Andrei Horaţiu Ionescu

 

 

 

          Stramtoarea Hormuz asigura trecerea din Golf in Oceanul Indian,  masurand, in cel mai larg punct peste 55 Km. , iar in cel mai ingust  punct are circa 26 Km. latime. In acest din urma punct navele care il parcurg au a trece printr-un senal navigabil de doar 6,4 Km. Este unul dintre cele mai importante puncte strategice de pe glob, circa 20 la suta din productia mondiala de petrol strabatand aceasta stramtoare in fiecare an. Petrolul  si gazele naturale  care sunt transportate prin Hormuz  catre consumatorii nesatiosi din lumea intreaga, mai ales din Asia de SE,dar si in SUA, provin din statele care bordureaza Golful (Arabia Saudita, Irak, Oman, EAU, Kuweit, Bahrain, Iran). In planificarea strategilor din lumea intreaga , Hormuz este unul dintre punctele de importanta extrema de pe axa strategica principala de infruntare de putere  a secolului XXI - amintitoare ca insemnatate de linia de containment a Razboiului Rece - numita “Marele Ocean Indian”. Din Golful Aden pana la Shanghai pe coasta chineza a Pacificului, aceasta axa isi datoreaza exceptionala insemnatate faptului ca este ruta de transport a petrolului din zona Orientului Mijlociu catre consumatorii uriasi, India, Japonia, China, puncte obligate de trecere/navigatie la aceste destinatii  fiind stramtorile Hormuz si  Malacca. De –a lungul acestei axe marii jucatori sistemici, puteri cu PIB de trilioane de dolari- SUA, UE, China, Japonia, India- se pozitioneaza militar pentru a fi pregatite desfasurarii “marelui joc “ al acestui secol, au deja baze maritime sau intemeiaza altele.

           Saptamana aceasta se consuma , desigur nu cea dintai , dar una dintre  infruntarile acerbe  intre mari jucatori pe aceasta axa strategica.

          Intr-un interval de 24 de ore, responsabili  politici si militari iranieni au amenintat ca vor intrerupe traficul prin stramtoare daca se vor adopta sanctiuni internationale impotriva Iranului. Miercuri, 27 decembrie 2011, mai intai amiralul Habibollah Sayyari, comandantul flotei iraniene , a declarat ca “Iran has total control over the strategic waterway,” si ca  “Closing the Strait of Hormuz is very easy for Iranian naval forces,” , in timp ce nave ale flotei sale desfasoara un amplu exercitiu naval  in apele invecinate stramtorii. Putin timp inainte, vicepresedintele Iranian, Mohamed Reza Rahimi, la 26 decembrie, facuse aluzie intr-o declaratie asupra posibilitatii de a inchide stramtoarea Hormuz daca Occidentul va adopta noi sanctiuni impotriva iranului vizand exporturile de petrol. Rahimi a declarat ca "If they /the West/ impose sanctions on Iran's oil exports, then even one drop of oil cannot flow from the Strait of Hormuz,"

           Replica Occidentului a venit imediat si a ridicat neindoielnic “temperatura” in Hormuz. Purtatoarea de cuvant a Flotei a V-a a SUA , care este bazata in Bahrain, a declarat tot miercuri 28 decembrie, raspunzand amiralului Sayyari, ca “The free flow of goods and services through the Strait of Hormuz is vital to regional and global prosperity,”  si ca “Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations; any disruption will not be tolerated.”  Clara sugestie ca orice incercare a Iranului de a opri traficul prin stramtoare va intalni opozitia flotei americane din acest areal. Pentru a fi si mai limpede acest lucru, purtatoarea de cuvant a adaugat ca “The U.S. Navy is a flexible, multi-capable force committed to regional security and stability, always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation.”. De asemenea , secretarul de presa al Pentagonului  a lansat aproape concomitent un avertisment similar, subliniind totodata ca nu are cunostinta  “ of any aggressive or hostile action directed against U.S. ships” .

          SUA nu au fost singurele care au reactionat imediat la amenintarile iraniene. Franta, de asemenea, a chemat Teheranul la respectarea legislatiei internationale privind circulatia maritima. Un purtator de cuvant al Ministerului de Externe al Frantei a  declarat miercuri ca  “The Strait of Hormuz is an international strait. As a result, all ships regardless of their nationality benefit from the right of transit in line with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and international maritime customs.”

          Desigur, acest episod de infruntare inca in curs are radacinile sale mai vechi, de circa 15 ani - care tin de opozitia comunitatii internationale fata de programul militar de inarmare nucleara al Iranului-, dar si foarte recente. Acestea din urma au dobandit un curs accelerat de cand agentia specilaizata a ONU insarcinata cu monitorizarea incalcarilor tratatului international de neproliferare a publicat luna trecuta un raport specificand actiunile ilegale ale Iranului. Raportul a venit ca o veritabila surpriza aratand ca Iranul este foarte aproape de a produce arma nucleara. De atunci, asistam la o veritabila incalzire accelerata a situatiei internationale in Orientul Mijlociu, fiind tot ,masi mult ridicata problema unei actiuni militare asupra instalatiilor nucleare ale Teheranului. Cu deosebire, asemenea discutii au loc intre administratiile de la Ierusalim si Washington, in ultima luna inregistrandu-se evolutii surprinzatoare. Ziarul israeleina ‘Haaretz’ face chiar o lista a acestor evolutii:

“• December 16: President Obama, in a speech before the Union of Reform Judaism, goes from the passive ‘a nuclear Iran is unacceptable’ to the assertive ‘We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.’

• December 19: Secretary of Defense Panetta, hitherto the main articulator of the pitfalls of an attack on Iran, suddenly ups the ante by declaring that Iran might be only a year away from acquiring a nuclear bomb, that this the ‘red line’ as far as the U.S. is concerned, and that Washington ‘will take whatever steps necessary to deal with it.’

