Aller au contenu

Syrie


Messages recommandés

Je commence ici un fil sur nos amis les Syriens, et j'attaque de suite avec ceci.

Toute ressemblance avec une quelconque guerre d'Irak du début du 20ème siècle serait purement fortuite.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,13…1050908,00.html

Macmillan backed Syria assassination plot

Documents show White House and No 10 conspired over oil-fuelled invasion plan

Ben Fenton

Saturday September 27, 2003

The Guardian

Nearly 50 years before the war in Iraq, Britain and America sought a secretive "regime change" in another Arab country they accused of spreading terror and threatening the west's oil supplies, by planning the invasion of Syria and the assassination of leading figures.

Newly discovered documents show how in 1957 Harold Macmillan and President Dwight Eisenhower approved a CIA-MI6 plan to stage fake border incidents as an excuse for an invasion by Syria's pro-western neighbours, and then to "eliminate" the most influential triumvirate in Damascus.

The plans, frighteningly frank in their discussion, were discovered in the private papers of Duncan Sandys, Mr Macmillan's defence secretary, by Matthew Jones, a reader in international history at Royal Holloway, University of London.

Although historians know that intelligence services had sought to topple the Syrian regime in the autumn of 1957, this is the first time any document has been found showing that the assassination of three leading figures was at the heart of the scheme. In the document drawn up by a top secret and high-level working group that met in Washington in September 1957, Mr Macmillan and President Eisenhower were left in no doubt about the need to assassinate the top men in Damascus.

Part of the "preferred plan" reads: "In order to facilitate the action of liberative forces, reduce the capabilities of the Syrian regime to organise and direct its military actions, to hold losses and destruction to a minimum, and to bring about desired results in the shortest possible time, a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. Their removal should be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention and in the light of circumstances existing at the time."

The document, approved by London and Washington, named three men: Abd al-Hamid Sarraj, head of Syrian military intelligence; Afif al-Bizri, chief of the Syrian general staff; and Khalid Bakdash, leader of the Syrian Communist party.

For a prime minister who had largely come to power on the back of Anthony Eden's disastrous antics in Suez just a year before, Mr Macmillan was remarkably bellicose. He described it in his diary as "a most formidable report". Secrecy was so great, Mr Macmillan ordered the plan withheld even from British chiefs of staff, because of their tendency "to chatter".

Concern about the increasingly anti-western and pro-Soviet sympathies of Syria had been growing in Downing Street and the White House since the overthrow of the conservative military regime of Colonel Adib Shishakli by an alliance of Ba'ath party and Communist party politicians and their allies in the Syrian army, in 1954.

Driving the call for action was the CIA's Middle East chief Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of former president Theodore Roosevelt. He identified Colonel Sarraj, General al-Bizri and Mr Bakdash as the real power behind a figurehead president. The triumvirate had moved even closer to Nikita Khrushchev's orbit after the previous year's disastrous attempt by Britain and France, in collusion with Israel, to reverse the nationalisation of the Suez canal.

By 1957, despite America's opposition to the Suez move, President Eisenhower felt he could no longer ignore the danger of Syria becoming a centre for Moscow to spread communism throughout the Middle East. He and Mr Macmillan feared Syria would destabilise pro-western neighbours by exporting terrorism and encouraging internal dissent. More importantly, Syria also had control of one of the main oil arteries of the Middle East, the pipeline which connected pro-western Iraq's oilfields to Turkey.

The "preferred plan"adds: "Once a political decision is reached to proceed with internal disturbances in Syria, CIA is prepared, and SIS [MI6] will attempt, to mount minor sabotage and coup de main incidents within Syria, working through contacts with individuals.

"The two services should consult, as appropriate, to avoid any overlapping or interference with each other's activities… Incidents should not be concentrated in Damascus; the operation should not be overdone; and to the extent possible care should be taken to avoid causing key leaders of the Syrian regime to take additional personal protection measures."

Sabotage

The report said that once the necessary degree of fear had been created, frontier incidents and border clashes would be staged to provide a pretext for Iraqi and Jordanian military intervention. Syria had to be "made to appear as the sponsor of plots, sabotage and violence directed against neighbouring governments," the report says. "CIA and SIS should use their capabilities in both the psychological and action fields to augment tension." That meant operations in Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon, taking the form of "sabotage, national conspiracies and various strong-arm activities" to be blamed on Damascus.

