Moi non plus je ne tiens pas à monopoliser ce forum ! Mais je viens de tomber sur un lien intéressant ( donné également sur Agoravox)relatif à un article publié per Chris Cook.(ancien directeur de l’IPE)qui me semble fort intéressant et que je livre :

quote

One of the most interesting aspects of the process was that during our brief spell of contacts with decision-makers, some insight into current Iranian policy was possible - in particular, the nuclear question. In our conversations we were left in no doubt that it suits both the US and Iran for the issue to be seen to be that of the Iranian « threat » from nuclear weapons.

In fact the issue is a proxy for Iraq : try looking in the media prior to the events in Fallujah, Iraq, for anything more than desultory mention of this « issue ». But once factions in Iran funded Muqtada al-Sadr to the tune of $50 million and the US body count started to rise, then the issue began to attain its current level of importance.

Now that pro-Iranian Shi’ite elements are taking a primary role in the emerging government in Iraq, we see the nuclear temperature rising further.

The realpolitik is of course that those in power in the US and Iran have the reason they give - and the real reason - for what they do : and for the US, the real reason is and has been for many years energy security above any other consideration.

Chris Cook is a former director of the International Petroleum Exchange.

unquote

Ce point de vue semble confirmer la « piste Irakienne » en ce qui concerne le tohu bohu autour du nucléaire Iranien...