Les États-Unis ne laisseront pas l’Iran avoir la bombe atomique

Posté le mai 09, 2006, 12:00
36 mins

L’Iran accélère ses opérations pour détenir, dans les meilleurs délais, la quantité d’uranium enrichi qu’il lui faut pour fabriquer sa première bombe atomique. Il refuse tout contrôle international de ses installations. C’est pour donner le change, et ainsi gagner du temps, que le Président Ahmadinejad vient d’écrire au Président Bush, le grand Satan, une lettre fleuve de 17 feuillets (cf plus bas), ne comportant aucune concession.

Toutes les déclarations du Président iranien, comme celles de son tuteur, l’Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, vont dans le même sens : l’Iran veut avoir la bombe atomique, pour la raison que beaucoup d’autres pays l’ont déjà (comme le Pakistan…), et qu’il en a les moyens ; non seulement, l’Iran ne reconnaît pas l’existence de l’État d’Israël, mais encore, promet à celui-ci une prochaine destruction.

Pour les Etats-Unis, qui sont liés avec Israël par un Traité de défense mutuelle – lequel a été rappelé publiquement par George Bush – la question n’est pas de savoir si l’accession de l’Iran au statut de puissance nucléaire est tolérable ou non, car la réponse est évidemment « non ». La question est plutôt de savoir à quel moment il faudra d’intervenir pour détruire les installations concernées.

Bien sûr, il faut avoir épuisé les recours diplomatiques. Sans illusion sur la mauvaise foi qui crève les yeux des Chinois et même des Russes. Mais le temps presse. Car chaque jour, les centrifugeuses iraniennes produisent leur funeste carburant. Et on peut se douter que les autorités de Téhéran ne ménagent pas leurs efforts pour disséminer et enterrer les installations concernées. Ils auraient à leur disposition de la main-d’œuvre nord-coréenne…

De nombreux indices confirment que les forces américaines sont prêtes à effectuer les frappes nécessaires. L’armée de l’air israélienne également, dont une escadrille d’avions F-15 s’entraîne pour cette mission depuis plusieurs semaines. La date de cette opération, évidemment secrète, pourrait être fixée plutôt avant qu’après les élections générales dites de « mi-mandat » de novembre prochain.

Évidemment, les conséquences d’une telle action seront immédiatement considérables. Les rares économistes sérieux qui se sont exprimés à ce jour sur cette question parlent d’un nouveau choc pétrolier, d’une remise en cause de la croissance mondiale… Mais peut-on plus longtemps faire comme si la guerre entre l’islamisme et l’Occident n’avait pas été déclarée un certain 11 septembre 2001.


Lettre du président Iranien au président Américain

(Source http://www.lemonde.fr)

Mr George Bush, President of the United States of America
For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions that exist in the international arena — which are being constantly debated, specially in political forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might bring about an opportunity to redress them.

Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God,
Feel obliged to respect human rights, Present liberalism as a civilization model, Announce one’s opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs, Make War and Terror his slogan, And finally, Work towards the establishment of a unified international community – a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, But at the same time, Have countries attacked; The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the … of a … criminals in a village city, or convoy for example the entire village, city or convey set ablaze. Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women – as occupation troops – put in harms way, taken away from family and love ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide ant those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of aliments; while some are killed and their bodies handed of their families.

On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to begin with.

Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was toppled along the way towards another goal, nevertheless the people of the region are happy about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the … war on Iran Saddam was supported by the West.

Mr President,
You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can theses actions be reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness.

There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals.

European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e. the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values.

Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.
Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.

Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did no exist. The show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families.

Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?
Mr President,
I am sure you know how – and at what cost – Israel was established : Many thousands were killed in the process.

Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.

Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.
This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for sixty years now.

A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique – or at the very least extremely rare – in recent memory.

Another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported? Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH) or liberal values? Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands – inside and outside Palestine – whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why is there so much opposition to a referendum?
The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observes have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognise the Israeli regime, abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.
If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also saying why are all UNSC resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?
Mr President,
As you are well aware, I live amongst the people and am in constant contact with them –many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They dot not have faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly angry with such policies.
It is not my intention to pose to many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well.

Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of nations.

You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilised for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed.

Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.

Mr President,
Don’t Latin Americans have the right to ask, why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear?
The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don’t they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth – including minerals – is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?
Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?
The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including : the coup d’etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting, the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborates this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-à-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and collaborating their country’s progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.

Mr President,
September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.

All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems – and even hunts its opponents abroad. September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?
All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For some years now, the people of your country and neighbours of world trouble spots do not have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the survivors and the American people – who had been immensely traumatised by the attacks – some Western media only intensified the climates of fear and insecurity – some constantly talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?
American citizen lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?
Some believe that the hype paved the way – and was the justification – for an attack on Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media. In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs. This was repeated incessantly – for the public to, finally, believe – and the ground set for an attack on Iraq.
Will the truth not be lost in a contrive and deceptive climate? Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned values? Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?
Mr President,
In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their governments in turn are able to serve them.
The question here is what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?
As your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty. Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these problems exist – to a larger or lesser extent – in other countries as well. With these conditions in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign – paid from the public treasury – be explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles?
What has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region and in your country. But my main contention – which I am hoping you will agree to some of it – is : Those in power have specific time in office, and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures.
The people will scrutinize our presidencies.

Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and unemployment? Did we intend to establish justice, or just supported especial interest groups, and by forcing many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and powerful – thus trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs’? Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them? Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them? Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats? Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted version of it? Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors? Did our administration set out to promote rational behaviour, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity or the force of guns. Intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of other nations, and trample on people’s rights? And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office – to serve the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets – or not?
Mr President,
How much longer can the world tolerate this situation? Where will this trend lead the world to? How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers? How much longer will the specter of insecurity – raised from the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction – hunt the people of the world? How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the streets, and people’s houses destroyed over their heads? Are you pleased with the current condition of the world? Do you think present policies can continue?
If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production, development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between disputing states and distinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts were would the world be today? Would not your government, and people be justifiably proud? Would not your administration’s political and economic standing have been stronger? And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the American governments?
Mr President, it is not my intention to distress anyone.
If prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us today, how would they have judged such behaviour? Will we be given a role to play in the promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (PBUH) will be present? Will they even accept us?
My basic question is this : Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Moslems and millions of people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH). All divine religions share and respect on word and that is monotheism or belief in a single God and no other in the world.

The holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on an followers of divine religions and says : [3.64] Say : O followers of the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught. With Him and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah, but if they turn back, then say : Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran).

Mr President,
According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the teachings of divine prophets. To worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases. The Lord which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes on in the Hearts of His servants and records their deeds. The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is His court planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of mercy and forgiveness of sins . He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of oppressors . He is the Compassionate, the Merciful . He is the recourse of the faithful and guides them towards the light from darkness . He is witness to the actions of His servants , He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of righteousness and remain steadfast . Calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a witness to their deeds. A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this world and disobey Him and oppress His servants . And A good and eternal paradise belong to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves.
We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvations. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH), and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth.
We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted in Koran as well; [19,36] And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serves Him; this is the right path, Marium.

Service to and obedience of the Almighty is the credo of all divine messengers.

The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific and the rest of the world is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all His servants. He has given greatness to Humans.
We again read in the Holy Book : The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purity them from sins and pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people display justice and avoid the rebellious.
All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well.

Divine prophets have promised : The day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty, so that their deeds are examined. The good will be directed towards Haven and evildoers will meet divine retribution. I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nations and all others whose lives have been directly or indirectly effected by our actions.
All prophets, speak of peace and tranquillity for man – based on monotheism, justice and respect for human dignity.

Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we can overcome the present problems of the world – that are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the teachings of prophets – and improve our performance?
Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and justice?
Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally respected?
Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?
Mr President, History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God has entrusted The fate of man to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own devices. Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him.

