Will Iran be the Next Iraq?
by Erin Quinn Posted on 3-27-06

Scott Ritter

 

We Are Going to War with Iran—Scott Ritter, former UN Weapon’s Inspector in Iraq from 1991-1998 and author of Iraq Confidential. “And going to War with Iran can not only be characterized as bad behavior by the part of the Bush administration but suicidal behavior.

            Scott Ritter, the former Marine who served as General Schwarzkopf’s right-hand man during the First Gulf War and then went on to serve as a chief UN Weapon’s Inspector in Iraq from 1991-1998, told the New Paltz Nation in an interview this past week, that it is not a question of whether the US engages in a preemptive military action in Iran, but when.

            “John Bolton [The US Ambassador to the UN] said on national TV this week that Iran presents the same danger to US Security as 9/11,” said Ritter. “The neo-cons are already evoking the tragedy of 9/11 as they did prior to invading Iraq to exploit people’s fear and lay out a pre-text for a third war in the Middle East that has absolutely nothing to do with National Security.”

            Recently, the Bush Administration, who has been trying to lobby the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Vienna-based International Nuclear watchdog group— to report Iran to the UN Security Cancel, scored a major victory when the IAEA did vote on February 4th, 2006, to report Iran to Security Council—for refusing to stop their uranium enrichment programs. The US has been pushing for an IAEA report to the UN Security Council for several years while the Europeans tried to negotiate with the Iranians to halt their uranium enrichment program. The Iranians did halt the program for two years, but resumed production early this year.

The IAEA was encouraged to take this step not only by the US but by the E.U.-3 [France, Britain and Germany] as well as Russia and China. The IAEA report was prepared as a result of a series of visits to Iran by Dr. ElBaradei and other senior IAEA officials following allegations that Iran is completing two secret nuclear facilities—a uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and a heavy water production plant near Arak. The main source of concern in the report is “the number of failures by Iran to report the material, facilities and activities in question in a timely manner as it is obliged to do pursuant to its safeguards agreement of the Non-Proliferation Treat (NPT),” which Iran signed in 1970. The treaty allows them to pursue nuclear energy programs for domestic use but with the supervision and inspections of the IAEA. The pursuance of domestic nuclear energy includes uranium enrichment.

            Ritter sees this move as a strategic plan by the hawkish Bush Administration to proceed with plans to attack Iran and achieve regime change as they have done in two of its neighboring countries, Afghanistan and Iraq.

            “The IAEA has been under tremendous pressure by this administration to stand up to what they call the ‘Iranian Intransigence’ problem,” said Ritter. “But, unlike North Korea or India or Pakistan or Israel—none of whom have signed the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Arms Treaty— Iran is in complete compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty of which they are signatory. That is the only legally binding document that they are required to adhere to when it comes to nuclear programs, and they are in compliance. Iran has the legal right to enrich uranium in accordance with the treaty they signed.”

Furthermore, Ritter stated, “Iran voluntarily agreed to extra to additional protocol, not mandated by Non-Proliferation Treaty that allows the IAEA to conduct extraordinary inspections.” These inspections can be conducted twenty-four hours a day, at all facilities and without first notifying Iranian authorities of the inspection.

            Ritter’s comments were echoed by Phillis Bennis of the Institute of Policy Studies, a Washington think-tank, who put together a list of key points for people to keep in mind when considering the Iran nuclear weapons program question:

  • Escalating rhetoric, continued losses in Iraq, Bush’s political problems, and ideologically-driven pursuit of power make the possibility of a U.S. military attack on Iran—however reckless and however dangerous its consequences—a frighteningly real possibility.
  • Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Proliferation and has not violated the Treaty. While there appear to be unresolved issues regarding full transparency, its nuclear program, including enriching uranium, is perfectly legal under NPT requirements for non-nuclear weapons states.
  • Iran does not have nuclear weapons; even if it is trying to build a nuclear weapons program, it could not produce weapons for five to ten years or more.
  • There is a dangerous, unmonitored and provocative nuclear arsenal in the Middle East; it belongs to Israel, not Iran. U.S. hypocrisy and double standards in nuclear policy, accepting Israel’s unacknowledged nuclear arsenal and rewarding India’s nuclear weapons status while threatening war against Iran and denying its own obligations under the NPT, has undermined Washington’s claimed commitment to non-proliferation.– Phillis Bennis of the Institute of Policy Studies. [http://www.ips-dc.org/comment/Bennis/tp39newwar.htm]

