9duction et de coercition qui vont avec, de l’arsenal nucl\u00e9aire isra\u00e9lien. C’est une \u00e9volution r\u00e9volutionnaire, on le comprend ais\u00e9ment.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 7 mai 2009 \u00e0 06H08<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Les relations entre Isra\u00ebl et le Washington d’Obama sont de plus en plus un sujet d’incertitude et d’interrogation extr\u00eamement pressantes. La rencontre entre BHO et Netanyahou, le 18 mai, sera tr\u00e8s int\u00e9ressante et comporte un risque notable d’\u00eatre explosive. C’est l’affirmation pr\u00e9liminaire implicite d’un article du Washington Times, le 6 mai 2009, qui donne de… <\/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":[4314,8308,2773,2774,3004,6208,1343,2890,3701],"class_list":["post-70740","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-bmde","tag-deniclearisee","tag-iran","tag-israel","tag-nucleaire","tag-obama","tag-proliferation","tag-russes","tag-zone"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70740","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=70740"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70740\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70740"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70740"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70740"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}