Can one deny the signs of change in the world today? Is this situation of the world today comparable to that of ten years ago? Changes happen fast and come at a furious pace.
The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the wolrd feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept dubious policies.
The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich and poor countries.

The people are disgusted with increasing corruption.
The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion. The people of the world have no faith in international organisations, because their rights are not advocated by these organisations.
Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.
We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point – that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is : Do you not want to join them?
Mr President,
Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.

Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda
Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad President of the Islamic Republic of Iran

10 réponses à l'article : Les États-Unis ne laisseront pas l’Iran avoir la bombe atomique

  1. Jacques


    J’entends bien que les manoeuvres d’Amahdinjad et des Mollahs derriere ,ne seraient d’aprés presque tous les analystes ,que des rodomontades de faible un peu débile -la lettre à GWB-pour sauver 1 régime en difficultés interieures et se consolider dans la région.Que leur dévelopement enrichissement nucléaire serait archaique et d’1 dangerosité limitée .Pour ma part je ne suis pas aussi optimiste et j’aurais tendance à prendre les choses bcp + au sérieux.La determination anti-Occidentale ,obscurantiste,bien basée sur une Religion quasi-préhistorique au niveau du texte trés prégnante quand on est pris dans son étau et ce dès l’enfance, est terrible et meurtriere .Ils sont surement aidés dans leur programme nucléaire par les Benladéniens méme si sunnites ,des ingénieurs atomistes formés en Occident et peut-étre des mercenaires Russes ou autres .Historiquement la 1° bombe atomique était en gros un fut contenant un bloc d’uranium enrichi atteignant la masse critique entouré d’explosif classique.Des gens qui voient tjrs comme 1 grand succès de leur « culture  » l’effondrement des 2 Tours ,continuent d’étre préts à tout et de maniere méme « archaique ».Les vecteurs ont été vendus recemment par la Chine portée 1500kms .Les « ingredients  » sont là .Ses menaces de destruction contre Israel ne sont donc p-é pas des menaces en l’air.En tout cas à ne pas prendre du tout à la lègère.Souvenez vous comme l’attentat des 2 tours en 2001 était innatendu et incroyable sur le coup.

  2. gad


    Moi ce qui m’agace dans cette lettre, c’est qu’un président d’un Etat totalitire ose nous donner ds leçons de droits de l’homme quant on sait ce qui est fait aux opposants, aux infidèles et et aux femmes sans son pays. Et ce qui me frappe, c’est à quel point, sa vision de l’histoire et sa bien-pensance peuvent être proches de certains discours européens, d’extrême gauche, mais pas seulement. Après tout, pour Emmanuel Todd, dans Après l’Empire, le danger islamiste est quasiment une construction américaine pour partir à la conquête du monde et conserver sa puissance. A lire sur http://lumieresdumonde.over-blog.com !

  3. R. Ed.


    Les « Européens » ne sont pas lâches et pusillanimes, mais leur représentants élus, le sont eux. Ne pas confondre Chirac et un quidam quelquonque. D’un côté on a un président guimauve et de l’autre, c’est peut-être un homme remarquable. Ce que ne sera jamais le premier.