            Although US intelligence agencies have stated that Iran is at best, ten years away from developing a nuclear weapons program, if in fact they have such an intent and could overcome technical obstacles—the statement by Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadineajad, that his country will continue to pursue uranium enrichment programs for domestic nuclear energy use, regardless of its having been reported to the United Nation’s Security Council by the IAEA—has only served to step up the tension between the Bush-led US administration and Iran.

In a bold move, but not an illegal one, Iran broke the IAEA seals off several of their enrichment facilities that are currently under construction. “They did that when the IAEA reported them to the UN Security Council,” explained Ritter. “It was an act of frustration because they are in complete compliance with the treaty they signed. And they’re afraid of what being referred to the Security Council, which is heavily influenced by the US, means. For them it is a precursor to what happened before the US invaded Iraq. But breaking the seals was not an illegal act. Those seals were on sites that were being subject to additional inspections the Iranians had volunteered the IAEA to conduct. Those additional protocols and inspections are non-binding.”

For the neo-conservatives bent on regime change in Iran, the newly elected President Mahmoud Ahmadineajad has been characterized as “the gift that keeps on giving.” The fundamentalist Islamic President, elected in June 2005—a shock to US, Israel and European Intelligence agencies— has made several inflammatory statements such as “Israel should be wiped off the face of the planet” and has called the extermination of six million Jews during the Second World War a “myth.” These fanatical statements have only served to further undermine Iran’s position in the minds of Western leaders.

So much so that President Bush, in a recent speech on the War on Terror at City Club of Cleveland on March 20th, 2006, said “The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That’s a threat, a serious threat. It’s a threat to world peace; it’s a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I’ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel.”

            On the same day that President Bush delivered these words to the City Club of Cleveland, President Ahmadineajad said that the West should apologize to Iran for accusing it of trying to develop a nuclear weapons program.

            In a televised speech to mark Nowruz, the Iranian New Year, the Iranian president said that Iran would continue to resist international pressure to halt its nuclear energy program. “Today they tell our nation that nuclear energy is a bad thing and it is not necessary for our people to have it,” said Ahmadinejad. “Those who head war and crimes accused Iranian nation of war seeking; they insulted our nation. I do advise them to apologize…they hope to earn some concessions from our nation by propaganda. Rest assured that if they continue their false propaganda, they will be regretful in future as they were in the past.”

Ahmadinejad repeatedly stressed that Iran would in no way give up their nuclear rights guaranteed to them as signatures of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. “Today we announce with pride that the peaceful knowledge and technology are at our disposal in order to be used for different purposes; including electricity generation, and we have not borrowed it from anybody that can take it away from us,” he said.

The Iranian president reiterated that it had, under pressure from the West, halted its uranium enrichment programs for two and a half years, beginning in 2003, when it entered into negotiation with the E.U.­­–3 to reach an agreed outline for its nuclear development. After those talks failed, Iran resumed its nuclear research and development programs early this year.

“I recommend to these few states to compensate the damage and apologize the great Iranian nation for the issue…and the countries better act in a way that they would have a position for Iranian nation’s friendship,” said Ahmadinejad.

Deja Vu

 On March 16th, 2006, The Bush Administration reaffirmed its 2002 National Security doctrine which allows the US to launch pre-emptive, unilateral and military strikes, if they feel that their national security is threatened by any terrorist organizations, nations that harbor terrorists, rogue states that they believe to be in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s) or believe to be in the process of developing WMD’s.

