\tJeudi, le secr\u00e9taire d’\u00c9tat John Kerry rencontrera en t\u00eate-\u00e0-t\u00eate son homologue iranien, Javad Zarif. Ce sera la premi\u00e8re rencontre de cette sorte, t\u00eate-\u00e0-t\u00eate des ministres des affaires \u00e9trang\u00e8res, depuis l’installation de la R\u00e9publique Islamique d’Iran, en 1979. Cette rencontre se place \u00e9videmment dans le grand courant de communication<\/strong> (rien d’autre, pour l’instant) qui enfle \u00e0 l’approche de la session g\u00e9n\u00e9rale de l’ONU o\u00f9 l’on chuchote \u00e0 grands renforts d’articles et de titres consid\u00e9rables que Rouhani et Obama, se croisant dans les couloirs de l’IONU, pourraient trouver brusquement le temps de s’entretenir, eux aussi, en face-\u00e0-face. La rencontre Kerry-Zarif permettra sans doute de parler de sujets int\u00e9ressants, y compris de la Syrie o\u00f9 les deux pays jouent un r\u00f4le actif, dans les camps oppos\u00e9s ; elle est notamment annonc\u00e9e par McClatchy.News<\/em>, le 23 septembre 2013<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00ab… Thursday’s encounter between Kerry, who was a longtime member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Zarif, a U.S.-educated former envoy to the U.N., will be the highest-level substantive meeting since the countries severed diplomatic ties following Iran’s Islamic revolution in 1979. In 2001, Colin Powell, then the secretary of state, met his Iranian counterpart at the U.N., but only for a handshake; Condoleeza Rice and then Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki managed to avoid any serious conversation during a 2007 international conference on Iraq.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThursday’s meeting, however, will be about Iran, and analysts who specialize in U.S.-Iranian relations say the time could be right for steps toward a detente: The U.S. and Iran are on opposite sides of the Syria conflict but both are looking for a solution to the bloodshed, and Iran is feeling the burn from sanctions on its petroleum exports…<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t L’agitation est f\u00e9brile chez nos amis faucons de divers plumages, et notamment les increvables neocons<\/em> qui continuent \u00e0 constituer le fond de commerce qui para\u00eet sans fin de la pens\u00e9e politique US, tant les \u00e9lans extr\u00e9mistes semblent, eux aussi, le fond de commerce de cette pens\u00e9e politique, tout cela achevant gracieusement le cercle vicieux constituant la figure favorite de cette pens\u00e9e. Jim Lobe leur consacre un article (Antiwar.com<\/em>, le 22 septembre 2013<\/a>), \u00e0 ces faucons, o\u00f9 il met en \u00e9vidence le lien entre leur d\u00e9ception affreuse de l’attaque manqu\u00e9e (pour l’instant) contre la Syrie et leur angoisse furieuse de ces bruits affreux de pseudo-rapprochement entre l’Iran et les USA. Les citations du Weekly Standard<\/em> et du Wall Streert Journal<\/em> suffisent \u00e0 notre \u00e9dification, avec en prime, certes, la r\u00e9f\u00e9rence sacr\u00e9e \u00e0 Munich-1938 qui semble au-del\u00e0 de l’usure du temps, mais agrandie pour cette fois \u00e0 l’intervention de Mussolini en Ethiopie-1935 (avec l’emploi d’armes chimiques, occurrence subtile et n\u00e9anmoins r\u00e9v\u00e9latrice que nul n’est autoris\u00e9 \u00e0 rater).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00ab<\/em>[S<\/em>]yria is merely Act One. Next week Act Two opens at the United Nations, wrote Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, co-founder of The Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI) and the neo-conservative Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), Friday. There, we’ll see a charm offensive worthy of Richard III by the new Iranian president and veteran deceiver of the West, Hassan Rouhani. In response the Obama administration will move on from punting in Syria to appeasing Iran. Smaller retreats lead to larger ones. The West’s failure to resist Mussolini’s invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 and his troops’ use of poison gas was merely a foretaste of the failure to resist Hitler when he took the Rhineland in March 1936, he warned, evoking Winston’s Churchill’s denunciation in the British Parliament of London’s appeasement policies in the run-up to the World War Two.<\/em> […] <\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbIf the White House was relieved, the hawks were furious. What could be worse for America’s standing in the world than a Congress refusing to support a President’s proposal for military action against a rogue regime that used WMD<\/em> [weapons of mass destruction<\/em>]? asked the Wall Street Journal’s neo-conservative editorial page. Here’s one idea: A U.S. President letting that rogue be rescued from military punishment by the country that has protected the rogue all along. The Iranians will take it as a signal that they can similarly trap Mr. Obama in a diplomatic morass that claims to have stopped their nuclear program, it went on, a point ceaselessly echoed since by other hawks, including McCain and Graham.