Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 19, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


The Wheel Turns, the Boat Rocks, the Sea Rises
Warming Will Leave Drought-Hit California Reeling
A New Way Insurers Are Shifting Costs to the Sick




On the Run


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
A/V Booth

Scott Ritter’s Iran 101 Primer

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jan 15, 2008
Ritter
youtube.com

Confused by all the conflicting messages about Iran’s actual threat to the U.S. and, on a broader scale, to global security?  It’s no wonder, given the sturm und drang coming from the Bush administration.  Now, thankfully, former weapons inspector and Truthdig contributor Scott Ritter makes sense of the situation in this video of a still timely talk he gave in July.

Watch the clip:

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By sam brown, March 25, 2008 at 8:37 am Link to this comment

by the way i’m a scott ritter supporter

Report this

By sam brown, March 25, 2008 at 8:34 am Link to this comment

“Iran to blame for Iraq deadly rocket supply: Petraeus”

PETRAEUS: “Certainly, Iran is adding what we’d call lethal accelerants to what is a very combustible mix in Iraq. The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, at the international zone, were Iranian provided, Iranian made rockets launched by the ‘special groups’, as they’re called, elements that are paid for, they are funded, they are trained, they’ve been equipped, by and large, by the Iranian Quds force.”—PM - Tuesday, 25 March , 2008 18:30:00
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2198893.htm

audio cut & paste:

mms://media4.abc.net.au/winlibrary/audio/pm/200803/20080325pm06-iraq-petraeus.wma

audio cut & paste:

rtsp://media1.abc.net.au/reallibrary/audio/pm/200803/20080325pm06-iraq-petraeus.rm

audio cut & paste:

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/pm/200803/20080325pm06-iraq-petraeus.mp3

Report this

By roodi, February 1, 2008 at 3:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

i know many people at this website who speak about peace
Please one of you explain for me means of peace
can u explain for me , what meaning have peace?
wich kind of peace?
what color have peace?
can you understand my means?
Please just one person explain this word for us

Report this

By roodi, February 1, 2008 at 3:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

i know many people at this website who speak about peace

Please one of you explain for me means of peace

can u explain for me , what meaning have peace?

wich kind of peace?

what color have peace?

can you understand my means?

Please just one person explain this word for us

Report this

By Marshall, January 21, 2008 at 9:41 pm Link to this comment

Rob - the first priority of non-proliferation efforts is not to disarm countries that already have nukes, but to prevent new ones from joining the club.  Unless you’re arguing that Iran should be encouraged to obtain nukes?  I’m all for virtually eliminating US nuclear arms just as soon as we’ve verified that other countries have done the same; an unlikely scenario and therefore not one we need to entertain at this time.

If you support gun control domestically - think of it as international gun control.

Report this

By Rob, January 21, 2008 at 1:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If we’re serious about non-proliferation, we might consider reducing and eliminating our own hyperbolic stockpile of nuclear arms (capable of and poised to destroy the earth many times over), as opposed to unilaterally withdrawing from whichever arms-control treaties our “decider” decides to. 
    As it should be clear to anyone who’s paying any attention to the larger picture, our interest clearly is not some altruistic aim such as promoting non-proliferation.  What then might be our real aim?
    Frankly, the most counter-productive path we can take with respect to eliminating terror is to continue as we are: bullying, restricting development , destroying families and societies with bombs, bullets, and policies.

Report this

By cyrena, January 17, 2008 at 3:29 pm Link to this comment

•  Up until the most recent NIE, which Bush ordered and which Scott’s talk predates, our Iran policy was based on intelligence which painted a more dire picture of Iran’s nuclear program.

What we KNOW, Marshall, and what we’ve KNOWN for long before Bush allegedly ordered this report, is that Iran DID not have any nuclear weapons ambitions, and we know it – as Scott has indicated, from INSPECTIONS, not to mention the IAEA, who has consistently reported on the Iranian activities, and the information is accessible to anyone who actually cares to investigate it. All of the documentation is on file with the UN, and again…accessible to anyone.

So, let us just call this what it is, which is your usual crap. The ‘intelligence’ that you claim the Iranian policy to be based on, is NOT ‘intelligence’. It’s part of the same shit that this administration has been pushing for 7 years now. So, this was a FAKE picture/propaganda of a ‘more dire picture’ than was ever REAL, and intelligent people know that. We haven’t JUST figured out what Scott is telling these people. I’ve been keeping track of the IAEA’s work for nearly 3 years now. So in short, let me repeat, this ‘dire picture’ has been as much a lie as was the accusation that Saddam had WMD, and the most recent NIE report only verified that. (I don’t believe for a minute that stupid george ever ordered it either). And, you can best believe Cheney would have done whatever he could to keep it from getting out, except that he realized he couldn’t.

And, if we were really at all concerned about non-proliferation as we claim, then the US would dump it’s own arsenal, and force Israel to do the same, seeing as how Israel is operating it’s entire nuclear arsenal without ANY commitment to the NPT, or any watchdog supervision at all. Should I repeat that. ISREAL and the USA have the largest nuclear arsenals on the planet, already fully developed, and Israel is not even committed to the Treaty. IRAN, on the other hand, DOES NOT have any nuclear weapons, (as confirmed by the constant supervision of the IAEA) and no possibility of developing any, within the decade, EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO, and they don’t.

