Menace Nucléaire Israélienne Contre L'iran

[Invité jabial]

Moi, ce que j'aimerais bien, c'est le point de vue des gens au milieu, j'ai nommé le Liban.

[Sous-Commandant Marco]

Moi, ce que j'aimerais bien, c'est le point de vue des gens au milieu, j'ai nommé le Liban.

Compte tenu de la diversité du peuple libanais (17 confessions différentes), il est impossible de dresser un tableau réaliste du Libanais moyen. Néanmoins, je ne crois pas me tromper en disant:

-beaucoup de Libanais se fichent comme de l'an 40 de la confrontation entre le Hezbollah, l'Iran et Israël, du moment qu'ils n'ont pas à en subir les retombées,

-si beaucoup de Libanais souhaitent que le Hezbollah disparaisse ou tout du moins soit désarmé, il savent bien que cela ne se ferait qu'au prix d'une confrontation meurtrière entre l'état libanais (soutenu par des Chrétiens et les Sunnites) et le Hezbollah (soutenu par un très grand nombre de Chiites), une nouvelle guerre civile en fait,

-l'immense majorité des Libanais ne souhaite pas de nouvelle guerre civile, donc préfèrera que le Hezbollah reste armé, quitte à ce qu'il s'en prenne régulièrement à Israël.

Il y a une question cornellienne à laquelle je ne sais pas répondre: dans le cas, de plus en plus probable, d'une nouvelle confrontation entre le Hezbollah et Israël sur le sol libanais, comment se répartiraient les Libanais entre la paix avec Israël en désarmant le Hezbollah (mais avec une guerre civile) et la continuation des bombardements par Israël, sans désarmement du Hezbollah et donc sans guerre civile?

[Nick de Cusa]

Moi, ce que j'aimerais bien, c'est le point de vue des gens au milieu, j'ai nommé le Liban.

Ça serait un autre fil.

[Sous-Commandant Marco]

Un bolchevique à la solde des communautés hippies de Big Sur, doublé d'un adepte des théories du complot les plus farfelues, j'ai nommé Ron Paul, vient de s'exprimer devant le Congrès:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul362.html

The talk of a troop surge and jobs program in Iraq only distracts Americans from the very real possibility of an attack on Iran. Our growing naval presence in the region and our harsh rhetoric toward Iran are unsettling. Securing the Horn of Africa and sending Ethiopian troops into Somalia do not bode well for world peace. Yet these developments are almost totally ignored by Congress.

Rumors are flying about when, not if, Iran will be bombed by either Israel or the U.S. – possibly with nuclear weapons.

[Invité jabial]

Le "possibly with nuclear weapons" est de trop. Pour le reste…

[Hadrien]

J'avais entendu qu'Israël projetait de bombarder avec des armes conventionnelles les installations nucléaires iraniennes.

Les Américains ont bien les

.

Sinon, est-ce que quelqu'un sait la bombe à neutrons est moins dangereuse que la nucléaire ou pas ?

[Rincevent]

[…] Sinon, est-ce que quelqu'un sait la bombe à neutrons est moins dangereuse que la nucléaire ou pas ?

Ca dépend ce que tu entends par "dangereuse". Le principe de la bombe à neutrons consiste à minimiser la part d'énergie dissipée par la chaleur et le souffle en maximisant l'émission de radiations. Dans l'idéal, une bombe à neutrons tue toute vie dans son rayon d'action sans endommager les infrastructures et véhicules.

[Sous-Commandant Marco]

Ca dépend ce que tu entends par "dangereuse". Le principe de la bombe à neutrons consiste à minimiser la part d'énergie dissipée par la chaleur et le souffle en maximisant l'émission de radiations. Dans l'idéal, une bombe à neutrons tue toute vie dans son rayon d'action sans endommager les infrastructures et véhicules.

C'est donc l'effet exactement inverse à celui désiré.

