[*] "Le prix élevé de la menace d’Israël contre l’Iran". 
 

L’intention sous-jacente à l'article de l'agence de presse officielle iranienne FARS, est d’ancrer dans l’esprit des consommateurs occidentaux l’idée d'un seuil. Ce seuil correspond à l’inélasticité de la demande par rapport au prix. Jusqu’à ce que les consommateurs occidentaux s’asphyxient financièrement eux-mêmes, leur demande de pétrole serait inélastique au prix du pétrole. Ainsi, si Israël ou les Etats-Unis attaquaient, les consommateurs occidentaux ayant tous en tête les conséquences sur le prix du pétrole, c'est-à-dire les 300 dollars annoncés par des "analystes", se précipiteraient pour acheter du carburant et le stocker quel qu’en soit le prix. Ce qui, effectivement, ferait grimper le prix du pétrole bien plus haut que 300 dollars. Il n’existe aucune équation mathématique permettant de modéliser l’impact d’un événement géopolitique sur les cours d’une matière première : ce chiffre est donc une simple supposition.

Ce chiffre est jeté en pâture aux lecteurs sans évocation de sources ; seule référence : « la plupart des analystes ». Aujourd’hui, selon « la plupart des analystes occidentaux » - dont certains font partie de mes relations -, le prix du pétrole ne devrait pas excéder 80 dollars. Les phénomènes abscons qui entourent son prix actuel de près de 140 dollars s’expliquent par une intense activité spéculative. Nous sommes entrés, depuis décembre 2007, dans une période d’inadéquation durable entre l’offre et la demande de pétrole, en raison de la crise des crédits à risques, ou « subprimes ». Les stocks sont le troisième élément qui contribue à la fixation du prix d’une matière première, et l’on sait ce que la cartellisation par l’OPEP a généré comme épiphénomènes sur le niveau courant des stocks et donc sur les cours du pétrole. Autrement dit, quand l’OPEP tousse, les marchés attrapent plus ou moins une pneumonie. Aujourd’hui, les marchés financiers ne fonctionnent plus sur les critères usuels de rencontre entre l’offre, la demande et les stocks.

L’Iran par le truchement de ses organes de presse et de ses « analystes » cherche depuis longtemps à perturber les marchés financiers, en donnant des informations fantaisistes (la plus remarquable a concerné la création d’un marché à terme du pétrole en euros à Téhéran, en 2005), mais aujourd’hui, avec ces chiffres, elle s’attaque à l’esprit et au moral des consommateurs et non plus à l’efficience des marchés financiers. Ces informations ne sont pas sérieuses et relèvent d’une propagande habile très dangereuse. Quant aux autres informations sur les disfonctionnements au sein de l’Armée américaine, elles sont toutes à vérifier.

Il faut garder en tête le diktat de la géopolitique sur la finance, c’est d’abord sur les marchés financiers que se joue cette guerre. Ces informations font glisser le conflit en dehors des marchés à terme de matières premières d’une part, et sous-entendent qu’Israël et les Etats-Unis seraient responsables d’un énorme choc pétrolier, conséquence de leur intervention en Iran, qui mettrait à genoux les économies occidentales d’autre part. De quoi diaboliser Israël et les USA un peu plus.

Il serait bon que vous signaliez à vos internaute qui maîtrisent l’anglais le site du Jane’s Information Group. Certains de ses articles évoquent le conflit opposant Israël aux nations arabes et aux groupes terroristes arabes. C’est un des nombreux sites que je consulte quotidiennement depuis longtemps. Il arrive que sa Rédaction donne la parole à des officiels israéliens. Je ne m’engagerai pas quant à son objectivité, car il s’agit d’une information destinée aux professionnels et nécessaire à l’efficience des marchés financiers ; de ce fait, elle est, de facto, moins polluée par certaines idées nauséabondes.

S. S-J.

June 05, 2008
The Jerusalem Post
Saul Singer

Just as Iran's mullahs have been anxiously hoping, an air of fatalism has arisen around their quest for the Bomb. Amitai Etzioni reports that he recently heard a high-ranking adviser to a leading presidential candidate say in a closed forum: "We just have to get used to a nuclear Iran."

Part of this conventional wisdom is that neither sanctions nor perhaps even military action will be sufficient to stop Iran's nuke program.

