{"id":74245,"date":"2011-11-14T06:00:22","date_gmt":"2011-11-14T06:00:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2011\/11\/14\/liran-premiere-guerre-de-lere-occupy\/"},"modified":"2011-11-14T06:00:22","modified_gmt":"2011-11-14T06:00:22","slug":"liran-premiere-guerre-de-lere-occupy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2011\/11\/14\/liran-premiere-guerre-de-lere-occupy\/","title":{"rendered":"L’Iran, premi\u00e8re \u201cguerre\u201d (?) de l’\u00e8re \u201cOccupy<\/em>\u201d?"},"content":{"rendered":"

La question pos\u00e9e ici ne concerne pas la possibilit\u00e9 ou non d’une attaque contre l’Iran, qui reste compl\u00e8tement ouverte, mais d’abord le cas de l’extraordinaire disparit\u00e9, sinon l’antagonisme entre les automatismes-Syst\u00e8me, type neocon<\/em> et Likoud<\/em> tendance Netanyahou, de la presse US particuli\u00e8rement, et ce qu’on peut deviner du sentiment populaire US parall\u00e8lement et, nous dirions, d’une fa\u00e7on directement antagoniste.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLes appr\u00e9ciations critiques de l’alignement extr\u00e9miste de la presse-Syst\u00e8me US sur les th\u00e8ses de Netanyahou concernent celles que cette presse portent sur le rapport de l’IAEA. Le parall\u00e8le est fait avec les positions d\u00e9velopp\u00e9es par cette m\u00eame presse lors de la pr\u00e9paration de l’attaque contre l’Irak en 2002-2003, avec les diff\u00e9rents montages grossiers faits \u00e0 cette occasion, notamment concernant les armes de destruction massive de Saddam Hussein. Sur son site Consortium.News<\/em>, Robert Parry d\u00e9veloppe cette approche, le 10 novembre 2011<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abThe New York Times is trotting out some of its favorite words like meticulous to praise the new report by United Nations weapons inspectors citing Iran’s supposed work on a nuclear bomb, and the Washington Post says the findings ought to end serious debate about Tehran’s nefarious intentions. So, rather than undertake a careful examination of the report’s claims, America’s preeminent newspapers are once more putting on display their deep-seated biases regarding the Middle East. Any claim against a Muslim adversary must be true. In the words of New York Yankees great Yogi Berra, it’s d\u00e9j\u00e0 vu all over again.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe Times editorial on Thursday was headlined, The Truth About Iran with the subhead: A new report from weapons inspectors leaves little doubt about Tehran’s ambitions. The editorial fully embraced the methodology of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s report, declaring: The report is chillingly comprehensive. What gives the report particular credibility is its meticulous sourcing. The agency’s director, Yukiya Amano, built a case on more than a thousand pages of documents, the assistance of more than 10 agency member states and interviews with a number of individuals who were involved in relevant activities in Iran.’<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe Washington Post’s neocon editors, in an editorial entitled Running out of time, were similarly enthusiastic about the report, writing: The IAEA’s evidence, which includes 1,000 pages of documents, interviews with renegade scientists who helped Iran and material from 10 governments, ought to end serious debate about whether Tehran’s program is for peaceful purposes.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbIt might be noted that on Feb. 6, 2003, the day after Secretary of State Colin Powell gave his infamous speech to the United Nations detailing Iraq’s WMD arsenal, the Post editors deemed Powell’s case irrefutable and added: it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tC’est dans des termes assez parall\u00e8les, des citations assez proches, des rappels \u00e9galement similaires, que Brian Whitaker, du Guardian<\/em>, s’interroge sur cette tendance des journaux-Syst\u00e8me US, particuli\u00e8rement le New York Times<\/em> et le Washington Post<\/em>, \u00e0 adopter une ligne si compl\u00e8tement extr\u00e9miste concernant l’interpr\u00e9tation de rapport de l’IAEA. (Le 9 novembre 2011<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abFast-forward to 2011 and we’re left wondering if these same newspapers have really taken on board the lessons of Iraq. Here, for example, is David Sanger, chief Washington correspondent of the New York Times, writing in its Sunday Review last weekend: At the White House and the CIA, officials say the recently disclosed Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States by blowing up a tony Georgetown restaurant frequented by senators, lobbyists and journalists was just the tip of the iceberg.