[Ronnie Hayek]

Promis, les USA n'attaqueront pas l'Iran, car ils préfèrent trouver une solution diplomatique…

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/1126b14a-ad6f-11db…00779e2340.html

Bush denies preparing attack against Iran

By Edward Luce in Washington

Published: January 26 2007 19:37 | Last updated: January 26 2007 19:37

George W. Bush on Friday sought to deny widespread rumours his administration was preparing some kind of military action against Iran. Mr Bush confirmed a report in Friday’s Washington Post that he had authorised US troops to shoot and kill Iranian operatives in Iraq, but denied this was a prelude to stronger action.

“We believe we can solve our problems with Iran diplomatically,” said the US president. “It makes sense that if somebody is trying to harm our troops, or stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, that we will stop them.”

But the US president’s relatively emollient comments are unlikely to quell speculation about the reasons behind the recent escalation of White House rhetoric towards Iran. In his prime time address on the “new way forward in Iraq” two weeks ago, Mr Bush pledged to “interrupt the flow of support [for extremists in Iraq]from Iran and Syria…We will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

In his State of the Union address to the joint houses of Congress on Tuesday, he lumped Iran with al-Qaeda. “It has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who…take direction from the regime in Iran. The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat.”

Last week, Mr Bush ordered a second US aircraft carrier to the Gulf and the deployment of more Patriot missiles in US military bases there. Richard Haass, former head of policy planning at the State Department in the first Bush administration, said the US president was leaving both the diplomatic and military option open.

“You could interpret Bush’s recent actions towards Iran in two ways – either he is increasing pressure on the regime in order to soften it up for talks over its uranium enrichment plans, or this is classic gunboat diplomacy in which the US is preparing for some kind of punitive action,” said Mr Haass. “My guess is that Mr Bush’s actions leave room for either scenario and the Bush administration remains divided over which to pursue.”

Both Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, and Bob Gates, secretary of defence, are thought to be pushing the White House to open talks with Iranian, having softened it up with the recent application of United Nations-approved economic sanctions on Iran and the beefing up of US naval forces off the Iranian coast.

“The Bush administration believes that Iran sees the US as a kind of paper tiger, and this is Washington’s answer to that,” said Afshin Molavi, at the New America Foundation in Washington. “The danger to this strategy is that it carries the risk of accidentally leading into some kind of military confrontation.”

However, others in the Bush administration, notably Dick Cheney, who last year warned Iran that it would face “meaningful consequences” if it continued to foment violence in Iraq, are thought to be arguing for the military option.

This interpretation is put forward by leading Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill, who have sought – but not received – assurances that the Bush administration has no plans to extend its military operations in Iraq across the border to Iran.

Meanwhile, in a short statement to commemorate International Holocaust Day on Friday, Iran was the only country Mr Bush cited by name: “Remembering the victims, heroes, and lessons of the Holocaust is particularly important today as Holocaust denial continues, urged on by the Iranian regime, which perversely seeks to call into question the historical fact of the Nazis’ campaign of mass murder,” he said.

Bush a une drôle de façon de recourir à la voie diplomatique:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16825943/

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Friday it intends to present evidence that Iranian operatives in Iraq are targeting U.S. troops. The announcement came shortly after word that President Bush had authorized U.S. forces in Iraq to fire on or capture any Iranian agents deemed a threat to American troops or the Iraqi public at large.

“It makes sense that if somebody’s trying to harm our troops, or stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, that we will stop them,” Bush said when asked about the aggressive new policy, first reported by the Washington Post. “It’s an obligation we all have … to protect our folks and achieve our goal.”

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack was asked by reporters whether the administration would release any evidence of Iranian subversion. "It's our intention to do so, we're working on it," he said.

Story continues below ↓ advertisement

McCormack cautioned that the declassification process is ongoing and that once it is complete U.S. officials will have to make a judgement on whether that information should be disclosed.

Several Iranian officials have been detained in three U.S. raids over the last month. The outgoing U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, told reporters Wednesday that details of accusations against them would be made public in the coming days.

Bombmaking info cited

The policy came in response to intelligence that Iran is supporting terrorists inside Iraq and is providing bombs — known as improvised explosive devices — and other equipment to anti-U.S. insurgents.

