PierreLellouche / Pierre Lellouche is on Nostr

French expert in Geopolitics and Foreign policy, lawyer, essayist. Independent in-depth analysis of Global affairs, European security and France's place in a rapidly changing world order.

Last Notes

2026-05-19 13:23:55 UTC

NOUVEAU LIVRE / NEW BOOK
https://blossom.primal.net/e1586fb664f44781f4ce364dbb029d36cb5ee798caa94d71617fce2961e1762c.jpg
Date de parution : 20.05.2026
Nb. de pages : 144
EAN : 9782220099606
https://www.editionsddb.fr/product/133591/vivons-nous-le-retour-des-empires/

2026-05-19 12:36:16 UTC

https://dai.ly/xa9plzq

2026-05-19 12:21:28 UTC

https://blossom.primal.net/07d6fd8bb0c06d292614c78bf82b3f69d01cfa69abc00bc3112b0ec8dd2de342.png
Les Émirats : la « petite Sparte » du Golfe
Si la guerre d’Iran a impacté l’économie mondiale sur l’ensemble de la planète, elle a également provoqué l’implosion des alliances politico-militaires en Europe, comme au Moyen-Orient.
En Europe, chacun a finalement compris que les Américains sont sur le départ. Trump n’a pas apprécié d’être « lâché » par ses alliés, en oubliant qu’il ne les avait nullement consultés avant de déclencher le 28 février sa campagne de bombardements contre l’Iran. Après son désengagement de la guerre d’Ukraine, il entame à présent le retrait de ses GIs stationnés en Europe, renonce à déployer des missiles de croisière Tomahawk pourtant indispensables face à la Russie, et augmente ses droits de douane en dépit d’un accord (déjà léonin) conclu il y a moins d’un an, le tout sur fond d’échanges verbaux d’une rare virulence avec le Chancelier Mertz.
Dans le Golfe, la guerre a fait éclater l’alliance stratégique entre les deux principales monarchies pétrolières : les Émirats arabes unis (EAU) dirigés par Mohammed Ben Zayed (MBZ) et l’Arabie saoudite du jeune Prince héritier Mohammed Ben Salman(MBS). Une rupture aux conséquences majeures pour l’avenir de la région et le monde arabo-musulman dans son ensemble.
Longtemps, les deux Mohammed avaient livré bataille en commun, notamment contre la menace intérieure des islamistes lors des printemps arabes au début des années 2010. Ensemble, ils s’étaient mis sous la protection des États-Unis face à la menace de l’Iran. Mais peu à peu, des fissures sont apparues : en Libye, où les deux pétromonarchies soutiennent des camps opposés ; idem au Soudan où les Émirats (qui le nient) sont accusés de soutenir la sanguinaire Force de Réaction Rapide d’Hemmeti contre l’armée soudanaise d’Al Buran, que les Émirats jugent infiltrée par les islamistes ; même chose au Somaliland et bien sûr au Yémen, où, après avoir conduit en commun des bombardements aériens contre les Houthis soutenus par l’Iran, les Saoudiens sont allés jusqu’à bombarder des convois d’armes des Émirats au profit des séparatistes du Sud.
Mais c’est la guerre d’Iran qui a provoqué la rupture, faisant naître deux axes majeurs à l’intérieur du monde arabo-musulman. De longue date, MBZ, formé à Sandhurst et de loin le dirigeant le plus expérimenté et le plus réfléchi de la région sur les grandes questions de géopolitique, à la mesure du Singapourien Lee Kwan Yu, est obsédé par la menace iranienne. C’est lui qui demanda, par mon entremise, à Chirac (qui refusa), puis à Sarkozy (qui l’accepta), la construction d’une base navale française, doublée d’une présence aérienne et terrestre à Abu Dhabi. En guise de « trip wire », en cas d’attaque iranienne. Et cette attaque est venue, ciblant les EAU de 2800 missiles et drones, davantage même que les frappes contre Israël, ces frappes continuant même pendant le cessez-le-feu, contre les installations pétrolières de Fujayra, de l’autre côté du détroit. Et MBZ a pu mesurer la solitude stratégique de son pays… dont la défense antiaérienne est assurée par les technologies (y compris laser) d’Israël. Mais « nous avons la peau dure, et la chair amère », affirme l’émir à l’intention de l’Iran, tandis qu’il lance un fonds d’investissements dédié à l’industrie d’armements dans les EAU, et que la compagnie Emirates affiche des bénéfices insolents, malgré la guerre.
Pendant ce temps, l’Arabie se rapprochait du Pakistan (pour l’heure la seule puissance nucléaire du monde musulman), signant avec Islamabad un accord stratégique de défense mutuelle en septembre 2025. C’est le même Pakistan qui, s’imposant comme médiateur entre l’Iran et les États-Unis, demanda à Téhéran de ne pas frapper les installations saoudiennes. MBZ n’a pas apprécié. Le 28 avril, deux mois jour pour jour après le début du conflit, les EAU annoncèrent leur retrait de l’OPEP, une décision que le prince saoudien n’apprit que le lendemain, dans la presse… Dans la foulée, MBZ exigea du Pakistan le remboursement de 3,5 milliards de dollars déposés depuis 2018 auprès de la Banque centrale d’Islamabad, pour
garantir les facilités du FMI. Une décision suivie par d’autres annulations de projets (aéroports, télécoms). Immédiatement, l’Arabie vola au secours du Pakistan en lui apportant 8 milliards de dollars… Et les Émiriens de rappeler qu’ils emploient près de deux millions de Pakistanais chez eux, qui envoient au pays 9 milliards de dollars chaque année…
Deux camps sont désormais face à face : les Émirats, convaincus que la menace iranienne — nucléaire et sur Ormuz — est existentielle pour eux ; ils font désormais cause commune avec Israël et les États-Unis. L’Arabie, de l’autre côté, avec le Pakistan, L’Égypte et la Turquie, partisans d’une solution diplomatique, Riyad ayant même interdit l’utilisation de son territoire pour l’opération « Projet Liberté » de Trump, qui visait à envoyer l’US Navy accompagner les navires de commerce dans le détroit. Résultat : Trump fut contraint d’annuler son opération 48 h plus tard, ajoutant à la confusion… Une telle division renforce inévitablement le poids de l’Iran dans la région, et pèsera aussi sur les suites éventuelles des Accords d’Abraham, comme sur la suite des événements en Syrie, au Liban et à Gaza… Quant aux fournisseurs d’armes aux deux camps, ils devront faire preuve de prodiges d’habileté diplomatique…
Pierre Lellouche
7 mai 2026