The plan called for funding of a "Free Syria Committee", and the arming of "political factions with paramilitary or other actionist capabilities" within Syria. The CIA and MI6 would instigate internal uprisings, for instance by the Druze in the south, help to free political prisoners held in the Mezze prison, and stir up the Muslim Brotherhood in Damascus.

The planners envisaged replacing the Ba'ath/Communist regime with one that was firmly anti-Soviet, but they conceded that this would not be popular and "would probably need to rely first upon repressive measures and arbitrary exercise of power".

The plan was never used, chiefly because Syria's Arab neighbours could not be persuaded to take action and an attack from Turkey alone was thought to be unacceptable. The following year, the Ba'athists moved against their Communist former allies and took Syria into a federation with Gen Nasser's Egypt, which lasted until 1963.

Lien vers le commentaire

Je me trompe peut-être, mais ne serait-ce pas, pour les US, bien plus facile de se prendre à la Syrie plutôt qu'à l'Iran? J'ai vraiment du mal à croire qu'ils seront assez dingues pour sauter sur Téhéran, mais par contre Damas… A moins qu'on me dise que l'armée Syrienne est du genre solide, au quel cas je la ferme :icon_up:

Lien vers le commentaire
Je me trompe peut-être, mais ne serait-ce pas, pour les US, bien plus facile de se prendre à la Syrie plutôt qu'à l'Iran? J'ai vraiment du mal à croire qu'ils seront assez dingues pour sauter sur Téhéran, mais par contre Damas… A moins qu'on me dise que l'armée Syrienne est du genre solide, au quel cas je la ferme :icon_up:

Je suis bien d'accord, il faudrait être fou, l'Iran se situe pile entre l'Irak et l'aFghanistan, ça risque de lier les deux fronts et favoriser les alliances entre des factions qui ne se parlent pas en ce moment (Dieu merci).

En plus, je ne suis pas sûr que nos amis les Russes voient d'un bon oeil autant de soldats américains dans la zone, tout près de leurs frontières.

Lien vers le commentaire
Je suis bien d'accord, il faudrait être fou, l'Iran se situe pile entre l'Irak et l'aFghanistan, ça risque de lier les deux fronts et favoriser les alliances entre des factions qui ne se parlent pas en ce moment (Dieu merci).

En plus, je ne suis pas sûr que nos amis les Russes voient d'un bon oeil autant de soldats américains dans la zone, tout près de leurs frontières.

J'ose espérer qu'aucun néo-con, même parmi les plus néo, n'a la prétention d'envahir l'Iran (70 millions d'habitants). Tout au plus se limiteront-ils à des frappes chirurgicales. Ou alors, ils sont vraiment devenus fous.

Pour la Syrie, c'est autre chose. Damas tomberait encore plus vite que Bagdad mais l'ensemble se transformerait effectivement en second Irak. Pour les USA ou Israel, ce serait une victoire bien chère. Et, comme le Liban ne présente aucun intérêt stratégique, je pense que les Libanais resteront seuls face à l'ogre syrien. C'est le pari qu'ont fait les responsables de l'attentat contre Hariri.

Bachar va finir par retirer quelques milliers de soldats du Liban, mais il y laissera ses services secrets, ses immigrés et ses hommes de paille, histoire de narguer encore un peu Bush et Chirac. Si Israel ou les USA l'attaquent, il pourra prendre à témoin de sa bonne volonté les autres régimes et l'opinion publique arabes.

Lien vers le commentaire

J'ai oublié de préciser que la Syrie a peu de pétrole. Le seul intérêt d'un changement de régime en Syrie serait de faire diminuer l'insurrection en Irak (mais bon, comme cette diminution serait plus que compensée par une nouvelle insurrection en Syrie même…) et de couper un soutien (le plus faible) du Hezbollah. Cela me paraît bien mince comme bonne raison. Je maintiens que les USA et Israel se contenteront d'élever la voix vis-à-vis de la Syrie. "A loud talk with a small stick".

Lien vers le commentaire
Invité beaublaireau

Je pense que l'administration Bush n'attaquera personne si aucun geste inconsidéré n'est à déplorer.