This rather unthinking consensus is mistaken about the potential effectiveness of tough sanctions, not to mention a military strike on a few key Iranian nuclear facilities, regardless of how many dozens exist. Iran imports 40 percent of its refined oil and, as House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Howard Berman told AIPAC this week, more than half of Iran's trade is with Europe, Japan and Australia.

Iran is extremely vulnerable to economic sanctions imposed by democratic countries, even if China and Russia do not completely go along. But the greatest failure of imagination does not concern the sanctions that are most often discussed but the refusal to impose seemingly "soft" sanctions that are critical to breaking the spell of global fatalism.

This week President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, "You should know that the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime which has 60 years of plundering, aggression and crimes in its file has reached the end of its work and will soon disappear off the geographical scene."

A White House spokeswoman responded by saying that such rhetoric would "further isolate the Iranian people," but that "we'll let him go on and be bombastic if he wants and ignore him."

AHMADINEJAD may be a buffoon, but this does not detract one iota from the criminality of his actions. The Genocide Convention stipulates that incitement to genocide - which is what calls to wipe an entire country off the map are - is a "punishable crime." Countries like the US, Israel and Germany are signatories to the Genocide Convention. Why are these governments not seeking Ahmadinejad's indictment?

To some, throwing a piece of paper at a regime that is already shrugging off UN sanctions might seem ridiculous. What they don't realize is that the West possesses something that countries like China and Russia do not - the keys to international legitimacy.

For all its bluster against the West, the Iranian regime is more concerned about true international isolation than it is about economic sanctions or perhaps even military attack. Why, for example, is Ahmadinejad showing up at a meeting of the FAO in Italy? Because he wants to rub the West's nose in the fact that he is still not persona non grata despite his support for terrorism, genocidal incitement and defiance of the entire international community.

In 2000 the EU imposed sanctions, including a break in all diplomatic contacts, with Austria after the election of Joerg Haider. In 2002, 14 out of 15 EU nations imposed a travel ban on Belarus's President Alexander Lukashenko and seven of his ministers because of his country's poor human rights record. The EU currently has a travel ban against Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe, though it has a loophole that is allowing him to attend the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) conference in Rome. But Ahmadinejad is not even under such a leaky EU ban.

The White House and Europe are badly mistaken in their strategy of "ignoring" Ahmadinejad's taunts. Every time he threatens the US and Israel and gets away with it he is demonstrating his regime's strength and the West's weakness. That is exactly why he keeps repeating such seemingly reckless statements.

Less than 1% of Europe's trade is with Iran, while 40% of Iran's trade - including difficult-to-replace spare parts for sophisticated (much of it German) equipment - is with Europe. A total trade ban, therefore, would have negligible economic impact on Europe, while imposing a steep price on Iran.

But diplomatic sanctions cost even less - nothing. What is stopping Germany from breaking diplomatic relations with a country that openly denies the Holocaust and is openly calling and preparing for a new one? Australia has already called for prosecuting Iran's leader under the Genocide Convention. Why has Germany, along with all other democracies, not taken such a basic step?

THE JEWISH world and Israel are not helpless here. Two actions are urgent and beg to be taken:

(1) Israel should help organize a coalition of states seeking Ahmadinejad's indictment, breaking or downgrading of diplomatic relations and imposing a total travel ban against Iranian leaders; and

(2) NGOs should organize protests against Germany's Siemens Corporation, which refuses to take even the steps that the Deutschebank has taken to reduce its commerce with Iran.

We do not know what action will in the end be necessary to stop Iran, though there is still hope that it need not be military. What we do know is that the first step is to puncture the sense of inevitability that has surrounded Iran's nuclear program and replace it with the opposite sense that Iran ultimately will be stopped.

It is precisely such "soft" measures, aimed squarely at the regime's international legitimacy, that can demonstrate Western determination rather than resignation and paralysis.

President George W. Bush, given the coming US stint as president of the UN Security Council, is in a pivotal position to launch such measures, including not only enforcement of the Genocide Convention, but the launching of a UN investigation into Iranian support for terrorism and a public White House meeting with prominent Iranian dissidents.

So long as Iran's "bombast" is "ignored," the message sent is clear: The West has been intimidated into letting a two-bit power run roughshod over its most sacred values. The mullahs know that so long as such intimidation continues, they are safe. The significance of such "soft" measures is less in their physical impact than the signal that they send: We will not be intimidated, and we will win.

saul@jpost.com

link to original article

May 29, 2008
National Post
Joschka Fischer

A once latent rivalry between Iran and Israel is now an open struggle for dominance in the Middle East. The result is surprising, if not bizarre, alliances: Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and the American-backed, Shia-dominated Iraq are facing Israel, Saudi Arabia and most of the other Sunni Arab states, all of which feel existentially threatened by Iran's ascendance.