2026-05-13 22:24:55 UTC

The Time Has Come for a New Congress of Vienna
OPINION — The multiplication of wars and the return of imperial logic require us to think through a new international balance, argues the former minister, for whom it is urgent to organize a major conference between powers in order to avoid a general conflagration.
An ill wind has been blowing over the world for at least three decades.
It is the wind of war, and perhaps even of world war, which is why we refuse to put into perspective the unfortunately all too numerous warning signs which, like black stones, mark humanity’s path toward a possible general conflagration.
The hopes of the early 1990s for a new world, freed from the East-West conflict, from dictatorship and war, turned toward prosperity and peace—those hopes have long since evaporated.
The century began on September 11, 2001, with the eruption of global Islamist terrorism, which a quarter-century of wars, above all American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, only perpetuated, France experiencing the same misadventure after ten years of war in the Sahel. The disintegration of the Soviet empire in 1991, miraculously peaceful at the outset, turned ten years later into a new cycle of confrontations and wars: Georgia in 2008, Ukraine since 2014, bringing high-intensity war back to the heart of Europe.
In the Middle East, the hopes born of the Arab Springs in the early 2010s quickly gave way to a litany of massacres in Libya, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, not to mention those committed by Daesh, while the American war in Iraq in 2003 left Iran in the position of dominant power in the region, facing Israel and the Gulf monarchies, as rich as they are vulnerable.
All this against a backdrop dominated, on the one hand, by unprecedented migratory flows toward Europe, and to a lesser extent toward North America, and, on the other, by the systematic destruction of production capacities and jobs in Western democracies, the direct result of China’s strategy of industrial and commercial predation after entering the WTO in 2001. To the confused anxiety of the coming war, from 2030 onward according to our military chiefs, is added the anguish of unemployment in a Europe that is growing poorer and discovering itself defenseless as its protector turns away from it… There again, other well-known black stones will lead to the same misfortunes…
The gravity of the international situation makes it essential to take a fresh look at the great challenges of the hour. The deadlock at the UN calls for a new approach. For the “elders” of my generation, born in the early 1950s, even as the Korean War was beginning, followed by the wars of decolonization in Asia, Africa and the Maghreb, war always remained distant. We had the good fortune to experience a unique period, that of an entire comfortable lifetime sheltered from the horror of war.
Stefan Zweig had also enjoyed peace, that of the Congress of Vienna of 1815, then that of Versailles a century later, before everything collapsed, twice over… And his words resonate today with a strange and frightening relevance. Here is what he wrote in the preface to The World of Yesterday in 1941, in exile, when he had decided to end his life: “I had to be the witness, defenseless and powerless, of this unimaginable relapse of humanity into a state of barbarism that had long been believed forgotten, with its anti-humanist dogma consciously raised into a program of action. It was reserved for us to see again, after centuries, wars without declarations of war, concentration camps, torture, mass spoliations and the bombing of defenseless cities, all acts of bestiality that the previous fifty generations had no longer known and that future generations, let us hope, will no longer suffer.”
There is in this text, at once tragic and painful, an error that the great writer, no doubt carried away by his despair, made without intending to.
The “fifty generations” of which he speaks, those that preceded 1914 and still more 1939, had not been spared the sufferings of war.
They had in fact known countless conflicts. It was precisely in order to put an end to them, in the aftermath of the wars born of the French Revolution and the Empire, that the principle of a “European Concert” was invented in 1814-1815. At a time when Napoleon was returning from the island of Elba, the aim was to put an end to twenty-two years of war. It was an exercise masterfully conducted by Metternich, whom Kissinger never ceased to admire from the time of his doctoral thesis onward, and which aimed to establish as stable a balance as possible among the victors, the great powers of the time: England, Prussia, Russia and Austria-Hungary, while taking care to organize France’s reintegration.
The 121 articles and 17 annexes of the Treaty, drafted in French (!), succeeded in bringing six new states into the European Concert without upheaval — Belgium, Italy, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia — and above all managed to prevent a general conflagration for a century (!), despite the three conflicts that occurred before 1914: the Crimean War, 1853-1856; the Austro-Prussian War of 1866; and the 1870 war between France and Germany.
We now face an entirely different “chessboard,” as Brzezinski would say, far broader than yesterday’s European Concert. But with the same imperative necessity: how can a global security system be built among the three empires that now dominate the planet — the United States, Russia and China — while respecting each one’s security interests? How can the emergence of the powers of the South that aspire to join this circle be framed, beginning with Iran, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Brazil…? How can we prevent the great powers of yesterday, the Europeans and Japan, from being swept away by the great shift now under way toward a post-Western world?
The urgent task is to work toward a lasting resolution of the conflicts under way in Europe and in the Gulf. One thing is clear: the conflict in Ukraine must not turn into a frozen, permanent conflict at the heart of Europe. The four parties involved — Ukraine, the Europe that supports it, the United States and Russia — can and must bring it to an end quickly, through a territorial compromise coupled with the definition of a new security system on the scale of the continent, which will provide for a comprehensive agreement limiting armaments on both sides.
At the same time, the other major conflict, in the Gulf, must be settled while absolutely preventing the Islamic Republic from emerging from this war with two atomic bombs: the one it has been secretly preparing for forty years, with today ten tonnes of enriched uranium, and that weapon of blackmail against the entire planet which its control over the Strait of Hormuz would give it. Equipped with these two atomic bombs, Iran would inevitably emerge as the fourth superpower on the planet, at the head of one and a half billion Muslims…
Despite their differences, the imperial triad, Europe, Japan and the emerging powers of the South all have an interest in settling the ongoing conflicts and preventing them from degenerating and metastasizing into other regions. All also have an interest in seeing the planet’s energy situation stabilized and, consequently, its economic growth. The time therefore seems to me to have come for a major international conference where everything would be put on the table and where the weight of the main powers could be combined to block the most harmful developments. I recall that the so-called JCPOA agreement of 2015 on the Iranian nuclear issue could only be obtained, after thirteen years of negotiations, because the Europeans who had initiated it were able to bring together, facing Iran and around the same table, the Russians, the Chinese and the Americans.
The gravity of the international situation makes it essential to take a fresh look at the great challenges of the hour. The deadlock at the UN calls for a new approach. My old master, Henry Kissinger, would also have judged it necessary, and it is toward Metternich that he would no doubt have turned… A European trio composed of France, the United Kingdom and Germany should take the initiative. https://blossom.primal.net/8215a2d9a9168f9d3947dae2868052ddb18aa09fe97f2c832aa344a25196fe5c.png