            Ritter’s frustration has grown exponentially since he first began his crusade in 2002 trying to let the American people know that Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction, no links to the events of 9/11 and that the president and his administration were exploiting the tragedy of 9/11 to move forward with their plans for “regime change” in Iraq. He repeatedly chastised the American people and particularly Congress for giving the President “carte blanche” to do “what he [and his administration] want, when they want to do it, regardless of the cost American lives, the American economy or the US’ international reputation.”

            Everything that Ritter, [who resigned as a chief UN weapon’s inspector in 1998 claiming that the CIA and US administration was subverting the UN inspectors’ attempts at disarmament] said leading up to the war has come true—that the intelligence used by the Bush administration to convince Congress and the American people that Saddam Hussein had hidden caches of WMD’s in Iraq—the main pre-text for the invasion—was false. The administration is again making the same claims about Iran, warning the world that Iran is on the verge of creating an “Islamic bomb,” that they could use, according to Bush, to “blackmail the world.” The newly adopted 2006 National Security policy, which accuses Iran of supporting terrorism, states that “We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran.”

            Yet, prior to the escalation of rhetoric claiming Iran as a grave nuclear threat to the world, President Bush gave instructions to the Pentagon, in October of 2004, to prepare plans for a massive, sustained aerial bombardment of Iran. These military instructions, coupled with the recent report by the IAEA to the Security Council on Iran’s refusal to stop their nuclear enrichment programs, and John Bolton’s [US Ambassador to the United Nation’s] recent claim that “Iran posed as great of a threat to the US as 9/11” echoes the chorus sung by the administration prior to the US invasion of Iraq.

            “Iran is permitted under the law to research and develop enriched Uranium for domestic nuclear energy use,” said Ritter. “In addition to that, they have agreed to additional inspections. So what has Iran been found guilty of? Not being able to prove it does not have a nuclear weapons program. The IAEA can’t say it does or does not have one. Iran is being forced to prove a negative. The EU-3 [France, Britain and Germany] has been pushing Iran to suspend its enrichment research and development. They have refused. But the world is making a special case of Iran and Iran alone—way beyond what the non-proliferation treaty establishes is acceptable.”

            For many, it makes perfect sense that Iran would want to pursue a domestic nuclear energy program so that it could lessen its consumption of oil and save those natural reserves for the global market where they can sell it for the most economic profit.

            Asked whether he believes Iran has any nuclear weapons capability at this point, Ritter, who is currently working on a forthcoming book with the working title of Targeting Iran due out in September of 2006, said, “They are on step 3 of a 12 step process. As I said repeatedly in regards to Iraq, Iran also poses no national security threat to the United States. As a former chief weapons inspector for the United Nations I have no information on Iran’s nuclear weapon’s program because my mission was to inspect and disarm Iraq. But as an informed citizen with close ties to people in the Iranian Government, in the American Intelligence agencies, Israeli officials—there is nothing in Iran that can be called a nuclear weapon program”

            According to Ritter, “Iran is not yet capable of enriching uranium. It has not solved the problem. It has not mastered centrifuge technology [which is used to spin the uranium at high speeds to enrich it.] These pre-cursor steps have a dual-use. They are the same pre-cursor steps used to develop nuclear energy and to develop nuclear arms. The US and Israel are speculating that these pre-cursor steps will be used for nuclear arms down the road, but they offer no proof.”

            Iranians chose the centrifuge technology known as a P-2 design which they purchased from Pakistan. They have currently reported that they are running tests that put 164 centrifuges together to create a “cascade.” Centrifuges, which are spun at high speeds to separate out the enriched uranium and then take that enriched uranium and re-spin it again and again through this “cascade” to produce high-level uranium—are temperamental machines, prone to breakdown sorts of technical problems. “The Iranians haven’t perfected this yet. First they have to learn to create 20 percent grade uranium which is what’s needed for nuclear energy use. Then they’d have to create a very sophisticated centrifuge cascade system to enrich it to 80 percent grade, which is what is needed for nuclear arms,” said Ritter. Another dangerous technique the Iranians would have to master would be to turn concentrated uranium ore, or “yellow-cake” into uranium hexafluoride, the toxic gas fed into the centrifuges for enrichment. “This is a very dangerous process that the Iranians are trying to perfect to create pure UF-6,” said Ritter, noting that this is being attempted outside of Isfahan.

