del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Depuis deux décennies, les États-Unis mènent des guerres pour Israël au Moyen-Orient. Ce fait prouve le pouvoir et l’influence des déments néoconservateurs. Il ne fait aucun doute que des gens aussi fous que les néoconservateurs lanceraient une attaque nucléaire contre la Russie et la Chine. Les gouvernements russe et chinois semblent ignorer totalement la menace que les néoconservateurs font peser sur eux. Je n’ai jamais connu, dans mes entretiens avec les Russes et les Chinois, la moindre conscience de l’idéologie néoconservatrice. Cela leur parait peut-être trop insensé pour le comprendre.
“Iran’s Nuclear Triumph” roared the headline of the Wall Street Journal editorial. William Kristol is again quoting Churchill on Munich.
Since the news broke Saturday night that Iran had agreed to a six-month freeze on its nuclear program, we are back in the Sudetenland again.
Why? For not only was this modest deal agreed to by the United States, but also by our NATO allies Germany, Britain and France.
Russia and China are fine with it.
Iran’s rivals, Turkey and Egypt, are calling it a good deal. Saudi Arabia says it “could be a first step toward a comprehensive solution for Iran’s nuclear program.”
Qatar calls it “an important step toward safeguarding peace and stability in the region.” Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have issued similar statements.
Israeli President Shimon Peres calls the deal satisfactory. Former Military Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin has remarked of the hysteria in some Israeli circles, “From the reactions this morning, I might have thought Iran had gotten permission to build a bomb.”
Predictably, “Bibi” Netanyahu is leading the stampede:
“Today the world has become a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world.”
But this is not transparent nonsense?
In return for a modest lifting of sanctions, Tehran has agreed to halt work on the heavy water reactor it is building at Arak, to halt production of 20-percent uranium, to dilute half of its existing stockpile, and to allow more inspections.
Does this really make the world “a much more dangerous place”?
Consider the worst-case scenario we hear from our politicians and pundits — that Iran is cleverly scheming to get the U.S. and U.N. sanctions lifted, and, then, she will make a “mad dash” for the bomb.
But how exactly would Tehran go about this?
If Iran suddenly moved all its low-enriched uranium, to be further enriched in a crash effort to 90 percent, i.e., bomb grade, this would take months to accomplish.
Yet, we would be altered within hours that the uranium was being moved.
Any such Iranian action would expose Barack Obama and John Kerry as dupes. They would be discredited and the howls from Tel Aviv and Capitol Hill for air and missile strikes on Natanz, Fordo and Arak would become irresistible.
Obama and Kerry would be forced to act.
War with Iran, which would mean a shattered Iran, would be a real possibility. At the least, Iran, like North Korea, would be sanctioned anew, isolated and made a pariah state.
Should Iran test a nuclear device, Saudi Arabia would acquire bombs from Pakistan. Turkey and Egypt might start their own nuclear weapons programs. Israel would put its nuclear arsenal or high alert.
If, after a year or two building a bomb, in an act of insanity, Iran found a way to deliver it to Israel or a U.S. facility in the Middle East, Iran would be inviting the fate of Imperial Japan in 1945.
So, let us assume another scenario, that the Iranians are not crazed fanatics but rational actors looking out for what is best for their country.
If Iran has no atom bomb program, as the Ayatollah attests, President Hassan Rouhani says he is willing to demonstrate, and 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded six years ago and again two years ago, consider the future that might open to Iran — if the Iranians are simply willing and able to prove this to the world’s satisfaction.
First, a steady lifting of sanctions. Second, an end to Iran’s isolation and a return to the global economy. Third, a wave of Western investment for Iran’s oil and gas industry, producing prosperity and easing political pressure on the regime.
Fourth, eventual emergence of Iran, the most populous nation in the Gulf with 85 million citizens, as the dominant power in the Gulf, just as China, after dispensing with the world Communist revolution, became dominant in Asia
Why would an Iran, with this prospect before it, risk the wrath of the world and a war with the United States to acquire a bomb whose use would assure the country’s annihilation?
America’s goals: We do not want a nuclear Iran, and we do not want war with Iran. And Iran’s actions seem to indicate that building an atom bomb is not the animating goal of the Ayatollah, as some Americans insist.
Though she has the ability to build a bomb, Iran has neither conducted a nuclear test, nor produced bomb-grade uranium. She has kept her supply of 20-percent uranium below what is needed to be further enriched for even a single bomb test. Now, she has agreed to dilute half of that and produce no more.
If Iran were hell-bent on a bomb, why has she not produced a bomb?
Just possibly, because Iran doesn’t want the bomb. And if that is so, why not a deal to end these decades of sterile hostility?
Né en 1946 à Rotterdam, Martin van Creveld est un historien attaché à l’Université Hébraïque de Jérusalem. Cet expert israélien est considéré comme l’un des théoriciens les plus réputés au monde en histoire militaire. Il étonne ses lecteurs en énonçant des thèses non conventionnelles, notamment quand il écrivait récemment dans les colonnes de l’ « International Herald Tribune » : « Si les Iraniens ne tentaient pas de se doter d’armes nucléaires, c’est alors seulement qu’il faudrait les considérer comme fous ! ». Ses ouvrages principaux sont « The Transformation of War » (1991), où il avait prévu les formes de guerre nées après les événements du 11 septembre 2001. En 2009, il a publié en allemand « Gesichter des Krieges » (= « Visages de la guerre ») où il décrit les conflits armés de 1900 à aujourd’hui et émet des prospectives sur le 21 siècle. 
MvC : Je laisse votre imagination répondre à cette question.
August 6 and August 9 2009 marked the 64th anniversaries of the US atomic-bomb attacks on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Hiroshima, an estimated 80,000 people were killed in a split second. Some 13 square kilometres of the city were obliterated. By December, at least another 70,000 people had died from radiation and injuries.
El 6 de agosto de 1945 Estados Unidos asesino a mas de 200.000 civiles en la ciudad de Hiroshima, lanzando contra ella la primera bomba nuclear utilizada como arma de guerra en la historia de la humanidad, y tres dias despues sucedio lo mismo en Nagasaki. Se estima que hacia finales de 1945, las bombas habían matado a 140.000 personas en Hiroshima y 80.000 en Nagasaki, aunque solo la mitad había fallecido los días de los bombardeos y el resto por heridas incurables o enfermedades atribuidas al envenenamiento por radiación.
Pakistán puede perder el control de su arma nuclear. El movimiento Talibán que antes operaba en el vecino Afganistán toma bajo su control cada vez más comarcas del país, monta allí tribunales de shariat e ignora a los funcionarios del Gobierno central. Pero lo fundamental consiste en que sus “militantes” se encuentran a 60 km de Islamabad. Y su toma es cuestión de tiempo, de continuar la situación de hoy.