La syrie est certainement plus facile à attaquer que l'Iran mais l'Iran est un vieil ennemi pour les USA, les Américains ne les aiment pas beaucoup, ils ont eu des difficultés passées et cela pourrais favoriser le faconnage de l'opinion publique (Saddam était déjà mal vu par les Amerlocs, il était donc plus facile à attaquer que Bachar par exemple qui n'est pas encore un méchant loup…).

L'Iran a déjà ce statut et en plus ils tentent de développer la bombre A. S'il continuent, les USA les frapperont sinon ils tenteront de calmer la région en se maintenant en Irak.

Lien vers le commentaire
Ce ne sera jamais que le quinzième retrait progressif depuis 1976.

Asad Pledges 2-Stage Withdrawal

President Bashar al-Asad of Syria gave a major policy speech [Arabic link] to the Syrian parliament on Saturday on Lebanon. He pledged a withdrawal of Syrian troops to the Biqaa Valley (a largely Sunni Arab area near the Syrian border), after which the troops would then be stationed along the Syria-Lebanon border.

Asad foresees no new negotiations soon with Israel over Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Syrian territory, the Golan Heights. Asad said that he was ready to negotiate, but that the Israelis had made it clear that they were not.

Asad warned the Lebanese that they were about to be pressured to make a separate peace with Israel.

In his offer to withdraw, Asad cited Un Security Council resolution 1559, which calls for a withdrawal of all foreign troops from Lebanon.

He also referred to the Ta'if Agreement that ended the Lebanese Civil War.

posted by Juan @ 3/6/2005 06:35:00 AM

Lien vers le commentaire
(Saddam était déjà mal vu par les Amerlocs, il était donc plus facile à attaquer que Bachar par exemple qui n'est pas encore un méchant loup…).

Peut-être que Georges pourrait demander son aide à Gerhard ou Tony, ou même Silvio, je pense que Jacques ira voir son ami Bachar.

Je me demande bien ce que Junichiro en pense, et quand à John ou Jiang, je ne sais pas.

PS: deux catégories d'être humains, et deux catégpories seulement sont appelées par leur prénom: les clochards et les dirigeants d'Etat arabes. (regardez donc le prochain journal télévisé qui parlera de clochards)

Lien vers le commentaire

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic…?referrer=email

U.S. Rejects Syria's Withdrawal Plan for Lebanon

Citing U.N. Resolution, Washington Says Troop Pullout Must Be Quick

By Robin Wright

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, March 6, 2005; Page A24

The United States yesterday rejected Syria's announcement of a gradual withdrawal of its troops from Lebanon as inadequate and charged that Damascus is defying a U.N. resolution, as well as demands from the international community and its own Middle East allies.

In unusually sharp language, the White House said President Bashar Assad's "half measures" were "not enough." Rather than make a phased pullout with a vague timeline, Damascus must withdraw "completely and immediately" all its military forces and intelligence agents, White House spokeswoman Erin Healy said.

The Bush administration also warned that Syria will have to account for its actions. "The world is watching the situation in Lebanon, particularly in Beirut, very closely," Healy said.

"The world will hold the governments of Lebanon and Syria directly accountable for any intimidation, confrontation or violence directed against the people of Lebanon, and we have made this clear to both governments. The United States and the world stand with the people of Lebanon at this critical moment," she added.

Washington is increasingly concerned that the showdown over Syria's 30-year military presence in Lebanon, triggered by the assassination last month of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri, will spark new violence in an effort by Damascus or its allies to divert attention -- or to try to prove the need for Syrian troops. Syria first deployed forces there in 1976 in an unsuccessful bid to end Lebanon's civil war. It has refused to pull out despite a 1990 peace pact that included a call for Syria to leave.

A senior State Department official said the Syrian leader is again only toying with the international community. "Our experience with Assad is that he does the minimum, and this time he seems to be trying to get away with the minimum," he said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of ongoing diplomacy.

Assad's pledge to coordinate with the government in Beirut has no credibility because Syria "appointed or manipulated into power" Lebanon's government, he added. "That doesn't build confidence."

Lien vers le commentaire
PS: deux catégories d'être humains, et deux catégpories seulement sont appelées par leur prénom: les clochards et les dirigeants d'Etat arabes.  (regardez donc le prochain journal télévisé qui parlera de clochards)

3 catégories!!! Les journalistes pris en otages également…

Lien vers le commentaire
J'ai aussi toujours été frappé par l'emploi du prénom pour désigner SH. Pourquoi cet usage ?