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t Puisque l’Iran semble avoir momentan\u00e9ment remplac\u00e9 la Syrie dans le chef des pr\u00e9occupations sp\u00e9culatives des commentateurs \u00e0 Washington, D.C., il importe une fois de plus de se tourner vers les \u00e9poux Leverett pour entendre ce qu’ils ont \u00e0 nous en dire, notamment dans la perspective d’une hypoth\u00e9tique rencontre Rouhani-Obama qui reste toujours \u00e0 ce stade de l’hypoth\u00e8se. Les Leverett publient un texte sur leur site GoingToTeheran.com<\/em>, ce 21 septembre 2013<\/a>, o\u00f9 ils reviennent sur leur habituelle sp\u00e9culation de savoir si les USA seront capables un jour de comprendre et d’accepter la pens\u00e9e rationnelle et structur\u00e9e appuy\u00e9e sur une perception traditionnelle et principielle des Iraniens, et si ce jour sera \u00e9ventuellement d’ici la fin du mois \u00e0 l’ONU. Le principal de leur texte est consacr\u00e9 \u00e0 un commentaire des passages les plus importants d’un texte du pr\u00e9sident iranien publi\u00e9 le 20 septembre 2013<\/a> dans le Washington Post<\/em>. (On appr\u00e9ciera \u00e0 ce propos combien cela para\u00eet \u00eatre une nouvelle tendance, et peut-\u00eatre une habitude en train de s’\u00e9tablir, de voir les chefs d’\u00c9tat ou de gouvernement de pays jug\u00e9s hostiles de s’exprimer dans les pages les plus prestigieuses de la presse-Syst\u00e8me US, cela apr\u00e8s le commentaire de Poutine dans le New York Times<\/em> du 13 septembre.) Voici le passage du commentaire des Leverett, avec leurs propres soulign\u00e9s en gras.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00ab… Three passages seem especially relevant for understanding Tehran’s position on the nuclear issue. The first presents Rohani’s definition of constructive engagement (emphasis added): It isor should becounterintuitive to pursue one’s interests without considering the interests of others.<\/em> A constructive approach to diplomacy doesn’t mean relinquishing one’s rights. It means engaging with one’s counterparts, on the basis of equal footing and mutual respect, to address shared concerns and achieve shared objectives<\/em><\/strong>. In other words, win-win outcomes are not just favorable but also achievable. A zero-sum, Cold War mentality leads to everyone’s loss.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe explicit reference to not relinquishing one’s rights is, of course, very much of a piece with Rohani’s statements, during his presidential campaign and since his election, that<\/em> he is not about to surrender Iran’s rightas a sovereign state and as a non-weapons state party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to enrich uranium under international safeguards<\/em><\/strong>. Unfortunately,<\/em> there is no concrete indication that the Obama administration is prepared to acknowledge this right<\/em><\/strong>. In fact, one can find multiple statements from administration officials over the last five years publicly denying that there is such a right. (This is, among other things, a legally and intellectually dishonest reading of the NPT.)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe second passage from President Rohani’s Op-Ed that we want to highlight here explains with admirable clarity why the Islamic Republic is not about to compromise its right to safeguarded enrichment (again, emphasis added): We must also pay attention to the issue of identity as a key driver of tension in, and beyond, the Middle East. At their core, the vicious battles in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are over the nature of those countries’ identities and their consequent roles in our region and the world.<\/em> The centrality of identity extends to the case of our peaceful nuclear energy program. To us, mastering the atomic fuel cycle and generating nuclear power is as much about diversifying our energy resources as it is about who Iranians are as a nation, our demand for dignity and respect and our consequent place in the world.<\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbPresident Rohani goes on to note, Without comprehending the role of identity, many issues we all face will remain unresolved. Indeed. Unfortunately,<\/em> it remains far from clear that the Obama administration understands how tightly the matter of Iran’s nuclear rights is linked to fundamental questions of identity (like independence and control of the country’s energy resources) for Iranians who supported Imam Khomeini’s revolution and continue to support the political order it produced.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe third passage from President Rohani’s Op-Ed that we want to highlight discusses the requirements for diplomatic progress (yet again, emphasis added): To move beyond impasses, whether in relation to Syria, my country’s nuclear program or its relations with the United States, we need to aim higher.<\/em> Rather than focusing on how to prevent things from getting worse, we need to thinkand talkabout how to make things better. To do that, we all need to muster the courage to start conveying what we wantclearly, concisely and sincerelyand to back it up with the political will to take necessary action<\/em><\/strong>. This is the essence of my approach to constructive interaction.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n