  4. Helios


    À R.Ed. Vous avez raison, le « petit instituteur » n’est qu’un porte-voix dans les mains des mullahs, en temps opportun ils le mettront OFF pour négocier à voix basse avec les américains. En attendant il les sert bien en criant et gesticulant, et sa lettre à G.W. Bush n’est qu’un article de plus pour consommation islamique et pacifiste. À Luc Sembourg Vous avez produit une analyse magistrale du texte du « petit instituteur ». Ce texte est une anthologie ou un résumé des élucubrations mentales (pris très au sérieux par ceux qui les profèrent) dans les domaines historique et religieux, servant en apparence de base à la « définition des politiques » et dont le but principal est d’exacerber le sentiment de culpabilité de l’occident tout en permettant aux extrémistes de tous les horizons, islam politique compris, de se disculper à bon compte. Nos chers gauchistes restent pudiquement silencieux. Ahmadinedjad cependant reprend certaines de leurs incantations anti-américaines et tiers-mondistes, ils devraient l’applaudir chaleureusement! Cette lettre ne change rien sur le problème de fond, celui de la nucléarisation de l’Iran. De plus elle ne peut que confirmer la résolution des américains à y faire échec, puisqu’il s’agit de la seule mesure susceptible de sauver à long terme le régime des ayatollahs. En effet la République Islamique d’Iran a de sérieux problèmes intérieurs, malgré la richesse pétrolière la situation économique et sociale se dégrade continuellement, seule une répression constante permet au régime de se maintenir. La nucléarisation constitue une sorte de fuite en avant, un coup de poker dont le but est de soumettre la région du golfe persique riche en pétrole au chantage nucléaire iranien et faire en sorte qu’elle s’aligne politiquement et économiquement sur l’Iran. L’objectif, faire d’une pierre plusieurs coups: assurer l’hégémonie de l’Iran sur la région, parasiter économiquement les monarchies pétrolières, placer l’Irak dans l’orbite iranienne, étouffer l’opposition politique intérieure. Les mollahs misent sur l’impopularité de Bush, ils croient ainsi lui assener un coup supplémentaire et déclencher une vague pacifiste aux États Unis qui, espèrent-ils, paralysera l’administration au moment opportun. À cette tactique Le président américain oppose la diplomatie et continue à jouer à fond la carte onusienne, son objectif: accumuler les résolutions à l’encontre de l’Iran et amener graduellement la Chine et la Russie à une position de neutralité ou d’abstention quand le moment viendra pour brandir la menace. C’est une histoire à suivre Helios