Pour les Américains, c'est une vieille habitude (Ronald, Donald et Saddam avaient des relations très suivies dès 1983). C'etait un moyen de ne pas le confondre avec le roi Hussein, qui traînait souvent par là aussi.

Il y a une troisième catégorie de personnes que l'on appelle uniquement par leur prénom: les participants aux émissions de télé-réalité. A ce sujet, Jenifer fait une grande carrière, mais Nolwenn et Elodie se sont plantées dès qu'elles se sont mises à utiliser leurs patronymes.

De là à penser que les dirigeants arabes sont des vedettes de télé-réalité pour certains et des parias pour les autres, il n'y a qu'un pas.

Lien vers le commentaire

http://www.csce.gov/press_csce.cfm?press_id=405

Il s'agit d'une audition par des représentants et des sénateurs américains de plusieurs personnes, au sujet du problème suivant.

Russian and Syrian Threats to Middle East

Democracy Focus of Helsinki Commission Briefing

(Washington) - The United States Helsinki Commission will hold a hearing on the Russian-Syrian connection and threats to democracy in the Middle East and the greater OSCE Region.  Helsinki Commission Chairman Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) will preside over the hearing.

Voici la liste de ceux qui seront reçus pour traiter cette question.

Dr. Walid Phares, Professor, Florida Atlantic University and senior fellow, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

Farid N. Ghadry, President, Reform Party of Syria

Entifadh K. Qanbar, Special Envoy and Spokesperson, United Iraqi Alliance

Ilan Berman, American Foreign Policy Council, Vice President for Policy

Steven Emerson, Executive Director, The Investigative Project

Vu la liste des types, je doute qu'ils trouvent autre chose que des preuves flagrantes comme quoi le régime Syrien soutient le terrorisme, etc… (ce qui est par ailleurs vrai)

Lien vers le commentaire
Iran pulls Syria's strings over Lebanon

By Safa Haeri

PARIS - One day after the assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri in Beirut on February 16, Syrian Prime Minister Naji al-Otari flew to Tehran and proposed the formation of an alliance between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Arab Republic of Syria, aimed at thwarting threats from the United States against the two states.

"We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats," Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref told his Syrian guest. "Our Syrian brothers are facing specific threats and we hope they can benefit from our experience. We are ready to give them any help necessary," Aref said. He stopped short of specifying what kind of assistance Tehran could bring Syria as the two countries are badly isolated in the international scene, are extremely unpopular at home and have weak armies, equipped with aging weapons.

Most Iranian and Arab analysts have described the proposal as "a hoax", comparing it to a blind person offering his services to another blind person, as there was nothing Iran could do for Syria and vice versa as the proposed alliance is in total contradiction with the sentiments of the majority of the Lebanese people, who are calling for the withdrawal of Syrian forces from their country, and there are no common interests between Tehran and Damascus, contrary to what the officials of the two countries pretend.

Qasem Sho'leh Sa'di, a lawyer, university professor and outspoken Iranian political dissident, commented, "The Arab-Israeli conflict has nothing to do with our interests. The day Israel gets out of the Golan Heights, Syria would immediately recognize the Jewish state. As for the Palestinians, they are already talking to the Israelis, not speaking of the Jordanians and the Egyptians, who have already established formal diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv. The question is, why should Iran take the side of the terrorists? Why should Iran deny the existence of Israel? Why should Iran continue hostilities with the United States and sacrifice our own interests?"

But as the assassination of Hariri unexpectedly united most of Lebanon's antagonist factions, mostly the Christians, Sunnis, Druze and Shi'ites, in an anti-Syrian national uprising, and international pressures increased, spearhead by Washington and Paris, urging President Bashar al-Assad to take out his 14,000-15,000 soldiers from the neighboring nation, Iran rushed to help Syria by activating the Lebanese Hezbollah, or the Party of God.

The Shi'ite-based organization was created by the Islamic Republic in 1982, in essence to fight anti-Iranian operations mounted by Iraq in the region, but also as a tool responding to one of the principles of the Islamic Republic: the annihilation of the Jewish state and ending the presence in the region of its Western supporters, mainly the US - objectives that also responded to Syrian goals.

