La fin du mandat de George W. Bush sera t-elle guerrière ? C'est
en tout cas ce que semblent suggérer deux des meilleurs observateurs et
analystes des milieux néo-conservateurs de Washington. Tous deux convergent à
noter la résurgence des faucons derrière la récente nomination du Général David
Petraeus à la tête du Centcom, en lieu et place de l'Amiral Fallon opposé à une
attaque contre l'Iran, et la multiplication récente des déclarations contre les
agissements de l'Iran et de la Syrie.
Notre propre analyse nous conduit toujours à écarter l'hypothèse
d'une attaque de l'Iran. Les Etats-Unis n'en ont plus les moyens et il
faudrait, notamment, beaucoup plus d'ordre, d'organisation, de coordination et
de détermination partagée sur la scène du théatre washingtonien (le Pentagone
et la hiérarchie militaire sont plutôt contre, tout comme le
Congrès).
Peut-on pour autant écarter l'impensable ? Il semble bien que
non car du désordre de l'Administration Bush finissante la pire des
folies peut encore émerger !
Hawks Resurgent?
Analysis by Jim Lobe, IPS Apr 25
"Are the latest accusations and tough language leveled against Iran, Syria,
and North Korea evidence of a resurgence by the remaining hawks in the
administration of President George W. Bush hoping for a final confrontation
against one or more members of the revised "axis of evil" before his term ends
next January?
That's the big question here this week, particularly following Thursday's
long-awaited intelligence briefings to Congress about alleged North Korean
involvement in the construction of a "covert nuclear reactor" in Syria that was
destroyed in a raid by Israeli warplanes in September last year.
According to some interpretations, the briefing's timing and content
appeared deliberately designed to raise tensions between Washington, on the one
hand, and Pyongyang and Damascus, on the other, potentially derailing ongoing
long-running negotiations between the State Department and North Korea and
Turkish-mediated peace feelers between Israel and Syria.
That Vice President Dick Cheney, whose opposition to engaging both North
Korea and Syria and support for "regime change" in both countries is both well
known and of long standing, had pushed hard for the briefing to take place has
added to speculation that a major power play by the hawks to reverse the
diplomacy that has dominated Bush's second term is underway.
Rumours that the State Department's point man on North Korea, Assistant
Secretary of State Christopher Hill -- whose latest accord with Pyongyang
negotiated in Singapore earlier this month has been the target of fierce
right-wing attacks led by Cheney chum, former U.N. Amb. John Bolton -- has told
associates that he will resign next month have added to concerns that the hawks
have regained the initiative, at least on that front.
Add the promotion of Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq who has
overseen the past year's "surge" of U.S. troops, to take over the U.S. Central
Command (Centcom) this summer, as well as the increasingly harsh charges
against Iran's alleged interference in Iraq that have been coming out of the
Pentagon in recent days.
All these developments are seen by some as an answer to the prayers of
neo-conservatives, in particular, who had largely given up hopes that Bush
could be persuaded to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving
office..."
Petraeus Promotion Frees Cheney to Threaten Iran
Analysis by Gareth Porter, IPS Apr 23
"The nomination of Gen. David Petraeus to be the new head of the Central
Command not only ensures that he will be available to defend the George W. Bush
administration's policies toward Iran and Iraq at least through the end of
Bush's term and possibly even beyond.
It also gives Vice President Dick Cheney greater freedom of action to
exploit the option of an air attack against Iran during the administration's
final months.
Petraeus will take up the CENTCOM post in late summer or early fall,
according to Defence Secretary Robert Gates.
The ability of the administration to threaten Iran with an attack both
publicly and behind the scenes had been dramatically reduced in 2007 by
opposition from the former CENTCOM commander, Adm. William Fallon, until he
stepped down from the post under pressure from Gates and the White House last
month.
Petraeus has proved himself willing to cooperate closely with the White
House policy lines on Iraq and Iran, arguing against any post-surge reduction
in troop strength policy and blaming Iran for challenges to the U.S. military
presence. Along with the deference to Petraeus in Congress and the media, his
pliability on those issues made him the obvious choice to replace Fallon.
But Petraeus had already effectively taken over many of the powers of the
CENTCOM commander last year.
As the top commander in Iraq, Petraeus was in theory beneath Fallon in the
chain of command. But in reality Petraeus ignored Fallon's views and took
orders directly from the White House. Petraeus was in effect playing the role
of CENTCOM commander in regard to the twin issues of Iraq and Iran.
Fallon clashed with Petraeus repeatedly from the beginning of his command
about the surge and U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Fallon opposed the surge and
believed the U.S. should begin the withdrawal of most of its troops from Iraq.