            Again, Ritter argued that even if Iran solves the problem, “none of what we’re talking about is illegal. If they can successfully create highly enriched uranium that doesn’t mean they have a nuclear weapon!”

            Ritter went on to talk about the complexities of nuclear arms technology that requires metal spheres and collapsible spheres and detonators…”none of which are happening now. This is so far removed from reality [the idea that Iran is close to having nuclear arms capability] that it is just absurd.”

            Another point Ritter brought home both in his interview with the New Paltz Nation and with an overflowing audience at the SUNY New Paltz Campus on March 16th, was the presence of Molybdenum— a steel alloy and metallic element—that is often found in uranium ore, particularly in Iran’s indigenous uranium ore..  “If they were to convert their uranium to yellow cake, UF4 grade and then create a gas US6, put it into a centrifuge cascade, and create 90 percent weapons grade uranium the uranium is heavily contaminated with molybdenum. If they try to spin that uranium, with the molybdenum in it, the centrifuges will be contaminated, clogged and unable to work. But where do you read this? Instead you read that the President is prepared to bomb Iran because of its ‘secret nuclear weapons program’ that is, by conservative estimates, ten years away from becoming a reality, if all the engineering and luck is on their side.”

Iran decided instead to purchase 100 kilograms of uranium or “yellow-cake” for testing purposes from China—which is not nearly enough to create even one nuclear arm,” said Ritter. “If there were legitimate concerns about Iran developing the technology to create nuclear arms in the future, an intent that has not been voiced or proven, then the way to control that would to stop the flow of uranium ore from whatever country they chose to purchase it from if they were found in violation of the IAEA’s enforcement of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

“But all of this is irrelevant,” reiterated Ritter. “Because the US is not interested in Non-proliferation or nuclear disarmament. If they were, then why did President Bush just visit India and give them a pass on their nuclear arms program. They have not signed the Non-proliferations treaty yet Bush decided to separate their nuclear arms program from their nuclear energy program and to encourage Congress to provide India with the nuclear technology and support they need for their domestic program. That is a slap in the face to the IAEA and to the entire notion of disarmament. What the US wants in Iran is not the suspension of uranium enrichment but regime change which they have no backed away from.”

Questionable Intelligence

            In fact, it is important to be mindful of where the reports on Iran’s supposed nuclear weapons program came from. The intelligence which alerted the IAEA, that Iran was in the process of construction a nuclear-fuel production plant in Natanz and a heavy-water plant for the extraction of plutonium, in Arak, came from the MEK (Mujahideen-e Khalq, or “People’s Mujahideen.”) the activist arm of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI.)

The MEK has been on the US State Department Terrorist List since 1997. They were created in 1965 as part of a Soviet-sponsored international terrorist network that waged wars of “national liberation” throughout the developing world. The MEK is considered by the Human Rights Watch group to be an “urban guerilla group,” and has had a long, bloody, terrorist history since its formulation in 1965. This history includes, among many things, lending its support to the Khomeini revolution, including the seizure of American hostages in October 1979. But it was purged from Khomeini’s regime in 1981 and its leadership was driven into exile in France where they were again expelled from that country in 1986.

            They then helped to support Saddam Hussein’s regime in the Iran/Iraq war against Iran. In fact, President Bush pointed to the very existence of the MEK in Iraq as proof that Hussein’s regime “sponsors and harbors terrorists.” Now suddenly, these same terrorists are the main suppliers of intelligence on Iran’s “secret nuclear weapons” program.  According to the International Policy Committee’s (IPC—a high-powered beltway think-tank composed of prominent diplomats and military representatives) report US Policy Options for Iran, published approximately a year ago, claims that the MEK has “an impressive network in Iran, where it has been gathering intelligence on Iran’s nuclear weapons program as well as its activities in Iraq.”

            The Bush administration proudly points to the NCRI/MEK as being solely responsible for uncovering vital evidence of Iran’s secret nuclear weapons program. “Iran has concealed its…nuclear program,” stated President Bush during a July 16, 2005, White House press conference. “That became discovered, not because of their compliance with the IAEA, but because a dissident group pointed it out to the world and raised suspicions about the intentions of this program,” said Bush.