Armed, financed and trained by both Iran and Syria, the Hezbollah enjoys enviable popularity both in Lebanon and throughout the Arab world because of its unabated fight against the Israelis, to the point that it is credited as the "single Arab movement that forced the mighty Tsahal [israeli army] to withdraw in June 2000 from the areas it had occupied in parts of southern Lebanon since 1982".

It was also Hezbollah that put an end to the presence of US Marine Corps and French forces in the country by killing more than 240 Americans in their barracks in Beirut in 1983 and 120 French soldiers in deadly suicidal attacks against their garrison.

The movement also adopted the tactic of taking Western hostages, through a number of freelance hostage-taking cells, such as the Revolutionary Justice Organization and the Organization of the Oppressed Earth, which seized US church envoy Terry Waite in 1987 and held him for 1,760 days.

Earlier, Iran had a contingent of some 2,000 Revolutionary Guards, based in the Bekaa Valley, which had been sent to Lebanon in 1982 to aid the resistance against Israel.

Hezbollah's popularity with the poor Lebanese Shi'ite community, which makes up almost 40% of Lebanon's 3 million people, but also other communities, was confirmed in the 1992 parliamentary elections when Hezbollah won eight seats in parliament, and where it now has 12 seats.

Another factor adding to the prestige of Hezbollah is that it has never fought other Lebanese forces, concentrating its military activities against the Jewish state, hence its popularity with radical Palestinian and other Arab movements.

Iran and Syria established a "strategic alliance" in 1980 after Damascus, alone among all other Arab countries, took the side of non-Arab Tehran when it was attacked by the now-toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, then Syria's staunchest enemy, due primarily to the bitter hostility between the two opposing factions of the Ba'ath Party in power in Damascus and Baghdad.

Against this "solidarity", Syria received hefty financial, material, political and moral support from the ruling Iranian ayatollahs, including millions of dollars in discounted oil and aid. But the Syrians never "returned the gift", as Damascus sided with the Arabs every time Tehran was at loggerheads with an Arab state, as seen in the dispute opposing Iran rather than the United Arab Emirates over the three Iranian islands of Abou Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs, situated strategically at the entrance of the Persian Gulf.

As a first step in the latest crisis in Lebanon, Iran launched a regionwide campaign in support of Syria, using its state-controlled public media, including the 24-hour Arabic service al-Alam (The World) run by Iranian Radio and Television that enjoys a large audience in the Arab world, by pretending that the anti-Syrian demonstrations were a joint plot hatched by the Americans and the Zionists.

But as the momentum against the Syrian occupation gathered speed, bringing down the government of pro-Syrian premier Omar Karameh and destabilizing Emile Lahoud, the Christian president appointed by Damascus, while other nations including Russia, Germany, Egypt and, more significant, Saudi Arabia also joined the international pressure on Damascus, Assad, in an unprecedented move, addressed the Syrian parliament and announced his decision "gradually" to withdraw his forces from Lebanon by concentrating them in the Bekaa Valley on the Lebanese-Syria border, "according to the Taif Accord of 1989".

Signed by 62 lawmakers, half of them Christians and the other Muslim, that US-Saudi agreement - in which the slain Hariri played an important role - ended 15 years of fratricide and devastating civil war in Lebanon, calling for the formation of a government of national unity and disarming all the warring factions except Hezbollah.

The accord also invited Syria to send in some token forces for a period of two years to help Lebanon reconstruct its national army and police, re-establish the rule of law and form a viable state apparatus.

Fifteen years later, Syria, profiting from an international consensus, had turned Lebanon into a vassal state, naming all key officials, including the presidents and prime ministers, and running the army and the security services, much like some of the former Soviet Union's so-called "independent" nations that, though they were integral parts of the Soviet empire, enjoyed a presence at the United Nations.

Assad's promise, aimed at satisfying Washington, Paris and Riyadh, also contained threats, assuring that the withdrawal did not mean Syria would be absent from Lebanon, analysts have pointed out. In his address, he said the protesters in Beirut did not represent Lebanon, and tried to stain them with links to Israel.

At a press conference on Sunday, Hasan Nasrullah, the Iranian-backed general secretary of Hezbollah, warmly thanked Syria for its "generous and courageous" assistance to Lebanon and the Lebanese people, saying the Lebanese "must not forget the valuable sacrifices Syria provided Lebanon".