  5. Luc Sembour


    Nulle part dans la presse je n’ai vu d’analyse de la lettre personnelle, non-ouverte, à Georges W. Bush par Ahmadi Najad. Cette lettre unique, de 18 pages en version originale, est un document précieux pour nous, à plus d’un titre. D’abord parce qu’elle a rapidement, après réflexion, été rendue publique par G.W.B., ce qui n’était pas acquis, et démontre l’aptitude décisionnelle de l’équipe de la Maison Blanche à faire ce qu’il faut. Ensuite parce qu’elle révèle l’abîme culturel qui sépare Ahmadi de la pensée occidentale, alors-même qu’il prétend mettre G.W.B. au pied de contradictions qu’il estime flagrantes, et pense démontrer les erreurs logiques graves de la politique américaine. Enfin parce qu’elle est probablement une fenêtre sur la pensée intime et le niveau intellectuel réel du professeur Ahmadi et sur la qualité de l’enseignement qu’il prodiguait à ses chers étudiants d’université. Mauvais anglais, fautes d’orthographe, répétitions, incohérences de style, lourdeurs, confusions de notions capitales, erreurs logiques, longueurs, ignorance, indécence, bassesse, insolence et mensonge (dans la pure tradition de la célèbre taqiyyah chiite), se disputent ce morceau d’anthologie diplomatique. Peu d’exemples comparables existent ailleurs, alors que ce serait la seule missive officielle envoyée d’Iran aux USA en 27 ans. Disons-le tout net: que les savants iraniens aient en physique nucléaire un niveau équivalent au niveau philosophique de leur président, et nous douterons ferme de leur capacité à faire fonctionner des bombes atomiques. Ahmadi mise avec impudence et imprudence sur la méconnaissance du Coran à l’Ouest pour affirmer les plus énormes contre-sens possibles. De façon très remarquée pour quiconque connaît le Moyen-Orient, il NE cite JAMAIS UNE SEULE FOIS le prophète Muhammad mais cite ONZE FOIS Jésus Christ avec une déférence obséquieuse qui masque mal un mépris profond. En effet PBUH (Peace Be Upon Him-Que la Paix Soit sur Lui ) est une expression depuis toujours strictement réservée à Muhammad. Elle est même obligatoire après chaque citation de son nom par un musulman. Le simple fait de l’attribuer subitement à Jésus-Christ avec une insistance qui frise l’insolence, pour qui connaît les usages musulmans, en dit long sur le ton véritable de la lettre. Cela rappelle les copieux et emphatiques « Monseigneur-s» prodigués par le plus hardi des quatre garçons-tailleurs pour flatter Monsieur Jourdain dans le Bourgeois Gentilhomme de Molière. Et aux dépens de qui vivent les flatteurs? Dans le Coran, si le Christ est effectivement cité comme un prophète notable, il est très loin d’y jouir du prestige et du niveau de Muhammad et de plus, bien sûr, n’y a aucun statut divin, bien au contraire. L’incantation PBUH, ne peut s’appliquer qu’à un homme qui est mort (et est toujours mort), comme Muhammad justement. Dieu n’aurait rien à faire d’un PBUH (souhait poli qu’il connaisse la paix), puisque après-tout, Dieu EST la paix (entre autres choses). Le PBUH est donc en réalité une façon insolente de nier formellement le statut divin du Christ, et de nier sa résurrection, fondements théologiques centraux et intangibles du christianisme tout entier, Catholiques, Protestants et Orthodoxes réunis. En bon musulman, le professeur Ahmadi nous explique doctement les enseignements du Christ !!!, et prétend y trouver des contradictions avec les actes du « bon chrétien » Georges Bush. Il faut savoir que pour les musulmans la seule Bible judéo-chrétienne qui fasse foi est celle qui est incluse au sein du Coran (comme minuscule sous-ensemble, perdue en versets épars, décousus et très déformés). Pour information, la vraie Bible compte environ cinq fois plus de mots que le Coran, lequel n’est pas un gros livre. Il est donc amusant que les musulmans la disent incluse comme sous-ensemble des mots, eux-mêmes très précisément comptés, du Coran Le Coran, incréé avant l’origine de l’Univers, EST la parole d’Allah et les Bibles chrétiennes, non incréées, n’ont strictement aucune valeur en théologie islamique, sunnite comme chiite. Il est même interdit aux musulmans de les lire (afin de ne pas se brouiller l’esprit, et surtout afin de ne pas être tentés de comparer les qualités respectives des textes sacrés). Ahmadi n’a de façon certaine (croyez-le bien), JAMAIS lu dans sa vie ne serait-ce qu’une page de Bible chrétienne. Il n’a du Christ qu’une connaissance CORANIQUE, c’est-à-dire sans aucun rapport essentiel avec le personnage central du christianisme. Il y aurait aussi beaucoup à dire sur Allah qu’il confond allègrement avec le Dieu judéo-chrétien sans autre forme de procès. Enfin il feint d’ignorer que les Droits de l’Homme dont il rappelle constamment l’existence, n’ont justement aucun sens en islam, qui est SA RELIGION déclarée : il ne s’y agit pas du tout du même ensemble de Droits de l’Homme, l’islam étant un corpus juridique par lui-même, qui définit un droit particulier, la Charia, incompatible avec tout autre. Enfin, l’invitation à la conversion à l’islam de G.W.B est une faute de logique, puisqu’un individu présumé aussi mauvais que ce président des USA, ne se comportant pas du tout selon les préceptes chrétiens, ne peut précisément pas enfin devenir bon chrétien en se faisant…musulman. Ou bien serait-ce donc que G.W.B., en raison-même de son infâmie, aurait démontré sa capacité à être une précieuse recrue pour l’islam? Ces galipettes syllogistiques sont typiques de la mentalité d’islam, où aucune absurdité, aucun comportement immoral, aucun meurtre et aucun mensonge ne subsistent à partir du moment où son auteur est devenu musulman et les commet au nom de l’islam. Monsieur Ahmadi, vous n’êtes probablement pas très brillant et n’avez pas honte de le faire croire, ou pas conscience de le montrer Vous surestimez la naïveté d’autrui. C’est très bien ainsi. Vous aurez à réviser vos notions un jour. Les Européens sont lâches et pusillanimes mais d’autres, en la publiant, ont très bien su vous dire quoi faire de votre lettre, en utilisant la main gauche. [email protected]

  6. barney


    A la fin de la lettre du fou Iranien celui-ci propose meme a Bush de se convertir a l Islam!!! Mais quelle arrogance! Dans quelques mois j espere que ce probleme n existera plus.