            The MEK has been lobbying hard to get off the Terrorist List and to be considered as a potential replacement for the current Iranian regime. They are one of many dissident groups fighting to become the next Ahmad Chalabi and INC [Iraq’s International Congress, heavily funded by the US government for intelligence it provided on Iraq.]

            The MEK rhetoric to liberate Iran echoes that of Chalabi and the INC prior to the invasion of Iraq—that of a dissident group with strong ties to the people of Iran, that once the regime is toppled will rise up and be supported by the masses—similar to President Bush’s characterization that the war in Iraq would be a cakewalk.

The MEK is quoted by the Human Rights Watch as saying, “We will not be fighting alone; we will have the people on our side. They are tired of this regime, and…they have every incentive to get rid of it forever. We will only have to act as their shields, protecting them from being easy targets for the [revolutionary] guards [Iran’s most sophisticated military branch.] Wherever we go there will be masses of citizens joining us, and the prisoners we liberate from jails will help us lead them towards victory. It will be like an avalanche, growing as it progresses.”

There are those who believe, including Ritter, that it was the Israeli government that provided the intelligence to the MEK. “That intelligence came from Israel,” said Ritter. “It couldn’t come to the international community through Israel because of their obvious stake in claiming Iran as a nuclear threat to themselves and the world. It couldn’t come through the US because of their botched intelligence record leading up to the Iraq invasion. It had to come through someone else. Who better than a dissident group trying to be the INC equivalent of Iran’s ‘government in exile?’

The MEK is not viable on a national level in Iran. They are a terrorist organization, a cult of approximately 20,000 to 30,000 who are absolutely reviled, hated by the Iranian people. They helped fight the war on Iraq’s side against Iran!”

Ritter also expressed skepticism of the announcement Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice made at her appearance before the Foreign Relations Committee, just two weeks after the IAEA report to the SC, where she stated that the State Department was asking Congress for supplemental funding to increase pressure on the Iranian regime by expanding radio and television broadcasting into Iran and helping political dissidents. The proposal? A stunning increase from $3.5 million last year to $85 million this year.

            “They’re making the same mistake they did in Iraq,” said Ritter shaking his head. “They are going for a regime change with no workable plan as to who will replace the mullahs. They imagine that radio broadcasts and television that reaches the Iranian people—somehow—will cause the people to rise up, embrace Democracy and overthrow the mullahs. This is absurd. They have a population two and a half times the size of Iraq, a much more substantial military operation and a radically diverse population.”

Even Iranian dissidents with such visceral hatred of the Mullahs, like Abbas Milani [who was affiliated with a Maoist underground group and was sentenced to prison for a year in 1976—and was later expelled from an Iranian University teaching post by the mullahs] has repeatedly told US officials that military strikes against Iran are not the way to go.

In a recent article in the New Yorker, “Next Stop Iran” by Connie Bruck, Milani said he told US officials at the State Department and from the National Security Counsel when he met with them this fall that “If there was a military attack on Iran, it would play into the narrative of the West as the aggressor, and all of these radical Islamists would be strengthened.”

            Milani’s sentiments have been repeated by a wide-range of European officials, including those from China, Russia, Germany and the Iranian Nobel Prize Winner, Shirin Ebadi who has urged the US to “reject military action and to support democratic change from within Iran.”

            Wolfgang Ischinger, Germany’s Ambassador to the United States stated recently that “We believe there is no good military option,” he said. “At best, military strikes would only delay things, and at worst inflame the Middle East further and make it totally impossible to have a meaningful diplomatic effort…talk about military options is more likely to drive people into the arms of the mullahs.”

If military strikes were launched, Iran’s options for retaliation would be numerous, including: conventional military retaliation, terrorists attacks, military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan and disruption of oil supplies.