2026-05-07 22:26:12 UTC

ENGLISH VERSION.
The Great Erasure: Macron’s France and the Wars of the East
Appearances had to be saved. France had to be seen to matter still in the great affairs of the world, including in the wars of the Middle East — wars at once so near and so vital to us.
So last Friday, Emmanuel Macron, flanked by his partner Keir Starmer, revived the formula of the “coalition of the willing,” first launched — to little effect — over the war in Ukraine. This time, the Paris conference, which brought together by video no fewer than thirty “non-belligerent” heads of state, was supposed to focus on “securing the Strait of Hormuz” — though only once the fighting was over. What no one foresaw was that this conference, designed to show European resolve, would be overtaken by events on the ground and would, in the end, confirm Europe’s complete impotence.
By a fortunate coincidence, at that very moment Iran, satisfied with the ten-day ceasefire signed the previous day over Lebanon, announced the “full” reopening of the Strait of Hormuz for the duration of the truce. The news was immediately welcomed by Donald Trump, who nonetheless kept his own blockade in place pending an agreement on Iran’s denuclearization.
The problem is that the sequence of events itself shows the extent to which France, like its European partners, has been quite literally erased from the wars of the East, reduced to the role of spectator-commentator in an extremely grave crisis that nevertheless concerns it directly.
The fragile truce negotiated with Tehran through Islamabad was thus, like the war itself, the result of a decision taken by Trump — and by Trump alone — without the slightest consultation with his European allies. The ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel, for its part, had also been prepared in Washington two days earlier, at the “historic” meeting of the two countries’ ambassadors chaired by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Its announcement the following day likewise stemmed from the intense pressure Trump exerted on Netanyahu, even though the latter, supported by Israeli public opinion, was determined to fight on until Hezbollah had been fully eliminated.
The great erasure of France and Europe, relative to the United States, has therefore been publicly recorded on both fronts. On Iran, France has joined Spain in a posture of militant neutrality, even prohibiting the US Air Force from overflying its territory or using its air bases.
This position is more than questionable. French military facilities in the Emirates have been attacked by Iran; one of our soldiers was killed in Iraq by a drone fired by a Shiite militia controlled by Iran; and another, serving with UNIFIL, was killed — the day after the Paris meeting — by Hezbollah in Lebanon. That is to say nothing of the economic consequences of Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz; of the fact that Tehran possesses an arsenal of potentially nuclear-capable missiles able to reach Paris and other European capitals; or of the hostage-taking and terrorist acts carried out in Europe by the same Iranian regime.
Macron’s insistence on France’s “purely defensive” posture may well exasperate Trump, but it does nothing to deter the aggressor. One can understand, given the — shall we say erratic — nature of the American president, why it may be wiser to keep some distance from certain of his geopolitical choices. But neutrality is hardly the best way to shape the course of events, especially when those events concern us directly. Is such neutrality not, above all, an admission of the country’s military weakness — and indeed of Europe’s — as illustrated by the true-false “update” of the 2024–2030 Military Programming Law, hamstrung by a lack of funding and with most acquisitions pushed back to 2035?
As for Lebanon, so dear to France, everyone has now been able to gauge the emptiness of Macron’s lectures on democracy to Beirut’s political class in 2020, and of his repeated calls for a ceasefire — ignored by Hezbollah and now inaudible in Israel, given the deterioration of our relations with the Jewish state. To have influence in such a situation, one must be respected by both sides. Macron’s France no longer is.
Everyone has their own idea of reopening. While the “coalition of the willing” was meeting to unblock Hormuz, the French government was busy unblocking the shops of bakers and florists on May 1. The day before, the newly elected mayor of La Courneuve, in front of the cameras, unfurled a Palestinian flag on the façade of his town hall, just as the Yadan bill criminalizing antisemitism was being buried in the National Assembly. The very next day, Tehran announced that the Strait of Hormuz would be blocked once again.
Pierre Lellouche — 17/4/26
3. Brief
The Great Erasure: Macron’s France and the Wars of the East
France wanted to save appearances and show that it still mattered in world affairs, including in the wars of the Middle East, so close and so vital to Europe.
Last Friday, Emmanuel Macron, alongside Keir Starmer, revived the “coalition of the willing,” already tried with little success in Ukraine. The Paris conference, attended remotely by some thirty “non-belligerent” heads of state, was meant to discuss securing the Strait of Hormuz after the fighting ended. Instead, events on the ground overtook it and exposed Europe’s powerlessness.
At the same time, Iran announced the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz during a ten-day ceasefire over Lebanon. Donald Trump welcomed the move while keeping his own blockade in place until an agreement on Iran’s denuclearization.
This sequence showed how France and Europe have been erased from the wars of the East, reduced to watching and commenting on a crisis that directly affects them. The truce with Tehran, negotiated through Islamabad, was decided by Trump alone, without consulting European allies. The Lebanon-Israel ceasefire was also prepared in Washington and imposed through Trump’s pressure on Netanyahu, who wanted to continue fighting until Hezbollah was eliminated.
France and Europe’s erasure in favor of the United States is now clear. On Iran, France has joined Spain in a posture of militant neutrality, even banning US Air Force overflights and use of its bases.
That position is hard to defend. Iran has attacked French military facilities in the Emirates; one French soldier was killed in Iraq by an Iran-backed Shiite militia; and another, serving with UNIFIL, was killed by Hezbollah in Lebanon. This is without counting the economic damage caused by the closure of Hormuz, Iran’s missile arsenal, or Tehran’s hostage-taking and terrorist actions in Europe.
Macron’s “purely defensive” posture may irritate Trump, but it does not deter aggressors. Keeping some distance from Trump’s erratic choices may be understandable, but neutrality is not influence — especially when France is directly concerned. It looks above all like an admission of military weakness, in France and across Europe.
In Lebanon, France’s influence has also faded. Macron’s lectures on democracy in Beirut in 2020 and his repeated calls for a ceasefire have proved empty: ignored by Hezbollah and no longer heard in Israel, as relations with the Jewish state have worsened. To influence such a crisis, one must be respected by both sides. Macron’s France no longer is.
While the “willing” met to unblock Hormuz, the French government focused on allowing bakers and florists to open on May 1. Meanwhile, the new mayor of La Courneuve unfurled a Palestinian flag on his town hall, as the Yadan bill on criminalizing antisemitism was buried in the National Assembly. The next day, Tehran announced that Hormuz would be blocked again.
Pierre Lellouche — 17/4/26
https://blossom.primal.net/00bfe0b404a0a69ccdefa8772aa512c719278ee434032fc4641ed4f1d4cf13eb.png