  7. R. Ed.


    Moi pas comprendre !!! Je crois que ce sontt les ayatolahs et les mollahs qui dirigent la Perse, par l’intermédiaire de leurs chichi boys. Cet espèce de taré qui aboie en public en est sûrement un, le chef sans doute mais il est sans conteste à la botte des curés d’Allah. Pour votre gouverne, soit dit en passant, le régime iranien a rétabli le mariage des « femmes » à partir de 9 ans, y compris les mariages de complaisance, d’une heure à quelque jours, pour permettre à de vieux cochons vicieux de bander encore une fois, à grand renfort de viagra, de cantharidine et de corne de rhinocéros de déberlinger un gosse de 9 ans.(ce que cet « immonde » Shah d’Iran avait « osé » abolir, où va-t-on, hein, quand-même) Les Iraniens sont en train de jouer au chat et à la souris, mais le chat n’est pas si con qu’ils le pensent. A mon avis, les Iraniens vont sentir passer leur douleur Saddam l’a senti, lui.

  8. Luc Sembour


    Il semble que l’on s’achemine bel et bien sans bruit vers un traumatisme colossal. Le gouvernement américain peut très bien avoir d’ores et déjà pris le pari de faire une croix sur le pétrole du Moyen-Orient de la façon suivante: une frappe de l’Iran peut envoyer le baril très au delà de 100 USD. Les réseaux mondiaux des « Majors » tels que EXXON n’en rapporteront que plus de profits exceptionnels. Une riposte importante et durable de l’Iran peut embraser le Moyen-Orient et au pire finir au bout de quelques batailles, et épisodes, par effectivement atomiser pour plus de 1000 ans une partie des principales réserves pétrolières de la planète. Ceci EST POSSIBLE dès 2006-2007. Nous sommes donc peut-être à quelques mois de l’ère nouvelle et forcée de l’après-pétrole, avancée artificiellement de 50 ans . Ceux qui souffriront le plus seront les pays du Moyen-Orient, puis dans l’ordre, l’Europe, La Chine, l’Inde et le Japon. Les USA s’en sortiront relativement bien, grâce à leurs énormes ressources charbonnières (ils sont l’Arabie Saoudite du charbon), grâce au pétrole d’Alaska, du Mexique, du Vénézuela, des schistes Canadiens enfin devenus compétitifs, etc, et aussi grâce à leur formidable vitalité économique et leur capacité industrielle pour lancer un programme nucléaire civil très performant couvrant tous leurs besoins énergétiques restants, en quelques années. Les verts américains seront enfin neutralisés d’un seul coup pour raison d’Etat. Accessoirement, les gants et la patience tomberont envers l’islam qui y perdra à terme sa protection constitutionnelle présente (aus USA) en tant que « religion » (fausse), cachant une étonnante idéologie complète (vraie) de guerre. Mais rien n’est perdu pour la France, car nous aurons toujours plusieurs centaines de kg de pièces jaunes, recueillies à grands frais, selon le plan génial de Bernadette Chirac, dans de gros bas de laine, à l’Elysée. [email protected]