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbNote how the allegation of an Iranian plot in the US which was greeted with a good deal of scepticism when it first surfaced last month now appears to have become an established fact (even though it has yet to be tested in court). Not only that. Sanger’s anonymous officials are now asking us to believe it is part of a bigger and even more menacing Iranian plot which stretches across continents from the Yemen to Latin America.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbAt the Washington Post, meanwhile, Joby Warrick has been briefed by David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector who now heads the Institute for Science and International Security. Citing Albright, Warrick describes Iranian work on a detonation device known as the R265 generator: According to the intelligence provided to the IAEA, key assistance in both areas [design and testing] was provided by Vyacheslav Danilenko, a former Soviet nuclear scientist who was contracted in the mid-1990s by Iran’s Physics Research Center, a facility linked to the country’s nuclear programme.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe way this is presented in the Washington Post, it points very clearly to the idea that Iran was working on a trigger for a nuclear bomb. But look elsewhere and that interpretation becomes less certain: possibly it wasn’t nuclear at all, but a project to manufacture nanodiamonds.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbOf course, these are extremely murky waters and I’m not at all sure who to believe. There is probably a lot of deception taking place on both sides. But what seems to me extraordinary is the reluctance of journalists especially in the US mainstream to acknowledge the uncertainties and their willingness to accept what, as far as Iran is concerned, are the most incriminating interpretations.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa presse-Syst\u00e8me US n’a donc pas modifi\u00e9 son attitude de quelque fa\u00e7on que ce soit depuis 2001-2003, malgr\u00e9 tous les d\u00e9mentis que la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 de la situation a ensuite apport\u00e9s concernant l’Irak, qui \u00e9tait le premier exercice du genre de cette fa\u00e7on si ouverte et impudente. Cet acharnement rel\u00e8ve du processus syst\u00e9mique et d’un alignement inconditionnel et, dirait-on, bien plus pavlovien que d\u00e9lib\u00e9r\u00e9e ; cela confirme un comportement g\u00e9n\u00e9ral qui rel\u00e8ve effectivement de l’automatisme d’une presse compl\u00e8tement soumise \u00e0 l’influence quasiment inexprim\u00e9e du Syst\u00e8me, quasiment sans identification consciente.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tA la diff\u00e9rence de la situation de 2001-2003 (l’Irak), il y a le sentiment de la population US, qui est extr\u00eamement hostile \u00e0 une attaque de l’Iran, alors qu’elle \u00e9tait favorable en 2001-2003 \u00e0 une attaque de l’Irak. C’est bien l\u00e0 qu’on peut parler d’un automatisme ; la presse-Syst\u00e8me US ne semble tenir aucun compte de cette r\u00e9f\u00e9rence, pour tenter de rendre sa dialectique plus subtile, c’est-\u00e0-dire plus efficace. Elle \u00e9crit aujourd’hui en faveur de l’attaque contre l’Iran comme elle \u00e9crivait il y a dix ans en faveur de l’attaque contre l’Irak, comme si rien n’avait chang\u00e9 et, notamment, comme si la population avait la m\u00eame attitude belliciste aujourd’hui qu’il y a dix ans.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tUn sondage CBS.News montre cette hostilit\u00e9 de la population US \u00e0 une attaque contre l’Iran. Selon un proc\u00e9d\u00e9 d\u00e9sormais connu relevant \u00e9galement d’une technique-Syst\u00e8me, le sondage est pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 dans des termes assez ambigus pour que ce fait n’apparaisse que tr\u00e8s difficilement, noy\u00e9 dans une enqu\u00eate g\u00e9n\u00e9rale d’opinion sur la politique ext\u00e9rieure, alors que le probl\u00e8me iranien devrait \u00eatre mis en exergue en raison de la tension pr\u00e9sente. (On croirait parfois que l’hostilit\u00e9 \u00e0 une attaque contre l’Iran est aussi difficile \u00e0 appr\u00e9cier qu’un r\u00e9sultat de Ron Paul dans un straw poll<\/em>.) Dans l’article de CBS.News<\/em> du 11 novembre 2011<\/a>, consacr\u00e9 \u00e0 l’enqu\u00eate, le passage sur l’Iran dit ceci : \u00abA majority of Americans 55 percent say the threat posed by Iran, which has been developing a nuclear capability, can be contained by diplomacy. Fifteen percent say the situation requires the United States to take military action now; 17 percent say Iran is not a threat. Republicans are more than twice as likely as Democrats to say Iran is a threat that requires military action.