What they DO want, is a civilian nuclear energy program, and they are entitled to have that, under the provisions of the NPT, to which (unlike Israel) they ARE a signatory.

QUIT spreading this BS propaganda Marshall, because I will call you on it and expose you for the liar you are, each and every time.

Report this

By Tony, January 17, 2008 at 2:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The US invaded Irak for a NO GOOD REASON, if Canada or Mexico were invaded, dont you think we would provide weapons to our neighbors at the very least?!

The US has also been providing weapons to Israel including nuclear missiles also gave Pakistan and India nuclear technology…If the US has elected themselves as the world police, we should be fair to all, who are you to say, “you can have weapons but you cant”.

Then,you United States’ers say “why do they hate us”?...Its because of you arrogant a-s-s-h-o-l-e-s that want to push Democracy at the end of an M16 and the US answer to all your world problems is “Just bomb the s-h-i-t out of em’!!!
....
Also if you think that the US supposed confrontation with Iranian boats wasnt staged, a few days prior to Bush’s trip to the middle east, I have a beautiful bridge I’ll sell you cheap….

Report this

By Miriam, January 17, 2008 at 7:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The only reason Bush gets away with his insane push for war against Iran is that Israel wants this war. Because Israel wants this war, the Zionist-dominated US Congress will go along, as will the Zionist-dominated US “mainstream” press.

I don’t know what Bush and Cheney’s motivations are. Even “war for oil” makes no sense — I can’t see how such a thing would be good even for the oil industry, let alone any other American constituency. I can only conclude that Bush and Cheney are truly insane, violently hateful militarists.

But anyway, regardless of whatever drives them, the fact remains: they meet no effective opposition because America’s pro-Israel zealots dominate Congress and the corporate media, as well as the Washington foreign policy “think tanks”.

Report this

By Marshall, January 17, 2008 at 12:39 am Link to this comment

Scott makes a leap that doesn’t logically follow.  We know that Iran and Syria fund and supply Hezbollah and Hamas; this despite the fact that they are Sunni groups and Iran is primarily Shi’ite.  So Scott’s ridicule of those who would suggest that these groups can work together is baseless.

We know Iran funnels IEDs into Iraq that kill US troops, so they’ve been waging an indirect war on the US for some time.  And we know they had an active nuclear weapons program until 2003.  This isn’t the hat-in-hand Iran that Scott paints such a serene picture of in his talk.

Up until the most recent NIE, which Bush ordered and which Scott’s talk predates, our Iran policy was based on intelligence which painted a more dire picture of Iran’s nuclear program.  But if we’re serious about non-proliferation, then it would be counter-productive to reduce the pressure on Iran to give up its enrichment program.

Report this
Blackspeare's avatar

By Blackspeare, January 16, 2008 at 1:44 pm Link to this comment

With all due respect to Scott Ritter, I don’t believe he sees the bigger picture.  Sure Iran is having technical problems with enrichment and they’ll have more problems with the triggering mechanism——did I say triggering mechanism?——I’m sorry I meant reactor construction.

No doubt Iran wants and will eventually need an alternate source of energy and nuclear is the way to go.  The question to ask is why is Iran going to the expensive and time consuming enrichment process when they could buy the stuff ready made which is more cost effective.  The answer is simple when you purchase the nuclear reactor fissile material you have to return the spent material and you give up control.  With the Iranians using their own uranium ore they control the process.  Scott Ritter is correct that at present Iran is only producing enriched uranium for peaceful energy use.  What he doesn’t realize is that Iran will extract the plutonium from the spent material and produce a nuclear weapon that is easier to put together and more powerful.  Remember if Pakistan can produce a weapon so can Iran!

Report this

By cyrena, January 16, 2008 at 12:25 am Link to this comment

Yes, it IS an excellent talk, and the first 7 minutes of it could have come from one of my own papers. What he says that hits me the hardest is that only a handful of us could have passed the pop quiz, and that our Congress is no more knowledgeable. So, who’s to blame here? Not every citizen is a former inspector like Scott, and not every citizen has the time or inclination to search for the real facts like that handful of us have done. The administration lies, and lies, and lies, and then the media backs up the lies, and lies, and lies some more. And, it’s NOT like the information – the truth, isn’t out there and available. I found it, and I don’t have any special ‘ins’ to anything.

So, how does a congress NOT KNOW SHIT? I just don’t understand this. How have we bought into lie after lie, after lie, beginning with The Coup of 2000, through the 9/11 attack that they blamed on al-Qaeda, to the on-going Heist that’s followed in the past 7 years…And, even though the majority of the American public no longer believes anything of any of these major lies, (like 9/11) we still haven’t been able to get rid of these gangsters, because Congress either doesn’t know what we know, or won’t do anything about it.

Report this

By kmorgan, January 15, 2008 at 6:52 pm Link to this comment

Excellent talk. But when it comes to the other side and their spin reason takes a back seat to rhetoric. E.g., anyone see Tony Snow on Bill Maher last Friday night?  Is Mr. Snow still on the payroll or does he really believe that stuff?  If he spins any faster he’ll be enriching his own uranium.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.