He condemned "all attempts at humiliating and belittling" Syria, a country that ended the civil war, "brought back stability and helped restoration of the state machinery, great achievements and sacrifices that it should be thanked for". He also called for massive rallies in Beirut to show loyalty to Damascus.

However, he described Assad's decision to withdraw Syrian forces as "responding to the interests" of both countries, adding that he would reject the US-French-sponsored United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 urging Syria to take out all its forces from Lebanon, saying that the resolution was "an inadmissible interference in Lebanon's internal affairs".

"We shall not forget that the goal of the United States and Israel is creating chaos in Lebanon," he said, and vowed that regardless of international pressures, Hezbollah would not lay down its weapons. "The resistance will not give up its arms, because Lebanon needs the Hezbollah as a tool for its defense against Israel," Nasrullah said.

Hasan Hashemian, an Iranian journalist and university professor specializing in Arab affairs, commented, "Assad's declaration has broken the so-far-united front of the Lebanese opposition to the Syrian presence in the country, with, on the one hand, those who insist on the total withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, and on the other, those who understand the present conditions and are ready for gradual cooperation with Damascus.

"On the front of the Arab world, the statement was welcomed by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the country where Hariri made most of his fortune and had a close relationship with the Saudi ruling family, which had bestowed Saudi nationality on the assassinated prime minister. As from now, Cairo and Riyadh will try to help Assad by softening the effects of the 1559 resolution," he said.

"Finally," Hashemian added, "it is possible that Paris, Berlin and Moscow will give Assad the benefit of the doubt, refusing politely to go along with Washington in insisting on Syria's immediate and total withdrawal from all Lebanese territory."

By helping to defuse the situation in Lebanon without appearing on the scene, thanks to the role, weight and popularity of its Hezbollah protege on the one hand, and by helping its Syrian ally to come out of the Lebanese quagmire more or less unharmed on the other, Iran has scored a great diplomatic victory.

Not only has Iran displayed the scope of its political resources in the region, it has also proved that it holds most of the regional strings and that all roads lead to Tehran.

Strategists in the United States and Israel in charge of the "Iranian problem" should review carefully the events of the past three weeks. This would help them greatly in their appreciation and calculus concerning ongoing issues with Tehran, and above all Iran's controversial nuclear activities.

Safa Haeri is a Paris-based Iranian journalist covering the Middle East and Central Asia.

Lien vers le commentaire

Merci à Taisei Yokusankai pour cet article très pertinent.

Effectivement, l'annonce du retrait militaire syrien est une concession (dilatoire?) mais elle ne résout pas le problème de fond: le pillage de l'économie libanaise et la mise sous tutelle de sa vie politique.

Ceux qui ont crié victoire ne se rendent pas bien compte à qui ils ont affaire. Le régime Syrien est très affaibli mais il est sur place et il a encore les moyens de ses ambitions, lui. L'occupation syrienne est soutenue par le Hezbollah (très populaire) et déjà certains opposants ont commencé à en rabattre. Même unis, tous les opposants à l'occupation syrienne, même si les Americains bombardent la Syrie (ce qui serait une erreur encore plus grave que renverser le régime en envahissant Damas) ne pourront pas mettre un terme à cette occupation.

http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk…2256FBE004A4605

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/03…yria/index.html

On parle de dizaines, voire de centaines pour Naharnet, de milliers de manifestants pro-Syriens. Peut-être moins canons que les mignonettes libanaises mais avec plus de répondant en termes d'armes à feu.

Lien vers le commentaire

Un point historique: n'est-ce pas Kissinger qui a donné un blanc-seing aux Syriens à la fin des années 70 pour envahir le Liban, menacé à l'époque (dixit les américains) par le mouvement palestinien de Yasser Arafat, notamment?

En fait, c'était pour éviter la prise de contrôle du Liban par l'OLP?

Je vais chercher à nouveau, mes souvenirs sont flous sur ce point précis.

Lien vers le commentaire
Un point historique: n'est-ce pas Kissinger qui a donné un blanc-seing aux Syriens à la fin des années 70 pour envahir le Liban, menacé à l'époque (dixit les américains) par le mouvement palestinien de Yasser Arafat, notamment?