A Potential US Military Plan against Iran

When Ritter was asked what he believes the military plan of action would be if the US decided to pre-emptively strike Iran, he responded: “Well, I haven’t been invited to the Pentagon lately so I can’t say with absolute certainty what battle plan would be,” said the former Marine and permanent skin-irritant to the neo-conservative Pentagon and Defense Department officials. 

“But let’s just walk through the various components that would have to exist. First of all we have to deal with realities. We have 138,000 troops in Iraq; we have a couple thousand in Afghanistan, and other places. Basically, to fight global war on terror we have fourteen combat brigades equivalent to fight war employed globally. Fourteen just came back from deployment in process of refitting. Fourteen brigades preparing to go and replace brigades that have just been deployed. That’s all we’ve got! We’ve got nothing left! And none of what I’ve said incorporates a possible war with Iran.”

According to Ritter, the US does not have the ground forces to invade Iran and the administration is well aware of their own limitation when it comes to ground forces which led the President, in October of 2004 to give the Pentagon instructions to create a plan for sustained aerial bombardment of Iran.

“We can’t just snap our fingers produce combat brigade equivalents,” said Ritter. “We have a finite number. Which means, we’d have to extend the fourteen we already have in place. Surge forward the fourteen brigades preparing to replace the ones that would have to be extended to fight in Iran because they’re going to engage. That’s our depth—fourteen. If we don’t have quick victory in Iran—which we won’t— eventually the 14 brigades that are engaged in Iran would need to be replaced. Replaced by what? We don’t have forces to do it and the Pentagon is fully aware of this. Any war in Iran is not going to have heavy ground component. War in Iran according to President’s instructions given to the Pentagon October 2004 president…he ordered the Pentagon to prepare plans for a massive sustained aerial bombardment of Iran. The goal not to just retard Iran’s nuclear research and development capability but also to carry out what they call ‘decapitation’ attacks. That means that the would attack security establishments, governmental establishments, national security and  command establishments to neutralize them—creating the  opportunity for the people in Iran rise up and overthrow the regime of the mullahs. This is the strategic plan of the US!

If this hypothetical aerial campaign does not succeed, and according to Ritter, “not many people believe that it will succeed,” the First Gulf War veteran believes that “the Military is prepared to surge two division equivalents from Azerbaijan to outskirts of Tehran,” where he says sarcastically, “the mere presence of American combat forces in the suburbs of Iran’s capitol city will somehow encourage Iranians to cease resisting the American invader, rise up against the regime of the Mullahs.”

Furthermore, he added, “A division equivalent of Marines is likely to seize city of Bandar Abbas, and to secure the Strait of Hormuz, [the entrance to the Persian Gulf from the Indian Ocean] to continue flowing oil out. This assumes that the Iranians are totally compliant and won’t fire their silkworm missiles or any combat soirees or shahab-3 missiles that would neutralize the Kuwaiti oil fields, Saudi Arabia’s oil fields—thereby denying global oil economy of the fuel they need to survive.”

            The global economic threat military strikes against Iran poses are enormous. As the world’s fourth largest producer of oil—the global economy depends on Iranian supply of petroleum—particularly China. The US does not purchase oil from Iran. However, if Iranian oil supply were to be disrupted, that would force China to purchase oil from the same market as the US—a  situation which many economic experts believe could raise the price of petroleum to $100 or $200 a barrel. Following the war in Iraq and the catastrophe of Hurricane Katrina, the US consumers saw a hike in gas-prices to almost $3 a gallon. This spike in gas costs to the average American consumer was particularly difficult to swallow when the countries major fuel corporations—Exxon, Shell and others were posting record profits in the billions.

The bottom line, according to Ritter is that “We don’t have conventional military power available to guarantee a victory because victory is contingent on Iranian people rising up and agreeing to shed the mullahs.”

            If the Iranians, which the administration believes just needs a push to overthrow the Islamist government, doesn’t play by the script then Ritter and other critics of a pre-emptive war in Iran believe that “We will find ourselves in a rapidly devolving situation which will mandate immediate, decisive intervention. What I told you about ground forces is so true so dire…if we commit to Iran and we don’t achieve victory we will have basically stripped our nation’s ability to defend itself. If the North Koreans so much as burp have nothing to respond which means we will have to extricate ourselves from Iran rapidly.”