2026-05-05 22:53:44 UTC

- reply

Thanks, I will keep in mind.☺️

2026-05-05 22:52:12 UTC

Editorial : Le grand effacement : la France de Macron et les guerres d’Orient
Il fallait sauver les apparences. Montrer que la France continue de peser dans les grandes affaires du monde, y compris sur les guerres du Moyen-Orient, à la fois si proches et si vitales pour nous.
Vendredi dernier, Emmanuel Macron, adossé à son compère Keir Starmer, avait donc ressorti la formule de la « coalition des volontaires », inaugurée — sans guère d’effets — pour la guerre d’Ukraine. Cette fois, la conférence de Paris, réunissant en visio pas moins de trente chefs d’État « non belligérants », devait porter sur « la sécurisation du détroit d’Hormuz », mais une sécurisation qui n’interviendrait qu’après la fin des combats. Sans se douter que cette conférence, censée montrer la mobilisation des Européens, serait rattrapée par les événements sur le terrain et confirmerait, in fine, leur totale impuissance.
Par une heureuse coïncidence, en effet, au même moment, l’Iran, satisfait du cessez-le-feu de dix jours signé la veille sur le Liban, annonçait la réouverture « complète » du détroit d’Ormuz pendant la durée du cessez-le-feu ; une nouvelle immédiatement saluée par Donald Trump, qui, cependant, maintenait son blocus à lui, jusqu’à la conclusion d’un accord sur la dénucléarisation de l’Iran.
Le problème est que l’enchaînement même de ces événements montre à quel point la France, comme ses partenaires européens, ont été littéralement effacés des guerres d’Orient, réduits au rôle de voyeurs-commentateurs d’une crise gravissime qui les concerne pourtant au premier chef.
Ainsi, la fragile trêve négociée avec Téhéran, via Islamabad, résultait — comme la guerre elle-même — d’une décision prise par Trump, et lui seul, sans la moindre consultation des alliés européens. Quant au cessez-le-feu entre le Liban et Israël, il avait, lui aussi, été préparé à Washington, deux jours auparavant, lors de la réunion « historique » des ambassadeurs des deux pays sous la présidence du secrétaire d’État américain, Marco Rubio. Son annonce, dès le lendemain, résultait là encore de la très forte pression exercée par Trump sur Netanyahou, alors que ce dernier, soutenu par son opinion publique, voulait à toute force continuer le combat jusqu’à l’élimination complète du Hezbollah.
Le grand effacement de la France et de l’Europe, par rapport aux États-Unis, est donc acté publiquement des deux côtés. Sur l’Iran, la France a rejoint l’Espagne sur une position de neutralité militante, allant jusqu’à l’interdiction du survol ou de l’utilisation de ses bases aériennes par l’US Air Force.
Une position plus que discutable dès lors que des installations militaires françaises dans les Émirats ont été attaquées par l’Iran, que l’un de nos soldats a été tué en Irak par un drone tiré par une milice chiite actionnée par l’Iran, et qu’un autre, appartenant à la FINUL, a été tué — le lendemain de la réunion de Paris — par le Hezbollah au Liban. Cela sans parler des conséquences économiques de la fermeture du détroit d’Ormuz, toujours par l’Iran ; du fait que ce pays dispose d’un arsenal de missiles potentiellement nucléaires capables d’atteindre Paris et d’autres capitales européennes ; ou encore des prises d’otages et autres actes terroristes commis en Europe par le même régime iranien.
Insister, comme le fait Macron, sur la posture « purement défensive » de la France a certes le don d’exaspérer Trump, mais ne suffit pas à dissuader l’agresseur… Si l’on peut comprendre, au vu du caractère — disons erratique — du président américain, qu’il est sans doute préférable de se tenir à distance de certains de ses choix en matière géopolitique, la neutralité n’est pas non plus la meilleure façon de peser sur le cours des événements, surtout quand ils nous concernent directement. Une telle neutralité n’est-elle pas d’abord l’aveu de la faiblesse militaire du pays (et de l’Europe entière, d’ailleurs), comme en témoigne la vraie-fausse « actualisation » de la loi de programmation militaire 2024-2030, faute de moyens financiers, l’essentiel des acquisitions étant reporté à 2035…
Quant au Liban, si cher à la France, chacun a pu mesurer la vacuité des leçons de démocratie assénées par Macron à la classe politique de Beyrouth en 2020, ou encore de ses appels renouvelés au cessez-le-feu, ignorés par le Hezbollah et désormais inaudibles en Israël, au vu de la dégradation de nos relations avec l’État juif. Pour peser sur une situation de ce type, mieux vaut être respecté des deux côtés. Or la France de Macron ne l’est plus.
https://blossom.primal.net/00bfe0b404a0a69ccdefa8772aa512c719278ee434032fc4641ed4f1d4cf13eb.png À chacun son ouverture. Tandis que se tenait la conférence des « volontaires » pour débloquer Ormuz, le gouvernement français s’occupait, lui, de débloquer les échoppes des boulangers et des fleuristes le 1er mai. La veille, le maire nouvellement élu de La Courneuve déployait, sous les caméras, un drapeau palestinien sur le fronton de sa mairie, cela au moment où la proposition de loi Yadan sur la pénalisation de l’antisémitisme était enterrée à l’Assemblée nationale… Dès le lendemain, Téhéran annonçait que le détroit d’Ormuz serait à nouveau bloqué…
Pierre Lellouche — 17/4/26