  9. gpa


    NEVER AGAIN ? « Iran continued its preparations to create a nuclear device and pledged to help spread that technology to others; the Russian government, which has fostered and encouraged the Iranian nuclear program, refused to consider sanctions against the Iranian government; Chinese President Hu Jintao visited Saudi Arabia and signed a « security cooperation agreement, » while pledging to step into the Arab/Israeli conflict; Osama bin Laden released another audio tape, renewing his call for jihad against Israel and the United States NEVER AGAIN? Unfortunately, the prospect of a second HOLOCAUST, this time targeting Jews and Christians on a massive scale, is all too possible. While millions remember the victims of Hitler’s evil, millions more around the world blind themselves to today’s evils, conveniently forgetting that even a leader the magnitude of a Hitler could not and did not act alone. Hitler’s destruction required allies and partners, spoken or silent — and it required the passivity of the West. Russia, then as now, played both sides of the table. In 1939, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, pledging nonaggression between the Soviets and Nazis, brokered a secret alliance regarding the invasion of Poland and much of Central and Eastern Europe. The Soviets were quite willing to give Hitler a free hand against France and Britain, and were quite willing to revel in the spoils they would surely gain from Nazi conquest. « Fascism is a matter of taste, » Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov remarked after signing the pact. The Russians still believe that fascism is a matter of taste. They are perfectly willing to exacerbate the Iranian nuclear problem, just as they did the dictatorial Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq (they inked a multimillion-dollar trade deal with Hussein just months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq) and the North Korean nuclear problem (Russia has provided long-range ballistic missile technology to the North Koreans). Meanwhile, Russia continues to provide aid for Hamas, even as bin Laden demands that the West continue filling Hamas’ coffers. Russia could quite accurately be described as a state sponsor of state sponsors of terrorism. President Bush said in 2001 that he looked into Russian President Vladimir Putin’s eyes and saw straightforwardness and trustworthiness. Perhaps he should have said dollar signs. The Muslim world, then as now, largely sided with the forces of evil. Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini was a staunch Hitler ally; he suggested that Hitler’s « final solution » to the European « Jewish problem » be extended to include all Jews in Arab countries, as well as Palestine. He spent most of the war as a guest in Berlin and encouraged Muslim cooperation with the Nazis in their extermination plan via radio in the Middle East. According to the testimony of Nazi war criminal Dieter Wisliceny, al-Husseini even visited the Auschwitz death camp incognito. Al-Husseini resided in Egypt after the war, where he was treated as a celebrity. His nephew, Yasser Arafat, would seek the destruction of the Jews with the same virulence his uncle had. In 2002, Arafat called al-Husseini « our hero. » And the Western world, then as now, is firmly on the side of waiting rather than acting. Aside from George W. Bush, Tony Blair and a handful of other courageous leaders who recognize that inaction in the face of evil aids and abets evil, much of the West prefers to remain on the sidelines. Bush and Blair have fallen under such heavy fire for their strategy of pre-emption that they have had to virtually abandon the strategy — Westerners are treating Bush and Blair midwar like they treated Churchill postwar. The grandchildren of those who stated in 1933 that Hitler would be moderated by power now encourage us to wait and watch with Iran’s Ahmadinejad, Hamas, the Saudis and the Syrians, and to turn a blind eye to Russia and China. It is still unclear who the new Hitler will be. But in an age of weapons of mass destruction, Hitler is unnecessary. All it takes is an evil individual, bolstered by dreams of glory, cash from the Saudis, training from Hamas and technology from the Iranians, North Koreans, Russians or Chinese to achieve in one day the devastation achieved by Hitler over a decade. If we refuse to act in the face of such a threat, we may bear responsibility for tens of millions ». GBA

  10. Josh


    Merci a Jean Rouxel pour la lettre de Ahmadi-Najad… interessant de voir son point de vue sur les grandes questions que se pose le monde aujourd’hui. Le style du president iranien est simple… presque enfantin. Ahmadi-Najad doute du genocide juif et pour lui, meme si c’etait vrai, cela ne justifie pas la creation de l’etat d’Israel il y a 60 ans. J’aimerais lui demander : la destruction de l’etat d’Israel est-elle justifiable du seul fait de sa non reconnaissance ? On peut ne pas reconnaitre un enfant sans forcement l’eliminer. D’ailleurs cela est fondamentalement contre toute religion, y compris la sienne.


Laisser un commentaire

  • (ne sera pas visible)