En fait, c'était pour éviter la prise de contrôle du Liban par l'OLP?

Je vais chercher à nouveau, mes souvenirs sont flous sur ce point précis.

Ce fut une histoire compliquée, avec de nombreux rebondissements et changements d'alliance. Il est fort possible que les Syriens aient soutenu puis combattu (à moins que ça ne soit l'inverse) les Palestiniens qui eux même furent plus ou moins proches des Egyptiens et des Saoudiens. La guerre "civile" commença lorsque les Maronites et certains Chiites en eurent marre d'être dominés par les Palestiniens (qui sont tout de même 500 000, pour une population totale de trois millions). Il parait même que des Chiites acclamèrent les Israéliens lorsque ceux-ci tentèrent de régler son compte à Arafat, en 1982.

D'ailleurs, certains Libanais n'aiment pas que l'on parle de guerre civile. Pour eux, ce sont des envahisseurs (Palestiniens, Israéliens, Syriens) qui sont venus se battre sur leur territoire et non pas une guerre entre factions libanaises. Et je suis plutôt d'accord. Le Liban me fait un peu penser à la Belgique à l'époque napoléonienne ou pendant la seconde guerre mondiale.

Lien vers le commentaire

En effet, on ne peut dire HUSSEIN car cela désigne deux personnes.

Tandis que Saddam désigne clairement Saddam Hussein.

Il n'a jamais été question d'envahir l'Iran façon Iraq, mais simplement, le cas échéant, de renverser le régime, avec quelques frappes, opérations commandos, soutien à l'opposition.

Sans occupation massive du pays.

Pour Kissinger, il appartient à l'école réaliste.

Il n'y a pas d'Ennemi avec un grand E, définitif.

Il y a des objectifs du moment (comme contenir l'URSS), et des moyens du moment, ceux qu'on trouve (comme les Talibans en Afghanistan).

L'école réaliste est mouvante, s'adapte, donc les renversements d'alliance sont possibles à tout moment, il n'y a rien de choquant.

C'est différent d'un néo-con qui a une vue plus idéaliste/fondamentaliste des choses, visant le long terme, et avec des ennemis "définitifs".

A noter que Condie a cette particularité d'être un pont entre les deux écoles.

Proche des néo-cons, et formée à l'école réaliste de Kissinger.

Lien vers le commentaire
[…]On parle de dizaines, voire de centaines pour Naharnet, de milliers de manifestants pro-Syriens. Peut-être moins canons que les mignonettes libanaises mais avec plus de répondant en termes d'armes à feu.

C'est rigolo, Naharnet parle maintenant de "dizaines de milliers" de manifestants pro-Syrie. Soit j'ai mal lu (abus de Côtes-du-Rhône à midi), soit ils ont changé leur article. Et comme je tiens plutôt bien le Côtes-du-Rhône…

Lien vers le commentaire
Il n'a jamais été question d'envahir l'Iran façon Iraq, mais simplement, le cas échéant, de renverser le régime, avec quelques frappes, opérations commandos, soutien à l'opposition.

Sans occupation massive du pays.

On oublie aussi la part importante du vaudou dans la politique extérieure américaine. Je tiens de source sûre que Wolfowitz a fait envoûter une poupée représentant Kim Il Jong. Ca a d'ailleurs été toute une histoire pour se procurer une mèche de cheveux du dictateur coréen !

Lien vers le commentaire
Iraq peut être utilisé. Un dictionnaire de langue française comme le Larousse accepte les deux.

La Commission européenne aussi http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/fr/oj/dat…5fr00060014.pdf  :icon_up:

Et il y a ce lien aussi: http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/dglf/re…ys/FRANCAIS.HTM

Si il y a ambiguité c parce qu'il y a deux "k" en arabe, dont un quasiment imprononcable par un européen

et c'est ce "k" là qui est pour le mot "irak", comme dans Al Qods, le vrai nom de Jerusalem :doigt:

That's the reason.

Lien vers le commentaire

Créer un compte ou se connecter pour commenter

Vous devez être membre afin de pouvoir déposer un commentaire

Créer un compte

Créez un compte sur notre communauté. C’est facile !

Créer un nouveau compte

Se connecter

Vous avez déjà un compte ? Connectez-vous ici.

Connectez-vous maintenant
×
×
  • Créer...