{"id":70749,"date":"2009-05-11T16:05:21","date_gmt":"2009-05-11T16:05:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2009\/05\/11\/labyrinthe-et-imbroglio-a-washington-ou-la-vertu-paradoxale-de-moby-dick\/"},"modified":"2009-05-11T16:05:21","modified_gmt":"2009-05-11T16:05:21","slug":"labyrinthe-et-imbroglio-a-washington-ou-la-vertu-paradoxale-de-moby-dick","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2009\/05\/11\/labyrinthe-et-imbroglio-a-washington-ou-la-vertu-paradoxale-de-moby-dick\/","title":{"rendered":"Labyrinthe et imbroglio \u00e0 Washington, ou la vertu paradoxale de Moby Dick<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"

L’avantage de l’Empire, tel que GW nous l’a laiss\u00e9, c’est que les complexit\u00e9s des int\u00e9r\u00eats et la complication des ambitions entretiennent fastueusement les affrontements et les tensions et interf\u00e8rent , bien plus qu’al Qa\u00efda, AfPak<\/em> ou l’Iran nucl\u00e9aire, sur les politiques en cours. Ainsi, semble-t-il d’apr\u00e8s cette chronique du 11 mai 2009<\/a> de Jim Lobe et Daniel Luban sur Antiwar.com<\/em>, et d’ailleurs sans r\u00e9el \u00e9tonnement, le Pentagone joue-t-il un r\u00f4le majeur de frein contre tout durcissement intempestif contre l’Iran, et certains pourraient alors dire que les ennemis de mes ennemis sont mes amis En cela, dans la situation ainsi d\u00e9crite, le Pentagone s’oppose au Lobby<\/em> pro-isra\u00e9lien, \u00e0 tous les soutiens de la politique isra\u00e9lienne, au gouvernement isra\u00e9lien lui-m\u00eame dont on sait qu’il a son mot \u00e0 dire \u00e0 Washington et que ce mot est qu’il faut forcer \u00e0 un durcissement maximum contre l’Iran, voire \u00e0 une attaque de ce pays.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLe parti regroup\u00e9 autour du Pentagone, avec notamment Robert Gates qui joue un r\u00f4le central, veut mettre tout l’accent sur AfPak<\/em>, tenter d’am\u00e9liorer la situation pour pouvoir pacifier l’Afghanistan et s\u00e9curiser le Pakistan et ses armes nucl\u00e9aires. Cette faction ne veut pas entendre parler de quelque action qui puisse mettre l’Iran dans une position antagoniste des USA, au moment o\u00f9 les USA auraient plut\u00f4t besoin de l’Iran (pour AfPak<\/em>, justement). Outre le Pentagone, le d\u00e9partement d’Etat, avec Hillary Clinton et Richard Holbrooke, partage cette position.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tRetenons notamment ce que nous disent Lobe-Luban de la position au Pentagone et autour du Pentagone, dans une analyse tr\u00e8s instructive \u00e0 lire. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abTheir opponents appear to be concentrated at the Pentagon, where top leaders are more concerned with providing a level of regional stability that will allow the U.S. to wind down its operations in Iraq, step up its counter-insurgency effort in Afghanistan, and, above all, ensure the security of the Pakistani state and its nuclear weapons.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbIn their view, any attack on Iran would almost certainly throw the entire region into even greater upheaval. Both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have repeatedly and publicly warned over the past year against any moves that would further destabilize the region. Other key administration players are believed to share this view, including senior military officers such as Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Adm. Dennis Blair and Gen. Douglas Lute, the war czar whose White House portfolio includes both Iraq and South Asia.<\/em> []<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbBy contrast, Pentagon officials have made little secret of their opposition<\/em> [to a military action against Iran<\/em>] In late April, Gates told the Senate Appropriations committee that a military strike would only delay Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear capability while send<\/em>[ing] the program deeper and more covert.<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbLast month, Mullen told the Wall Street Journal that an Israeli attack would pose exceptionally high risks to U.S. interests in the region. (Although the newspaper chose not to publish this part of the interview, Mullen’s office provided a record to IPS.)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbSimilarly, Biden told CNN in April that an Israeli military strike against Tehran would be ill-advised. And former national security adviser (NSA) Brent Scowcroft, who is close to both Gates and the current NSA, ret. Gen. James Jones, told a conference here late last month that such an attack would be a disaster for everybody.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbFor the moment, the top Pentagon leadership’s resistance to an attack on Iran appears to be playing a major role in shaping the debate in Washington. Gates is a bulwark against those who want to go to war in Iran or give the green light for Israel to go to war, said former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski last month. Others dispute the idea, proposed by Netanyahu in his speech to AIPAC, that the Iranian threat can unite Israel and the Arab states.