"The president and his national security team over the last several months have continued to receive information that Iranians were supplying IED equipment and or training that was being used to harm American soldiers," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.

"As a result American forces, when they receive actionable information, may take the steps necessary to protect themselves as well as the population," Johndroe said.

The Post said there were skeptics to the policy in the intelligence community, State Department and Pentagon — including CIA Director Michael Hayden who said Iranians may try to kidnap or kill U.S. personnel in Iraq as payback.

L'article du Washington Post est accessible ici: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte…7012502199.html

[Sous-Commandant Marco]

That's called gunboat diplomacy.

[Invité jabial]

AMTHA le problème sera réglé, vu que la nouvelle assemblée ne votera pas ce qui serait nécessaire pour déclencher une guerre avec l'Iran.

[Sous-Commandant Marco]

AMTHA le problème sera réglé, vu que la nouvelle assemblée ne votera pas ce qui serait nécessaire pour déclencher une guerre avec l'Iran.

Pas grave, il suffira de créer un incident du genre Golfe du Tonkin et l'affaire sera dans le sac.

[Invité jabial]

Pas grave, il suffira de créer un incident du genre Golfe du Tonkin et l'affaire sera dans le sac.

Pour ça faudrait déja que les iraniens soient assez cons pour tirer. Je ne partage pas plus l'appréciation péjorative de l'intelligence d'Ahmadinejad que de celle de Bush. On n'arrive pas à ce niveau en étant con.

[melodius]

AMTHA le problème sera réglé, vu que la nouvelle assemblée ne votera pas ce qui serait nécessaire pour déclencher une guerre avec l'Iran.

C'est le président qui décide si et contre qui les EU vont en guerre, même si la constitution dit que c'est le Congrès qui doit le faire. Sinon, l'escalade dans la rhétorique guerrière US ne proviendrait-elle pas du fait que Ahmadinejad vient de se prendre une belle claque lors des dernières élections ?

[Invité jabial]

C'est le président qui décide si et contre qui les EU vont en guerre, même si la constitution dit que c'est le Congrès qui doit le faire.

Il doit quand même se faire approuver par le congrès. J'ai comme dans l'idée que si Bush faisait ça maintenant, il se ferait impeacher.

Le vrai danger viendra au changement de présidence, que ce soit un dem ou un rep. Si c'est un démocrate. Ils ne sont pas moins guerriers que les républicains, et ils arriveront en blanc virginal. Si c'est un républicain (peu probable) ça apparaîtrait comme un blanc-seing pour la guerre.

Sinon, l'escalade dans la rhétorique guerrière US ne proviendrait-elle pas du fait que Ahmadinejad vient de se prendre une belle claque lors des dernières élections ?

Possible.

[Nick de Cusa]

Si c'est un démocrate et si Hilary se plante parcequ'elle est perçue comme trop à gauche, il y a une chance non risible que ça soit Obama (Illinois).

Il voté contre la guerre en Irak.

[Ronnie Hayek]

Une bonne analyse, qui met d'ailleurs les choses au point sur les propos d'Ahmadinejad contre Israël :

http://www.lewrockwell.com/pilger/pilger47.html

Iran: A War Is Coming

The United States is planning what will be a catastrophic attack on Iran. For the Bush cabal, the attack will be a way of "buying time" for its disaster in Iraq. In announcing what he called a "surge" of American troops in Iraq, George W Bush identified Iran as his real target. "We will interrupt the flow of support [to the insurgency in Iraq] from Iran and Syria," he said. "And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

"Networks" means Iran. "There is solid evidence," said a State Department spokesman on 24 January, "that Iranian agents are involved in these networks and that they are working with individuals and groups in Iraq and are being sent there by the Iranian government." Like Bush’s and Blair’s claim that they had irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussein was deploying weapons of mass destruction, the "evidence" lacks all credibility. Iran has a natural affinity with the Shia majority of Iraq, and has been implacably opposed to al-Qaeda, condemning the 9/11 attacks and supporting the United States in Afghanistan. Syria has done the same. Investigations by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and others, including British military officials, have concluded that Iran is not engaged in the cross-border supply of weapons. General Peter Pace, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said no such evidence exists.