2026-05-05 21:39:46 UTC

https://youtu.be/SyAQwVND69Q?si=YdlZdu1vtojG-k25

2026-04-29 17:19:37 UTC

https://blossom.primal.net/3352946a72b37f8127dbc1bfe736b1107476881b9bc0e9ce0a8f6fdf44f729bb.png
Hormuz, Tehran’s Other Atomic Bomb
“Woe to you, O land whose king is a child.” (Ecclesiastes 10:16–18)
“We have plenty of oil. We don’t need the Gulf… Those who need that oil can go get it themselves… We’ve been protecting them for free for years. But when we need them, there’s no one there… We don’t need the Europeans anyway… Open that damn strait, you bunch of lunatics!… There’s a lot of money to be made with Iran. We’ll do a joint venture with them on HORMUZ…”
The ceasefire agreement provides for the “full, immediate and safe reopening of the Strait of Hormuz”…
A brief look back at a disaster of historic proportions
The American-Israeli air war against the regime in Tehran began on February 28, with four legitimate objectives, but mentioned in turn and in the greatest confusion: to stop the nuclear program, stop the missiles, stop support for proxies, and help the Iranian people overthrow the regime.
Forty days later, and forty billion dollars sunk into the most sophisticated weapons systems, none of these objectives has been achieved. Despite the tactical prowess of American and Israeli pilots, despite their 13,000 strikes, despite the systematic decapitation of the regime, the destruction of its navy, its air force, its command centers, and an economy in ruins, the regime still stands.
Better still: it now presents itself, not without reason, as the victor.
“Hello Victory! Today a new page of history opens,” proclaimed Mohammad Reza Aref, Iran’s First Vice President, upon the announcement of the ceasefire.
And he added: “The era of Iran has just begun.”
All of this for one simple reason: inadvertently, one might say, Trump quite literally handed the Strait of Hormuz on a silver platter to his Iranian adversary.
Yet the possible closure of the strait had been raised by the CIA and the Pentagon before the American president during the preparatory meetings for Operation “Epic Fury.” But Trump brushed it aside.
On the Iranian side, the option of closing Hormuz had also been considered in the past, including during the Twelve-Day War in June 2025. But at the time, the mullahs’ regime had not dared.
The “privatization” of the strait: a global hostage-taking
Trump’s war decapitated the mullahs and transferred power to a younger, even more fanatical generation of Revolutionary Guards. They are now fighting for their survival—and their wealth—and have nothing left to lose. Hence the scorched-earth strategy, the repeated attacks on the Arab oil monarchies, and above all the “privatization” of the Strait of Hormuz, equivalent to a gigantic hostage-taking: that of the global economy as a whole.
From the Philippines to Bangladesh, from Japan to American motorists to Breton fishermen: the jugular of the global economy is now in the hands of a dictatorial Iranian regime whose true leaders no one knows precisely.
In law, the “nationalization” of the strait is naturally contrary to the principle of free navigation enshrined in international conventions on the law of the sea. Equally illegal is the Iranian regime’s claim to impose a transit fee of one dollar per barrel of oil, which Tehran generously offers to share with Oman, the other state bordering the strait.
But the facts are there: the Guards control the strait, both thanks to their numerous light patrol boats armed with missiles and drones, thanks to the threat of mines (as during the tanker war in the 1980s), but above all thanks to anti-ship missiles and drones concealed all along the Iranian coast.
These realities explain why, despite Trump’s proclamations, the strait is still not reopened the day after the ceasefire; why the imposing naval armada of the U.S. Navy present in the region is prudently keeping its distance from the strait; why Europeans refuse to enter it except within the framework of a peace agreement, after the end of the conflict; why 900 tankers and other commercial vessels are stuck there; why insurance premiums have literally exploded (from 0.1% to 3.75% of cargo value); and why, above all, despite American and European sanctions against the Revolutionary Guards, many operators prefer to pay—discreetly and via cryptocurrency—the $2 million demanded by the Iranians…
Meanwhile, the price of a barrel has soared…
Three bad options
Thanks to this war conducted without the slightest prior strategic analysis, driven solely by the hubris of a king whom no one dares to contradict, the Iranians now find themselves in a position of strength, able to blackmail the entire planet far more effectively than they could have done with nuclear missiles!
A fiasco that recalls, a thousandfold, the Franco-British misadventure at Suez seventy years ago, and that underscores the urgency of negotiating an international treaty inspired by the Montreux Convention (1936) on the Bosphorus. But that treaty was the result of a world war won by the Allies, and above all of the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, which the French and British had failed to defeat when, in 1915–1916, they attempted to force the Dardanelles Strait.
Yet, far from toppling the regime in Tehran, the current Iran war will only have strengthened it.
Trump, today, has only three bad options: an unlikely diplomatic agreement with Tehran (which has just failed in Islamabad); submission while proclaiming victory; or seizing the strait by force—and, in the meantime, closing it to Iranian tankers and to vessels (Chinese, above all) that would agree to pay the transit fee demanded by Tehran.
Blockade upon blockade, then. A new phase of escalation is beginning, one that puts the global economy as a whole at stake, and China in particular, which absorbs 90% of Iranian oil.
Pierre Lellouche — April 10, 2026

2026-04-29 17:18:23 UTC

"Les Européens sont devenus les voyeurs de l'histoire".
https://blossom.primal.net/04f8a8644b3ad7e597e787e7c4f161b6704b209a09edcdbc0ac8cb94b10bd004.mp4