This, according to Ritter sets up a deadly scenario where the Bush administration can use, without the authorization of Congress, its “usable nuclear weapons.” According to a 2003 Senate decision, a new generation of nuclear weapons called “low-yield” or “mini-nukes” are now considered safe for civilians because they explode underground and are less than 5000 tons. Estimates of yield for Nagasaki and Hiroshima indicate they were respectively of 21,000 and 15,000 tons (http://www.warbirdforum.com/hiroshim.htm)

 “This is a doctrine already adopted where the administration has the authority to pre-emptively use of nuclear weapons in a non-nuclear environment,” said Ritter. “If we engage in Iran with no chance of victory, we are placed directly into this situation. We are no longer talking about using nuclear weapons against a nuclear threat. We are talking about using nuclear weapons in a non-nuclear environment—are you scared yet? We’re going ladies and gentlemen. This administration has left no other course of action open. They have already committed to a military solution and there is no solution.”

While Ritter believes that the administration is laying the political and domestic groundwork for a pre-emptive strike against Iran, he also believes that the administration will hold off until after the November 2006 national elections.

“As with Iraq, Iran today does not pose a national security threat to USA. Therefore not driven by national security timelines—meaning that Iran poses a threat we have to deal with immediately like Japanese striking Pearl Harbor where we’d have to strike back immediately—but there is no Pearl Harbor. There is no threat from Iran whatsoever just like there was no threat from Iraq. This is about right-wing ideologues who have embarked on a vision how American interfaces with world. This vision was set out in the National Security policy of 2002 which was just given the good housekeeping stamp of approval in 2006.”

What does this mean? Well, according to Ritter, any pre-emptive attacks on Iran will follow a political/domestic timeline and not a National Security timeline.

 “The ideologues have divided the world up into spheres of National Security interest where we can strike, if a threat is perceived, pre-emptively ,unilaterally, militarily, ignoring all International Law,” he said. “Basically our National Security doctrine states that we can strike anywhere we want any time we want without upholding international laws and without the permission of Congress. So any conflict with Iran is one that would be on a domestic/political timeline. We will strike when it is convenient for those ideologues who wish to implement this policy of world dominance. I’m not in the mind of a Karl Rove or David Carr or those who advise the President. If I was, I would say to him, ‘Mr. President, this is not the time to go fourth. We’re winning. We got Iran referred to the UN Security  Council, those stupid Russians and Chinese think they can kick it back to Vienna. Well they can’t.’ You see, we’ve referred Iran to the UN Security Council not because we expect them to do something but because we know the SC won’t do anything. This gives John Bolton the opportunity to give a speech that he’s already written [Ritter claims to have spoken with Bolton’s speech writer] in June, 2005. ‘You, the UN Security Council, having received acknowledgement from the IAEA that Iran poses a national security threat, have done nothing. You are either unwilling or unable to stand up to Iran. The USA will not allow national security to be hijacked by ineffective body. We have the right to defend our national security by acting preemptively, unilaterally and militarily.’”

The Next Step

The Security Council, which is currently stymied on the IAEA report on Iran, and failed to reach an accord this past Tuesday on how to respond to Iran’s nuclear programs— has two options. It can release a non-binding statement from the SC President, or it can issue a resolution. A resolution, which carries more weight, would require nine votes in favor and no veto from any of the five permanent members. The five permanent members are the US, Britain, France, China and Russia.

Although China and Russia, in a rare support of global unity, did agree with the US and the E.U.-3 to refer the IAEA report to the Security Council—they have come out in support of solving the Iran nuclear program through peaceful negotiations rather than sanctions or military actions. In fact, Russia has offered to enrich the uranium for Iran to be used in its domestic nuclear energy facilities. Iran has not accepted this offer.

If Russia and China did not use their veto authority, which is unlikely, then the SC could support a resolution demanding Iran cease its’ enrichment program by invoking Chapter V11 of the U.N. Charter. Chapter V11 provisions can call for either economic sanctions, military enforcement of the resolution or both. 