As the American disaster in Iraq deepens and domestic and foreign opposition grows, "neocon" fanatics such as Vice-President Cheney believe their opportunity to control Iran’s oil will pass unless they act no later than the spring. For public consumption, there are potent myths. In concert with Israel and Washington’s Zionist and fundamentalist Christian lobbies, the Bushites say their "strategy" is to end Iran’s nuclear threat. In fact, Iran possesses not a single nuclear weapon nor has it ever threatened to build one; the CIA estimates that, even given the political will, Iran is incapable of building a nuclear weapon before 2017, at the earliest.

Unlike Israel and the United States, Iran has abided by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it was an original signatory and has allowed routine inspections under its legal obligations – until gratuitous, punitive measures were added in 2003, at the behest of Washington. No report by the International Atomic Energy Agency has ever cited Iran for diverting its civilian nuclear program to military use. The IAEA has said that for most of the past three years its inspectors have been able to "go anywhere and see anything." They inspected the nuclear installations at Isfahan and Natanz on 10 and 12 January and will return on 2 to 6 February. The head of the IAEA, Mohamed El-Baradei says that an attack on Iran will have "catastrophic consequences" and only encourage the regime to become a nuclear power.

Unlike its two nemeses, the US and Israel, Iran has attacked no other countries. It last went to war in 1980 when invaded by Saddam Hussein, who was backed and equipped by the US, which supplied chemical and biological weapons produced at a factory in Maryland. Unlike Israel, the world’s fifth military power with thermonuclear weapons aimed at Middle-East targets, an unmatched record of defying UN resolutions and the enforcer of the world’s longest illegal occupation, Iran has a history of obeying international law and occupies no territory other than its own.

The "threat" from Iran is entirely manufactured, aided and abetted by familiar, compliant media language that refers to Iran’s "nuclear ambitions," just as the vocabulary of Saddam’s nonexistent WMD arsenal became common usage. Accompanying this is a demonizing that has become standard practice. As Edward Herman has pointed out, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "has done yeoman service in facilitating this"; yet a close examination of his notorious remark about Israel in October 2005 reveals its distortion. According to Juan Cole, American professor of Modern Middle History, and other Farsi language analysts, Ahmadinejad did not call for Israel to be "wiped off the map." He said, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." This, says Cole, "does not imply military action or killing anyone at all." Ahmadinejad compared the demise of the Jerusalem regime to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Iranian regime is repressive, but its power is diffuse and exercised by the mullahs, with whom Ahmadinejad is often at odds. An attack would surely unite them.

The one piece of "solid evidence" is the threat posed by the United States. An American naval buildup in the eastern Mediterranean has begun. This is almost certainly part of what the Pentagon calls CONPLAN 8022, which is the aerial bombing of Iran. In 2004, National Security Presidential Directive 35, entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization, was issued. It is classified, of course, but the presumption has long been that NSPD 35 authorized the stockpiling and deployment of "tactical" nuclear weapons in the Middle East. This does not mean Bush will use them against Iran, but for the first time since the most dangerous years of the cold war, the use of what were then called "limited" nuclear weapons is being openly discussed in Washington. What they are debating is the prospect of other Hiroshimas and of radioactive fallout across the Middle East and Central Asia. Seymour Hersh disclosed in the New Yorker last year that American bombers "have been flying simulated nuclear weapons delivery missions . . . since last summer."

The well-informed Arab Times in Kuwait says Bush will attack Iran before the end of April. One of Russia’s most senior military strategists, General Leonid Ivashov says the US will use nuclear munitions delivered by Cruise missiles launched in the Mediterranean. "The war in Iraq," he wrote on 24 January, "was just one element in a series of steps in the process of regional destabilization. It was only a phase in getting closer to dealing with Iran and other countries. [When the attack on Iran begins] Israel is sure to come under Iranian missile strikes. Posing as victims, the Israelis will suffer some tolerable damage and then an outraged US will destabilize Iran finally, making it look like a noble mission of retribution . . . Public opinion is already under pressure. There will be a growing anti-Iranian hysteria, leaks, disinformation etcetera . . . It remains unclear whether the US Congress is going to authorize the war."