But he was effectively stymied by the close Petraeus-White House link from
being able to influence U.S. military policy in Iraq and the region as a
whole.
Fallon had also pushed very hard, according to a source familiar with his
thinking, for trying to negotiate an agreement with Iran over innocent passage
through the Strait of Hormuz in order to ease tensions caused by the
U.S.-Iranian differences over the obligations of navy vessels
transiting the Strait. But any such negotiations would have conflicted with
the administration's emphasis on confrontation with Iran, and they weren't
interested.
Petraeus revealed in his Congressional testimony Apr. 10 that he had already
assumed some of the functions normally carried out by the CENTCOM commander in
regard to relations with military leaders in the region. Petraeus said he had
"actually gone to a couple of neighbouring countries in an effort... to get at
the networks, the countries in which they operate, and the sources of some of
these foreign fighters."
In fact, the Associated Press reported, Petraeus had taken trips to five
different Middle Eastern countries -- Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Turkey and the
United Arab Emirates -- since September 2007. That should have been Fallon's
job, but the White House had apparently made it clear they wanted Petraeus --
not Fallon -- to undertake missions.
It had become increasingly evident to Fallon that he was not really running
things at CENTCOM, according to the source. Fallon's frustration about
Petraeus' de facto power over Middle East policy was the main reason he was
ready to step down.
But it was Fallon's refusal to accept the that the option of a military
strike against Iran was still effectively on the table that led to serious
tensions with the White House, as reported in Esquire magazine in early March.
Fallon had evidently angered Cheney by suggesting publicly on three occasions
between September and late November that a military strike against Iran had
been ruled out by Washington.
Fallon's resignation announcement on Mar. 11 was followed less than a week
later by a 10-day Cheney trip to the Middle East in which the vice president
talked explicitly about the military option against Iran during visits to
Turkey and Saudi Arabia. That suggested that Cheney felt freer to wield the
military threat to Iran with Fallon neutralised.
Cheney aggressively solicited political support from Turkish leaders for a
U.S. strike against Iranian nuclear facilities during his visit to Turkey last
month, according to a source familiar with Cheney's meeting in Ankara.
Cheney was "very aggressive" in asking Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul, as well as Turkey's chief of general staff
Gen. Yasar Bukyukanit to get "on board" with such an attack, according to the
source, who has access to reports from the Cheney visit.
Cheney indicated that Turkey had been added to the trip at the last minute,
suggesting that the decision to visit Ankara was linked to the Fallon
resignation.
After the meeting between Cheney and King Abdullah on the same trip, Saudi
sources let it be known to the media that Abdullah had told Cheney that his
government opposed any U.S. military strike against Iran. That suggested that
Cheney had brought up the military option in Ryadh as well.
One of Cheney's main objectives on the trip appears to have been to get the
message to Iran that the option of a strike against its nuclear facilities is
still very much alive.
In an interview with Cheney while he was in Ankara, ABC News reporter Martha
Raddatz commented, "[W]hen you come over here, people in the region start
thinking you're over here to plan some sort of military action."
Cheney strongly implied that it was indeed the major objective of his trip.
"Well, I think the important thing to keep in mind," he said, "is the objective
that we share with many of our friends in the region, and that is that a
nuclear-armed Iran would be very destabilising for the entire area."
Petraeus has become the primary administration spokesman for the argument
holding Iran primarily responsible for the Shiite military resistance
to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Petraeus and his staff developed the idea in
early 2007 that Iran was using so-called "special groups" of renegade Mahdi
Army fighters to wage a proxy war against U.S. forces.
In his testimony before Congressional committees earlier this month,
Petraeus declared that what he called the "special groups" allegedly organised
and manipulated by Iran "pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of
a democratic Iraq"."
Lire également :
U.S. Weighing Readiness for Military Action
Against Iran
Washington Post Saturday, April 26
"The nation's top military officer said yesterday that the Pentagon is
planning for "potential military courses of action" as one of several options
against Iran, criticizing what he called the Tehran government's "increasingly
lethal and malign influence" in Iraq.
Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a conflict
with Iran would be "extremely stressing" but not impossible for U.S. forces,
pointing to reserve capabilities in the Navy and Air Force..."
Clear Iranian role in Baghdad violence:
military
AFP Sun Apr 27
"BAGHDAD (AFP) - Iraqi and US military commanders on Sunday claimed a clear
Iranian role in violence engulfing Baghdad's Sadr City, where Shiite militiamen
have been battling security forces for the past month..."