The danger of a major confrontation has been heightened further by high oil prices, which have created new financial and political opportunities for Iran; the defeat of the West and its regional allies in proxy wars in Gaza and Lebanon; and the United Nations Security Council's failure to induce Iran to accept even a temporary freeze of its nuclear program.

Iran's nuclear program is the decisive factor in this equation, for it irreversibly threatens the region's strategic balance. That Iran -- a country whose President never tires of calling for Israel's annihilation and that threatens Israel's northern and southern borders through its massive support of proxy wars waged by Hezbollah and Hamas -- might one day have missiles with nuclear warheads is Israel's worst security nightmare. Politics is not just about facts, but also about perceptions. Whether or not a perception is accurate is beside the point, because it nonetheless leads to decisions.

This applies in particular when the perception concerns what the parties consider to be threats to their very existence. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threats of annihilation are taken seriously in Israel because of the trauma of the Holocaust. And most Arab governments share the fear of a nuclear Iran. Earlier this month, Israel celebrated its 60th birthday, and U. S. President George W. Bush went to Jerusalem to play a leading part in the commemoration. But those who had expected that his visit would mainly be about the stalled negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians were bitterly disappointed. Bush's central topic, including during his speech to Israel's parliament, was Iran. Bush had promised to bring the Middle East conflict closer to a resolution before the end of his term this year. But his final visit to Israel seems to indicate that his objective is different: He seems to be planning, together with Israel, to end the Iranian nuclear program--and to do so by military, rather than diplomatic, means.

Anyone following the press in Israel during the anniversary celebrations and listening closely to what was said in Jerusalem did not have to be a prophet to understand that matters are coming to a head. Consider the following: - "Stop the appeasement" is a demand raised across the political spectrum in Israel -- and what is meant is the nuclear threat emanating from Iran. - While Israel celebrated, Defence Minister Ehud Barak was quoted as saying that a life-and-death military confrontation was a distinct possibility. - The outgoing commander of the Israeli air force declared that the air force was capable of any mission, no matter how difficult, to protect the country's security. The destruction of a Syrian nuclear facility last year, and the lack of any international reaction to it, are viewed as an example for the coming action against Iran. - The Israeli wish list for U. S. arms deliveries, discussed with the American President, focused mainly on the improvement of the attack capabilities and precision of the Israeli air force. - Diplomatic initiatives and UN sanctions are seen as hopelessly ineffective. - With the approaching end of the Bush presidency and uncertainty about his successor's policy, the window of opportunity for Israeli action is seen as potentially closing.

The last two factors carry special weight. While Israeli military intelligence is on record that Iran is expected to cross the red line on the path to nuclear power between 2010 and 2015 at the earliest, the feeling in Israel is that the political window of opportunity is now, during the last months of Bush's presidency.

Although it is acknowledged in Jerusalem that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would involve grave and hard-to-assess risks, the choice between acceptance of an Iranian bomb and an attempt at its military destruction, with all the attendant consequences, is clear. Israel won't stand by and wait for matters to take their course.

The Middle East is drifting toward a new great confrontation in 2008. Iran must understand that without a diplomatic solution in the coming months, a dangerous military conflict is very likely to erupt. It is high time for serious negotiations to begin.

The most recent offer by the six powers -- the UN Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany -- is on the table, and it goes very far to accommodate Iran's interests. The decisive question, however, will be whether it will be possible to freeze the Iranian nuclear program for the duration of the negotiations to avoid a military confrontation before they are completed. Should this newest attempt fail, things will soon get serious. Deadly serious.

Joschka Fischer, Germany's foreign minister and vice-chancellor from 1998 to 2005, led Germany's Green Party for nearly 20 years.

link to original article

mercredi 28 mai 2008 - 21h29, par Mediarabe.info

Les relations entre la Syrie et l’Iran, datant du début des années 1980 (guerre entre l’Iran et l’Irak), viennent de connaître de nouveaux horizons, avec la signature, ce 28 mai à Téhéran, d’un accord de coopération défensive, qui vient couronner l’alliance stratégique conclue depuis plusieurs années.