2026-04-28 18:12:05 UTC

Edito : Ormuz, l’autre bombe atomique de Téhéran
« Malheur à toi, pays dont le roi est un enfant. »
(Ecclésiaste 10:16-18)
« Le pétrole, on en a plein. Nous n’avons pas besoin du Golfe… Ceux qui ont besoin de ce pétrole n’ont qu’à aller le chercher eux-mêmes… Cela fait des années qu’on les protège gratuitement. Mais quand on a besoin d’eux, il n’y a personne… On n’a pas besoin des Européens de toutes façons… Ouvrez ce putain de détroit, bande de tarés !… Avec l’Iran, il y a beaucoup d’argent à se faire. On fera une joint venture avec eux sur ORMUZ… »
L’accord de cessez-le-feu prévoit « l’ouverture complète, immédiate et sûre du détroit d’Ormuz »…
Bref retour en arrière sur un désastre de proportion historique
La guerre aérienne américano-israélienne contre le régime de Téhéran a commencé le 28 février, avec quatre objectifs légitimes, mais mentionnés tour à tour et dans la plus grande confusion : stopper le nucléaire, stopper les missiles, stopper l’aide aux proxys, aider le peuple iranien à renverser le régime.
Quarante jours plus tard et quarante milliards de dollars engloutis dans les systèmes d’armes les plus sophistiqués, aucun de ces objectifs n’a été atteint. Malgré la prouesse tactique des aviateurs américains et israéliens, malgré leurs 13 000 frappes, malgré la décapitation systématique du régime, la destruction de sa marine, de son aviation, de ses centres de commandement et une économie en ruines, le régime tient toujours.
Mieux : il se présente même, non sans raison, en vainqueur.
« Bonjour Victoire ! Aujourd’hui s’ouvre une nouvelle page de l’Histoire », proclame Mohamed Reza Aref, premier vice-président iranien, à l’annonce de la signature du cessez-le-feu.
Et d’ajouter : « L’ère de l’Iran vient de commencer ».
Tout cela pour une raison toute simple : par inadvertance, pourrait-on dire, Trump a littéralement offert le détroit d’Ormuz sur un plateau à son ennemi iranien.
Pourtant, l’éventuelle fermeture du détroit avait été évoquée par la CIA et le Pentagone devant le président américain lors des réunions préparatoires à l’opération « Epic Fury ». Mais Trump est passé outre.
Du côté iranien, l’option de fermeture d’Ormuz avait également été envisagée par le passé, y compris pendant la guerre des Douze Jours, en juin 2025. Mais, à l’époque, le régime des mollahs n’avait pas osé.
La « privatisation » du détroit : une prise d’otages mondiale
La guerre de Trump a décapité les mollahs et transféré le pouvoir à une génération plus jeune, plus fanatique encore, des Gardiens de la Révolution. Ceux-là jouent leur survie — et leur richesse — et n’ont plus rien à perdre. D’où la stratégie de la terre brûlée, les attaques à répétition sur les monarchies pétrolières arabes et, surtout, la « privatisation » du détroit d’Ormuz, équivalente à une gigantesque prise d’otages : celle de l’économie mondiale dans son ensemble.
Des Philippines au Bangladesh, du Japon aux automobilistes américains jusqu’aux pêcheurs bretons : la jugulaire de l’économie mondiale est désormais entre les mains d’un régime iranien dictatorial, dont nul ne connaît avec précision qui en sont les vrais dirigeants.
