Capturing the spy drone foils US war rhetoric on Iran

By Seyfeddin Kara


The prowling Beast of Kandahar that roared but did not scare its clever captors. It appears that the rising level of sophistication of the Islamic resistance is an unexpected but timely development: when a superior adversary is routinely surprised by its inferiors, then parity is not far behind.



One of the most striking events in post-Revolutionary Iranian history unfolded in early December 2011 when Iranian state TV showed a captured RQ-170 Sentinel, the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) used by the US for spying. It is one of the most sophisticated planes in the US arsenal and had been kept largely hidden from public eye in order to not risk its top secret spy missions. Until now, only a grainy photo taken at Qandahar airbase in 2009 was seen. The photo created a myth around the Sentinel due to its bizarre shape and speculation about its myriad capabilities were widely circulated to project it as something awesome hence its nickname, the “Beast of Kandahar”.
That is why the world was shocked — the Americans even more so as victims of their own propaganda — when they saw images of the very “beast”, tamed and put on display by its new masters in Iran. The display scenery was carefully prepared by the Revolutionary Guards to mark the significance of the occasion and to gain the upperhand in the on-going cold war with the US. A banner hoisted next to the Sentinel depicted a memorable quote in Farsi from the late Imam Khomeini: “The US cannot do a damn thing.” The Imam had made the statement in the face of US threats of a military attack during occupation of the US Embassy in Tehran by revolutionary students. The embassy was little more than a den of spies, as the Iranians quickly dubbed it, from which were captured thousands of secret documents exposing the Americans’ illegal activities and their links with agents in Iran. The Imam’s memorable statement was later turned into a slogan of the Islamic Revolution and repeated on many occasions.


However, words do not have much effect without action and perhaps that is why the quote had never had so much impact until it was proclaimed on a banner next to the captured US spy plane. Capture of the Sentinel in almost perfect condition caused huge embarrassment, not to mention problems, for the US. Not surprisingly, Washington attempted to play down the significance of the capture of its top of the line spy plane by Iran. Initially, US officials only admitted they had lost an unmanned drone but insisted it was over Afghanistan. They denied it was brought down by the Iranians stating instead “malfunction” had caused its loss. In contrast to the US story, Iranian officials announced they had captured the plane on December 4, some 140 miles inside Iranian territory from the Afghan border.


Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi finally announced Iran’s technological victory over the US: “Regardless of whether the US believes it or not, the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran brought down the aircraft largely intact without assistance from any foreign country.” This was perhaps the biggest single blow that directly smashed US war propaganda that has been going on since its occupation of Iraq in 2003. Hitherto, Iran had had only moderate successes against covert US operations to destabilize the Islamic Republic. These included capturing a major CIA operative, Abdolmalek Rigi who had launched deadly attacks against Revolutionary Guards for several years; breaking US spy rings and capturing a number of CIA operatives inside the country both last May as well as more recently when Iranian television on December 18 showed Amir Mirzaei Hekmati, the CIA spy. Hekmati is of Iranian origin and was trained for nearly a decade by the CIA to penetrate Iran. He came under the Iranian intelligence radar when he was sent to the notorious Bagram Airbase in Afghan-istan from where he was sent into Iran. The US government had the gall to ask for his return. Hekmati’s capture dovetailed that of the drone spy plane.


According an article in the Christian Science Monitor quoting from a European intelligence source, Iran shocked Western intelligence agencies, sometime in last two years when it managed to “blind” a CIA spy satellite by “aiming a laser burst quite accurately.” But none of the previous operations, impressive as they were, matched the significance of the capture of the RQ-170 spy plane in near perfect condition. It was a game changer and has made great impact in several aspects.
Rhetoric of War


While the last active duty US troops left Iraq on December 15, a full two weeks before the stipulated deadline of December 31, 2011, many commentators still cannot fathom why the US invaded Iraq in March 2003. There was no imminent threat to US interests from a badly weakened Saddam regime; it was widely known that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction, duly confirmed by UN Weapons Inspectors, yet the US invaded the country. The US ended up spending nearly one trillion dollars directly on the eight-year war and suffered 4,500 war dead (the actual cost when payments to injured soldiers and other related items are included, it climbs to nearly $4 trillion). Indeed it also caused irreparable damage to US reputation in the world due to the murder of more than 1.5 million Iraqis and the torture inflicted on many in Abu Ghraib Prison.