Asked about a US Senate resolution disapproving of the "surge" of US troops to Iraq, Vice-president Cheney said, "It won’t stop us." Last November, a majority of the American electorate voted for the Democratic Party to control Congress and stop the war in Iraq. Apart from insipid speeches of "disapproval," this has not happened and is unlikely to happen. Influential Democrats, such as the new leader of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, and would-be presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have disported themselves before the Israeli lobby. Edwards is regarded in his party as a "liberal." He was one of a high-level American contingent at a recent Israeli conference in Herzilya, where he spoke about "an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel (sic). At the top of these threats is Iran . . . All options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon." Hillary Clinton has said, "US policy must be unequivocal . . . We have to keep all options on the table." Pelosi and Howard Dean, another liberal, have distinguished themselves by attacking former President Jimmy Carter, who oversaw the Camp David agreement between Israel and Egypt and has had the gall to write a truthful book accusing Israel of becoming an "apartheid state." Pelosi said, "Carter does not speak for the Democratic Party." She is right, alas.

In Britain, Downing Street has been presented with a document entitled "Answering the Charges" by Professor Abbas Edalal of Imperial College, London, on behalf of others seeking to expose the disinformation on Iran. Blair remains silent. Apart from the usual honorable exceptions, Parliament remains shamefully silent.

Can this really be happening again, less than four years after the invasion of Iraq which has left some 650,000 people dead? I wrote virtually this same article early in 2003; for Iran now read Iraq then. And is it not remarkable that North Korea has not been attacked? North Korea has nuclear weapons. That is the message, loud and clear, for the Iranians.

In numerous surveys, such as that conducted this month by BBC World Service, "we," the majority of humanity, have made clear our revulsion for Bush and his vassals. As for Blair, the man is now politically and morally naked for all to see. So who speaks out, apart from Professor Edalal and his colleagues? Privileged journalists, scholars and artists, writers and thespians who sometimes speak about "freedom of speech" are as silent as a dark West End theater. What are they waiting for? The declaration of another thousand-year Reich, or a mushroom cloud in the Middle East, or both?

[Invité jabial]

Je ne vais pas insister mais c'est une vue tout aussi biaisée que celle des néocons. L'Iran est une puissance régionnale avec tout ce que ça implique, ils ne sont pas vraiment différents des chinois ou des russes de ce point de vue.

On verra bien si elle arrive, cette guerre, mais je parierais que non.

[Toast]

Oulala… la machine commence à s'emballer : http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-…l?xtor=RSS-3208

Les Etats-Unis soupçonnent l'Iran de fournir aux miliciens chiites en Irak des explosifs particulièrement meurtriers utilisés notamment contre les troupes américaines. Il s'agit, explique le New York Times, de cylindres bourrés d'explosifs disposés le long des routes.

Ca sent le raid aérien dans pas longtemps tout ça. En même temps, sur le fond, je sais pas trop ce que donnerai un Iran avec l'arme atomique.

[Ronnie Hayek]

J'aime bien le titre du "Monde" : "Les Etats-Unis avancent de nouvelles preuves sur le soutien de l'Iran aux insurgés irakiens". Ecrire "Prétendent détenir de nouvelles preuves" eût été plus objectif.

C'est un peu comme Dilbert qui emploie systématiquement "réfuter" pour "récuser" ou "rejeter".

[Toast]

J'aime bien le titre du "Monde" : "Les Etats-Unis avancent de nouvelles preuves sur le soutien de l'Iran aux insurgés irakiens". Ecrire "Prétendent détenir de nouvelles preuves" eût été plus objectif.

C'est un peu comme Dilbert qui emploie systématiquement "réfuter" pour "récuser" ou "rejeter".

Ouep. En tout cas on admire une fois de plus la finesse et la diplomatie de l'équipe de W.