En droit, la « nationalisation » du détroit est naturellement contraire au principe de libre navigation inscrit dans les conventions internationales sur le droit de la mer. Tout aussi illégale est la prétention du régime iranien d’imposer un droit de passage de 1 dollar par baril de pétrole, que Téhéran offre généreusement de partager avec Oman, l’autre riverain du détroit.
Mais les faits sont là : les Gardiens tiennent le détroit, à la fois grâce à leurs très nombreux patrouilleurs légers armés de missiles et de drones, grâce à la menace des mines (comme lors de la guerre des pétroliers dans les années 1980), mais surtout grâce aux missiles antinavires et aux drones dissimulés tout au long de la côte iranienne.
Autant de réalités qui font que, malgré les proclamations de Trump, le détroit n’est toujours pas rouvert au lendemain du cessez-le-feu ; que l’imposante armada navale de l’US Navy présente dans la région se tient prudemment à distance du détroit ; que les Européens refusent d’y pénétrer, sauf dans le cadre d’un accord de paix, après la fin du conflit ; que 900 pétroliers et autres navires de commerce s’y trouvent coincés ; que les primes d’assurance y ont littéralement explosé (de 0,1 % à 3,75 % de la valeur de la cargaison) ; et que, surtout, malgré les sanctions américaines et européennes contre les Gardiens de la Révolution, nombre d’opérateurs préfèrent payer — discrètement et par cryptomonnaie — les 2 millions de dollars exigés par les Iraniens…
Entre-temps, le prix du baril a explosé…
Trois mauvaises options
Grâce à cette guerre menée sans la moindre analyse stratégique préalable, sur le seul hubris d’un roi que nul n’ose contredire, les Iraniens se retrouvent donc en position de force, en mesure de faire chanter la planète entière, bien plus efficacement qu’ils n’auraient pu le faire avec des missiles nucléaires !
Un fiasco qui rappelle, à la puissance mille, la mésaventure franco-britannique à Suez, il y a 70 ans, et qui souligne l’urgence de négocier un traité international inspiré du traité de Montreux (1936) sur le Bosphore. Mais ce dernier était le résultat d’une guerre mondiale remportée par les Alliés, et surtout du démantèlement de l’Empire ottoman, que Français et Britanniques n’avaient pu vaincre lorsqu’en 1915-1916 ils tentèrent de forcer le détroit des Dardanelles.
Or, loin du renversement du régime de Téhéran, l’actuelle guerre d’Iran n’aura fait que le renforcer.
Trump, aujourd’hui, n’a le choix qu’entre trois mauvaises solutions : un improbable accord diplomatique avec Téhéran (mais celui-ci vient d’échouer à Islamabad) ; se soumettre tout en criant victoire ; ou reprendre le détroit de vive force — et, en attendant, le fermer aux pétroliers iraniens et aux navires (chinois surtout) qui auraient accepté de payer le droit de passage exigé par Téhéran.
Blocus sur blocus, donc. Une nouvelle phase de l’escalade commence, qui met en jeu l’économie mondiale dans son ensemble, et la Chine en particulier, qui absorbe 90 % du pétrole iranien.
Pierre Lellouche — 10 avril 2026
https://blossom.primal.net/c116bad478039c149edf86a8f6e580579305ccdb526aad69bba2f494b0e5519b.jpg