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe Israeli notion making the rounds these days that Arab fears of Iran might be the foundation for an alignment of interest is almost certainly wrong, wrote Marc Lynch, a professor at George Washington University, on the Foreign Policy Web site. Nothing would unite Arab opinion faster than an Israeli attack on Iran. The only thing which might change that would be serious movement toward a two state solution [in Israel-Palestine].<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa bataille est tellement s\u00e9rieuse, les opposants tellement engag\u00e9s que Lobe-Luban ont cette phrase significative, qui semble marquer qu’Obama laisse plut\u00f4t faire pour l’instant, se contentant, avec d’autres dans l’administration, de se ranger du c\u00f4t\u00e9 qu’il a manifestement choisi pour l’instant, en soutenant son action (\u00abMost indications are that the Obama administration, including Obama himself and Vice President Joe Biden, sides with the Pentagon, at least for now<\/em>\u00bb). Une autre indication int\u00e9ressante sur la vigueur de l’engagement est l’indication donn\u00e9e par Lobe-Luban et IPS (le Site Inter Press Agency<\/em>, o\u00f9 le texte<\/a> de Lobe-Luban a \u00e9t\u00e9 initialement publi\u00e9) qu’une interview de l’amiral Mullen, pr\u00e9sident du JCS, au Wall Street Journal<\/em> a \u00e9t\u00e9 censur\u00e9e par le dit Journal<\/em>; et le morceau censur\u00e9 redirig\u00e9 par les services de Mullen vers IPS et Lobe-Luban (\u00abLast month, Mullen told the Wall Street Journal that an Israeli attack would pose exceptionally high risks to U.S. interests in the region. (Although the newspaper chose not to publish this part of the interview, Mullen’s office provided a record to IPS)<\/em>\u00bb).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIl faut noter qu’on retrouve ici, assez constant, un conflit de priorit\u00e9s qui existe depuis trois ans d\u00e9j\u00e0, avec notamment l’U.S. Navy en pointe au Pentagone, soutenue par Gates, pour privil\u00e9gier le front AfPak<\/em> contre toutes les tentatives sur d’autres fronts, aussi bien contre l’Iran que la poursuite de l’accent mis sur l’Irak. Les affrontements Fallon-Petraeus<\/a> de 2007 en t\u00e9moignent. Aujourd’hui, ce front s’est nettement regroup\u00e9, avec l’U.S. Navy plus que jamais influente au Pentagone; Gates a pris beaucoup de poids, en plus de donner la priorit\u00e9 \u00e0 la r\u00e9forme du Pentagone, et il se trouve soutenu par le nouveau pouvoir politique.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tJusqu’ici, comme on l’a d\u00e9j\u00e0<\/a> not\u00e9, le parti pro-isra\u00e9lien et anti-Iran est rest\u00e9 plut\u00f4t sur la r\u00e9serve, notamment face aux ouvertures de l’administration Obama \u00e0 l’Iran et aux bruits de durcissement US face \u00e0 Isra\u00ebl. Certes, Lobe-Dunan notent que ce parti menace de passer \u00e0 l’offensive pour tenter de peser sur la politique de l’administration Obama; mais il est dans une position inconfortable, parce que le plus s\u00e9rieux relais d’Isra\u00ebl \u00e0 Washington, dans le domaine des choses concr\u00e8tes, reste le Pentagone qui d\u00e9tient l’acc\u00e8s aux armements et aux capacit\u00e9s militaires, et qu’on ne trouve plus un Wolfowitz ou un Feith. La position en fl\u00e8che du Pentagone, et cette fois sans aucun frein politique (au contraire du temps de l’administration GW Bush), s’av\u00e8re probablement \u00eatre l’\u00e9l\u00e9ment clef expliquant la r\u00e9serve du parti isra\u00e9lien. On d\u00e9couvre donc que Moby Dick<\/em> est parfois bien utile.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 11mai 2009 \u00e0 16H06<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

L’avantage de l’Empire, tel que GW nous l’a laiss\u00e9, c’est que les complexit\u00e9s des int\u00e9r\u00eats et la complication des ambitions entretiennent fastueusement les affrontements et les tensions et interf\u00e8rent , bien plus qu’al Qa\u00efda, AfPak ou l’Iran nucl\u00e9aire, sur les politiques en cours. Ainsi, semble-t-il d’apr\u00e8s cette chronique du 11 mai 2009 de Jim Lobe… <\/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":[3681,3984,2773,2774,1094,7098,8313,3379],"class_list":["post-70749","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-faucons","tag-gates","tag-iran","tag-israel","tag-lobe","tag-mullen","tag-pakaf","tag-pakistan"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70749","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=70749"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70749\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70749"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70749"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70749"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}