[Invité jabial]

Avec the Economist qui titre "Next Stop Iran?", je commence à me poser des questions.

[Apollon]

J'aime bien le titre du "Monde" : "Les Etats-Unis avancent de nouvelles preuves sur le soutien de l'Iran aux insurgés irakiens". Ecrire "Prétendent détenir de nouvelles preuves" eût été plus objectif.

Le terme "avancent" revient au même.

[Sous-Commandant Marco]

Avec the Economist qui titre "Next Stop Iran?", je commence à me poser des questions.

Je pense qu'une intervention contre l'Iran est inévitable. La décision n'est officiellement pas encore prise (ce qui, de mon point de vue, signifie que Bush n'a pas encore choisi le mode opératoire), mais l'on suit actuellement exactement le même chemin qu'en 2002-2003. Linké depuis www.antiwar.com:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,20…=rss&feed=1

[Apollon]

Il n'y aura pas d'intervention contre l'Iran. Bush agite le baton car c'est la seule chose qu'il peut encore faire.

[Sous-Commandant Marco]

Il n'y aura pas d'intervention contre l'Iran. Bush agite le baton car c'est la seule chose qu'il peut encore faire.

Je ne crois pas que des préparations de cette envergure soient menées juste pour faire peur aux Iraniens. Si vraiment Bush voulait obtenir quelque chose de la part des Iraniens, il agiterait aussi la carotte. Or Cheney et les néo-cons ont d'avance fermé toute discussion directe avec l'Iran, qui est pourtant demandeur.

[Apollon]

Je ne crois pas que des préparations de cette envergure soient menées juste pour faire peur aux Iraniens. Si vraiment Bush voulait obtenir quelque chose de la part des Iraniens, il agiterait aussi la carotte. Or Cheney et les néo-cons ont d'avance fermé toute discussion directe avec l'Iran, qui est pourtant demandeur.

C'est le partage des rôles : aux usa de manier le baton, à l'Europe de faire pendre la carotte.

Veux-tu faire un pari ?

Pas de guerre USA - Iran en 2007.

Critère objectif : constat officiel de guerre par au moins un des deux pays (résolution 1)

Mise : 20 euros (à discuter, résolution 2)

Pas de tiers arbitres (à discuter, résolution 3)

[Sous-Commandant Marco]

C'est le partage des rôles : aux usa de manier le baton, à l'Europe de faire pendre la carotte.

Veux-tu faire un pari ?

Pourquoi pas?

Pas de guerre USA - Iran en 2007.

Critère objectif : constat officiel de guerre par au moins un des deux pays (résolution 1)

Allons, tu sais bien que l'époque où les gouvernements s'envoyaient les déclaration de guerre à la figure, telles un gant pour provoquer un duel, est hélas révolue.

En revanche, je suis prêt à parier 25 cents américains qu'Israël ou les Etats-Unis bombarderont le territoire iranien avant la fin du mandat actuel de G.W. Bush.

[Apollon]

En revanche, je suis prêt à parier 25 cents américains qu'Israël ou les Etats-Unis bombarderont le territoire iranien avant la fin du mandat actuel de G.W. Bush.

héhé je ne me ferais pas avoir, les USA ont déjà bombardé l'Iran par erreur depuis le début de la guerre et ça peut très facilement se reproduire. Non, je ne te parle pas de déclaration de guerre mais de constat de guerre, sous réserve que tu puisses substituer un critère encore plus objectif.

[Sous-Commandant Marco]

héhé je ne me ferais pas avoir, les USA ont déjà bombardé l'Iran par erreur depuis le début de la guerre et ça peut très facilement se reproduire. Non, je ne te parle pas de déclaration de guerre mais de constat de guerre, sous réserve que tu puisses substituer un critère encore plus objectif.

Désolé, je n'ai vraiment pas voulu t'arnaquer.

Je te propose que l'on fixe comme critère objectif qu'Israël ou les Etats-Unis bombardent au moins l'un des sites nucléaires de l'Iran. Ca t'irait?