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAinsi faut-il r\u00e9aliser un calcul complexe et minutieux pour parvenir \u00e0 des chiffres plus exacts et surtout significatifs, selon la forme des questions pos\u00e9es, selon la pr\u00e9sentation alambiqu\u00e9e qu’en fait CBS.Nrews<\/em>. Ainsi, le site iranien PressTV.com<\/em>, dont on comprend qu’il s’attache \u00e0 ce travail, signale successivement, apr\u00e8s comptes et recomptes des r\u00e9ponses aux diff\u00e9rentes questions, que 72% des Am\u00e9ricains sont hostiles \u00e0 une attaque contre l’Iran (Le 12 novembre 2011<\/a> : \u00abA recent CBS News poll shows that 72 percent of Americans either do not see Iran as a threat or believe diplomacy is the best course of action in dealing with Iran.<\/em>\u00bb) Puis un recompte conduit au chiffre de 85%… (Le 12 novembre 2011<\/a> : \u00abPoll: 85% of Americans against Iran war.<\/em>\u00bb)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tS’il y a une diff\u00e9rence dans les opinions des Am\u00e9ricains entre l’affaire irakienne et l’affaire iranienne dans sa phase actuelle, il y a aussi une diff\u00e9rence d’attitude. La question int\u00e9ressante est de savoir si les Am\u00e9ricains resteraient aujourd’hui, dans le climat g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des mouvements Occupy<\/em> et de la d\u00e9gradation de la situation int\u00e9rieure et du pouvoir US cons\u00e9cutive \u00e0 la crise g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, aussi passifs aujourd’hui, alors qu’ils s’opposent massivement \u00e0 une attaque contre l’Iran, qu’ils le furent en 2001-2003, alors qu’ils soutenaient l’id\u00e9e de la guerre contre l’Irak. Les param\u00e8tres ont notablement chang\u00e9, et l’\u00e9tat d’esprit avec, \u00e0 un point que l’on peut dire que l’on se trouve, notamment du point de vue psychologique, dans une \u00e9poque totalement nouvelle, et totalement antagoniste de celle de 2001-2003.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOn notera avec int\u00e9r\u00eat combien cette id\u00e9e d’une \u00e9poque nouvelle commence \u00e0 p\u00e9n\u00e9trer les jugements g\u00e9n\u00e9raux. Ainsi du Dr. Ashraf Ezzat, de l’association US Veterans Today<\/em>, qui donne le 9 novembre 2011<\/a> une interview \u00e0 la m\u00eame cha\u00eene PressTV.com<\/em>. Il expose que cette affaire iranienne doit \u00eatre vue dans un contexte nouveau de r\u00e9volte g\u00e9n\u00e9rale contre l’autorit\u00e9 dominante (nous dirions contre le Syst\u00e8me) et non plus seulement contre la cha\u00eene de pression USA-OTAN-Isra\u00ebl qui a domin\u00e9 l’\u00e9poque pr\u00e9c\u00e9dente de la s\u00e9quence historique (\u00e0 peu pr\u00e8s de 2001-2008). (Cette id\u00e9e renvoyant aux conceptions propos\u00e9es dans cet autre Bloc Notes<\/em> de ce 14 novembre 2011<\/a>.) <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abDr. Ashraf Ezzat a columnist at Veterans Today says the world is breaking loose from the chain of obedience’ that he believes is the source of world problems. The problem lies not in this chain of American-NATO-Israel command but it lies in the chain of obedience by the people, Ezzat told Press TV’s U.S. Desk in an interview on Tuesday. As we all can see, the world is breaking loose of that chain of obedience. People are gaining control now and a new world order is emerging with new powers and new rules especially in the Middle East. So this Israeli bluff to hit Iran may be the last political stunt, he concluded.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 14 novembre 2011 \u00e0 05H59<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

La question pos\u00e9e ici ne concerne pas la possibilit\u00e9 ou non d’une attaque contre l’Iran, qui reste compl\u00e8tement ouverte, mais d’abord le cas de l’extraordinaire disparit\u00e9, sinon l’antagonisme entre les automatismes-Syst\u00e8me, type neocon et Likoud tendance Netanyahou, de la presse US particuli\u00e8rement, et ce qu’on peut deviner du sentiment populaire US parall\u00e8lement et, nous dirions,… <\/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":[4646,11679,2870,11680,2773,2774,11493,11681],"class_list":["post-74245","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-antisysteme","tag-ashraf","tag-attaque","tag-ezzat","tag-iran","tag-israel","tag-occupy","tag-presstv"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74245","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=74245"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74245\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74245"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74245"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74245"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}