But, we have to remember that the Bush administration tried this tactic before the war with Iraq. The SC did not pass a resolution in favor of military action and the US disregarded the lack of UN support and went ahead with the invasion with the support of Britain. This aggressive move, in violation of International Law, created enormous criticism from France, Germany, Russia and China.

“You see the ball is in our court,” said Ritter. “Just by having the IAEA report Iran to the SC was enough. We can now play that card any time we want. When are we gong to play it? Before November 2006?  Too risky. War in Iran is not going to be won quickly and will have immediate dire consequences. So why go to war in Iran when it will result in extreme negative press on the eve of the invasion, prior to our national elections when the Republicans already have other issues to contend with? My guess is that the Republicans will play it safe—let the 2006 elections come and go. You will start to see the Iran hype build up in late fall into the winter and will likely see action in the spring 2007. Unless we the sheep of American, otherwise known as The People, stand up and do something, elect new members to congress and the house and work to change the course of action, we’re going to war with Iran! It has already been decided on in Washington.”

Currently Russia and China are trying to negotiate any forthcoming statements or resolutions from the Security Council to empower the IAEA to play the lead role in clearing up suspicions over Iran’s nuclear intentions. Secretary of Defense, Rice has said publicly this past week that “there can’t be any stalling” on the forthcoming SC statement or resolution. China and Russia are still trying to negotiate and have thus far refused to sign a strong statement rebuking Tehran—trying instead to send the issue back to Vienna where the world’s nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, could begin to investigate suspicions and strengthen their inspections on Iran’s enrichment programs.

Iran has contested many times over the past several years and the past several weeks and days that it has a right to pursue nuclear energy, that they are pursuing it for peaceful means and simply as a way to supply energy to their citizens.

Ritter on the MSM, Congress and the November 2006 National Elections

While Ritter referred to what he sees as an enormous journalistic failure in regards to the lead-up to the War in Iraq and again with the recent tensions surrounding Iran, he urged that American citizens take their education of these matters into their own hands.

“The mainstream media has failed and failed egregiously in their charge to serve the American public. But I don’t give them all the blame. I don’t want to be beholden to the New York Times or to CNN or FOX News, particularly FOX News,” he joked. “If the New York Times fails or CNN fails, then I fail. That’s a cop-out. I refuse to accept that the only way we can function as an informed society is if we are spoon-fed by main stream media and their corporate backers. At the end of the day, we are responsible for educating ourselves and there are plenty of good, alternative news sources available to us. What we need is the will. As an American People we have lost our will. Most of us can’t point to Iran, can’t name its capitol city, don’t know what language its people speak or its basic history and culture. Yet we know all of the baseball and March Madness stats. We know Derek Jeter’s slugging average. If we can spend the time to create stat sheets and memorize all of the key players involved in March Madness then we can certainly take the time to educate ourselves on national and foreign policy. If we don’t, then we will continue to allow this President and the neo-conservative ideologues that surround him to lead us into another deadly, costly, and illegal war.”

            Noting, that with the exception of Congressman Maurice Hinchey of the 22nd District of New York and a handful of other House of Representative members, “This congress has completely abrogated its Constitutional responsibility to serve as the check and balance on the executive branch. You’re [the people gathered at SUNY New Paltz] have Congressman Hinchey who is one of the most progressive Congressmen the Country has and who has always been against this war. But you also have Senator’s Clinton [Hillary Rodham D-NY] and Schumer [Charles D-NY] who voted for the war and whose positions in regards to the executive branch are the antithesis of Hinchey’s.”

            Ritter, a registered Republican, said that he certainly didn’t have all of the answers but that people should start by reading or re-reading the Constitution, register to vote or register others, and usher in a new Congress come this November during the National Elections.

            “Our National virility used to be defined by the power of our ideas and our knowledge. Now we are a nation whose virility is defined by its military power. That fits the classic definition of fascism—when power is concentrated in the hands of a few and when that power has access to the military resources we do without proper congressional oversight or international oversight.”

Go Back to News.