• December 20: General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tells CNN that ‘the options we are developing are evolving to a point that they would be executable, if necessary’, adding: 'My biggest worry is that they (Iranians) will miscalculate our resolve'.

• December 21: Dennis Ross tells Israel’s Channel 10 television that President Obama would be prepared to ‘take a certain step’ if that is what is required and ‘this means that when all options are on the table and if you’ve exhausted all other means, you do what is necessary’.

• December 22: Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, commenting on the above statements, says that they ‘make clear a fact that was already known to us from closed-door (discussions). It makes clear to Iran that it faces a real dilemma.’

• December 23: Matthew Kroenig, former Special Adviser on Iran at the Pentagon, publishes an article in the prestigious Foreign Affairs, entitled ‘Time to Attack Iran’, in which he lays out the case for an American offensive against Iran – sooner rather than later.” (http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/will-a-u-s-attack-on-iran-become-obama-s-october-surprise-1.403898 )

          Nu este deloc inutil sa mentionam ca pozitia unor analisti americani fata de teza lui Matthew Kroenig este extrem de critica, pe considerentul ca este ilogic construita. Astfel , Stephen Walt gazduieste  pe blogul sau o critica nimicitoare a tezei lui Kroenig scriind ” If you'd like to read a textbook example of war-mongering disguised as ‘analysis,; I recommend Matthew Kroenig's forthcoming article in Foreign Affairs, titled ‘Time to Attack Iran: Why a Strike Is the Least Bad Option.’ It is a remarkably poor piece of advocacy, all the more surprising because Kroenig is a smart scholar who has done some good work in the past. It makes one wonder if there's something peculiar in the D.C. water supply. “  Cum se poate observa, criticul adopta un ton ironic si evalueaza pozitia preopinentului sau- pentru ca s-a incins practic o ampla dezbatere on blogosfera asupra acestui articol- ca una provocatoare a unui razboi inutil  impotriva Iranului. (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/12/21/the_worst_case_for_war_with_iran). In cursul dezbaterii, Walt merge atat de departe incat sa scrie ca: “Even more importantly, Kroenig seems to have forgotten that the United States already has a significant military presence in the Gulf region, and additional forces allocated to intervening there when necessary.  These forces, and the security ties that they support, long predate Iran's nuclear program, and given Iran's modest conventional capabilities, they provide the necessary ingredients for a successful containment regime for the foreseeable future. I might add that Kroenig never identifies the exorbitant additional measures that he believes would be necessary if we fail to strike soon. In short, even if Iran does get nuclear weapons someday, there is little need to augment our existing force structure or alter our alliance relationships in any meaningful way.  And by the way: the fact that a few unnamed Washington think tanks are in favor of ‘massive increases in our commitments to the region’  doesn't mean that this is a sound idea, because think tanks inside the Beltway often propose dubious ideas, as we learned in the run-up to the Iraq war.  Kroenig actually goes so far as to make the foolish argument that ‘opponents of a bombing campaign are not proponents of peace, but rather by default they are advocates of a multibillion dollar, decades-long U.S. commitment to the security of the Middle East.’  (Readers with good memories will recall that this same argument was used to explain why we could not contain Saddam Hussein in perpetuity, but had to overthrow him instead).  But this charge makes sense only if you believe that attacking Iran would lead us to end our ‘decades-long U.S. commitment to the security of the Middle East.’  Does Kroenig think whacking Iran would enable the United States to withdraw completely from the region, terminate our security partnerships with Israel, Jordan, and assorted Persian Gulf states, and disband the Rapid Deployment Force?  I doubt it.  Moreover, if we do attack Iran, we could easily find ourselves in a protracted conflict that would make the Middle East a more dangerous and unstable region.  This would neither be good for the United States nor enable us to reduce our security commitments there.”  (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/12/27/why_attacking_iran_is_still_a_bad_idea)

De altfel, urmarirea acestei dezbateri si deopotriva a reactiilor numeroase ale cititorilor ei ar fi instructiva pentru cei preocupati de geneza unei decizii de razboi in conditiile sistemului democratic, asadar ale infruntarii punctelor de vedere opuse.

          Este greu de spus daca va avea loc un atac israelian ori israelo-american asupra instalatiilor nucleare iraniene.  Deaj stiri de ultima ora mentioneaza ca nave americane au strabatut joi, 29 decembrie, stramtoarea fara sa intampine vreo rezistenta /opunere din parte navelor iraniene. Media internationala subliniaza in acelasi timp ca Iranul nu are capabilitatile necesare pentru a putea interzice traficul prin Hormuz in conditiile unei protectii navale americane. Ceea ce este evident in acest moment este ca Iranul , calcand obligatiile asumate prin tratatul international privind neproliferarea armelor de nimicire in masa ,dezvolta clandestin un program militar nuclear deja evidentiat de agentia specializata a ONU. In acelasi timp, in fata hotararii comunitatii internationale de a proceda la sanctiuni privind exportul de petrol iranian (Congresul american a luat hotararea  de a boicota firmele care  intretin legaturi cu Banca Centrala Iraniana, prin care statele care importa petrol desfasoara toate operatiile  de plata; UE ar putea sa adopte curand masuri similare) Teheranul a procedat la amenintari nepermise . Anume sa interzica prin forta navigatia pe o cale maritima internationala, act  de razboi la adresa comunitatii internationale.

Reactia internationala de aparare in fata actelor contrare dreptului international asumate  in stramtoarea Hormuz de catre conducerea de la Teheran este evident justificata. Oare a ales conducerea iraniana calea confruntarii militare ?