De mieux en mieux : une semaine après les événements de mai 2008, les séoudiens suggèrent aux Américains l’envoi d’une « force arabe » sous mandat des Nations unies et sous couverture navale et aérienne des États-Unis et de l’OTAN pour chasser le Hezbollah du Liban.
US embassy cables : Saudi prince urges need for ’security response’ to Hezbollah threat in Lebanon | guardian.co.uk
►http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/153797
Opening a discussion with S/I Satterfield focused largely on Iraq, Saud first turned to Lebanon and stated that the effort by “Hizballah and Iran” to take over Beirut was the first step in a process that would lead to the overthrow of the Siniora government and an “Iranian takeover of all Lebanon.” Such a victory, combined with Iranian actions in Iraq and on the Palestinian front, would be a disaster for the US and the entire region. Saud argued that the present situation in Beirut was “entirely military” and that the solution must be military as well. The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) were too fragile to bear more pressure; they needed urgent backing to secure Beirut from Hizballah’s assault. What was needed was an “Arab force” drawn from Arab “periphery” states to deploy to Beirut under the “cover of the UN” and with a significant presence drawn from UNIFIL in south Lebanon “which is sitting doing nothing.” The US and NATO would be asked to provide equipment for such a force as well as logistics, movement support, and “naval and air cover.”
3. (S) Satterfield asked what support this concept had from Siniora and from other Arab states. Saud responded that “Siniora strongly supports,” but that only Jordan and Egypt “as well as Arab League SYG Moussa” were aware of the proposal, lest premature surfacing result in its demise. No contacts had been made with Syria on any Beirut developments, Saud said, adding, “what would be the use?”
An “Easier Battle to Win”
–-
4. (S) Saud said that of all the regional fronts on which Iran was now advancing, the battle in Lebanon to secure peace would be an “easier battle to win” (than Iraq or on the Palestinian front). Satterfield said that the “political and military” feasibility of the undertaking Saud had outlined would appear very much open to question. In particular, attempting to establish a new mandate for UNIFIL would be very problematic. Satterfield said the US would carefully study any Arab decision on a way forward. Saud concluded by underscoring that a UN/Arab peace-keeping force coupled with US air and naval support would “keep out Hezbollah forever” in Lebanon.
Après le « coup du 5 mai » :
►http://seenthis.net/messages/6224
le soutien principal du 14 Mars se verrait bien en train d’envahir et bombarder le Liban. Charmant.
Saud prétend que ce « concept » est « fortement soutenu » par Sanioura. Ça ne prouve rien (ouï-dire), mais ça va encore tanguer pour les 14 Mars...
Saud, représentant d’un des principaux acteurs arabes de la région, utilise l’expression « easy to win » pour désigner, avec les américains :
– une guerre contre le Hezbollah (on s’en doutait),
– mais aussi l’Iraq et « le front palestinien » !
Ce passage est proprement scandaleux.