2026-04-26 12:01:31 UTC

"Les Européens sont devenus les voyeurs de l'histoire".
https://blossom.primal.net/04f8a8644b3ad7e597e787e7c4f161b6704b209a09edcdbc0ac8cb94b10bd004.mp4

2026-04-22 16:58:16 UTC

Tant que l'Etat libanais restera faible, le Hezbollah conservera sa domination.
Interview de Pierre Lellouche par la journaliste Laetitia Enriquez.
21 mars 2026
https://blossom.primal.net/025a4a14364086a0ce74c3838da078e6da2b65af319f040e458ce49d725b8fee.jpg

2026-04-22 11:33:17 UTC

DE PROFUNDIS: A WORLD WITHOUT DISARMAMENT by Pierre Lellouche
No flowers. No wreaths. No grand speeches either: last Wednesday at midnight, the very last agreement limiting nuclear arms between Russians and Americans — the so-called “New START” treaty — simply expired, having reached the end of its term. This time, neither Putin nor Trump sought to extend it, as was done fifteen years ago, in 2021, for this agreement originally signed in 2010. True, the war in Ukraine has since intervened… Putin suspended Russia’s participation in 2023, even threatening — as Trump does today — to resume nuclear testing.
New START was never intended to disarm the two nuclear superpowers, but merely to cap their arsenals and, above all, to place them under a highly sophisticated system of reciprocal inspections and notifications, the objective being to ensure over time the preservation of the famous “strategic stability” — that is, to prevent any breach of the “parity” achieved in the treaty through a new spiral of the arms race. With ceilings that were, in the end, more than sufficient to obliterate the planet several times over: 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads on each side, mounted on 700 intercontinental missiles (with ranges exceeding 5,500 kilometers), whether land-based, sea-launched, or air-delivered (by strategic bombers). Added to these were 800 other delivery systems, deployed or not deployed. In total: 1,420 warheads deployed and declared as such by the Americans, compared with 1,549 on the Russian side — not counting stored but undeployed nuclear warheads: 1,830 for the Americans and 1,114 for the Russians.
Those limits are now void, and many experts fear that the death of New START will signal the resumption of an arms race on all fronts.
For the crucial point lies less in the treaty’s numerical ceilings than in its political meaning — at the summit, so to speak, of the disarmament process begun sixty-four years ago, that is, with the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. It was because they suddenly realized how close they had come to a direct nuclear confrontation during the missile crisis that the two superpowers engaged, the following year, in the process known as “arms control” (in French: la limitation des armements). With, as an immediate priority, preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to other states — at the time, first and foremost France and China. Hence, in 1963, the Partial Test Ban Treaty, followed five years later by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). A first phase, followed in 1971 by the first SALT agreement limiting offensive strategic weapons and, the following year, by the ABM Treaty banning defensive anti-missile systems. Nuclear doctrine then rested on MAD — Mutually Assured Destruction — which, to function, depended on the total vulnerability of each side and, therefore, the prohibition of any missile defense…
Since the beginning of the Cold War and until 2017, no fewer than thirty agreements were signed by the two great powers to curb the nuclear, chemical, or biological arms race, across various environments (outer space, Antarctica…), while twelve additional agreements — notably regional denuclearization accords (as in the case of Ukraine in 1994) — were signed by many other states.
It is this entire structure that now threatens to collapse, at the very moment of a major global shift. Putin is developing futuristic weapons such as the nuclear-powered cruise missile Burevestnik, the hypersonic missile Oreshnik, and the nuclear-armed submarine Poseidon, while Trump dreams of his “Golden Dome,” the ultimate shield meant to protect America against any missile attack. At the same time, China under Xi has embarked on a real race to catch up with the two great powers, also aiming for 1,500 strategic missiles by 2035… For the Americans, the risk is having to deter — or fight — both rivals at once. Trump has floated the idea of another treaty, after New START, but this time trilateral, including China. Beijing, however, wants none of it…
In such a context, the main danger is an acceleration of proliferation on all fronts: in Asia (Japan, Korea), in the Middle East (Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Turkey), and even in Europe itself (Ukraine, Poland, and… Germany).
Welcome to the new Nuclear Age…
Pierre Lellouche
February 4, 2026
https://blossom.primal.net/80ef21386cd5878f855c37a848c18041264d3992c811281c01c01f1a448bd76f.png

2026-04-21 14:38:41 UTC

Pierre Lellouche official account.
https://blossom.primal.net/1c0cd3efc513b588f3e361ffd0f5f8784426adafe50553ae62866dcc7d77265a.mp4