Yet the US did not benefit from lucrative contracts to exploit the vast oil resources of Iraq, as was anticipated prior to the invasion. The occupation of Afghanistan should also be taken into account. It has also cost the US dearly, in terms of manpower and economic loss. It was not initially clear why the US had embarked on such a disastrous course but subsequent events have shown that the US had its eyes on the bigger prize: Iran, the sole obstacle to US-Israeli domination of the Muslim East. During the US’s 10-year occupation of Afghanistan, which is ongoing, an unprecedented political, military and intelligence effort was launched to destabilize Iran and pave the way for regime change through supporting their agents inside Iran. This was augmented by threats of air strikes on the Islamic Republic’s power sources as well as nuclear installation. The US used every opportunity to try and weaken Iran.



However, thanks to the support of the Iranian masses, robust deterrence of the armed forces and the handy work of Iranian intelligence, all such US attempts have failed. Realizing that regime change is not an option in Iran anymore, Washington is now going for the second best option: containment of Iran’s influence in the region. The US has shifted its war policy to increasing economic and political isolation of Iran, which would be reinforced through heightened rhetoric of war to exert psychological pressure on Iran. According to this thinking an anxious Iran will be forced to focus on its own security unable to exert influence in the face of regional developments, especially during the post-US occupation era.





Capturing the “beast” turns the tables


The drone is a perfect tool for spying on countries that have a credible air defence system. The drone uses stealth technology to evade radar detection, can fly at extremely high altitudes and can stay in the air for prolonged periods of time to gather intelligence. The Sentinel has multiple state of the art sensors; it can intercept communications in the area as well take air samples to keep a close eye on Iran’s nuclear program. More importantly it has a psychological effect on the targeted countries since the aircraft can violate their airspace at will and capture images of their most heavily guarded secret installations without facing any resistance.


But the Revolutionary Guards have been preparing themselves for capturing the “beast”. They mastered their knowledge of the drone collected from previously downed US drones, and bought some equipment from the Russians. Moscow had delivered the Avtobaza ground-based electronic intelligence and jamming system to Iran three months ago. It is designed to jam side-looking and fire control radars on aircraft and manipulate the guidance and control systems of incoming enemy missiles. Combining their knowledge, skills and creativity with Russian equipment they set up an ambush to catch the prize.


When the Sentinel trespassed into Iranian air space, Iranian specialists first jammed the aircraft communications and forced it to switch to autopilot. On autopilot, the Sentinel is programmed to follow GPS signals to navigate to its home base. It is well known by the Pentagon that the GPS navigations were the weakest point of the UAVs as they are prone to manipulation. Iranians were also aware of this and exploited the simple weakness without having to crack the remote-control signals and communications from the US control centre. Once the plane was on autopilot, the Iranian experts sent their signals from the ground and manipulated the drone’s GPS coordinates to make it land at a nearby Iranian airbase that has similar coordinates to the drone’s home airbase in Afghanistan. This way the drone’s computer assumed it was actually landing at its home base in Afghanistan. This is why the self-destruct mechanism of the drone did not work.


The Russians provided the Avtobaza system to Saddam Husain before the US invasion but they could not make good use of it. Even the Russians themselves could not use the system effectively during the war with Georgia in 2008 as they were helpless against Israeli-supplied Georgian drones and suffered casualties due to information provided by these drones. With their achievement, the Iranian electronic warfare units have gained great respect in the world. But more importantly, Iran has foiled the US war rhetoric by showing that Iranian airspace is not a park for US or Israeli planes. They have advanced technology to detect stealth aircraft, and capability to disable them through jamming.


The US air warfare doctrine has been built upon using satellite guided missiles for attacking enemy targets. By bringing down the drone, which had a more sophisticated satellite navigation system, the Iranians have shown they have the capability to control advanced US missiles in midair and perhaps re-direct them against US targets. Further, once Iranian specialists decipher the drone’s codes they will be able read the data stored in its computer on possible targets marked out by the US. Hence they will know the mind of the enemy. Marking out these targets was a result of a long and arduous process for the CIA; the Iranians can either replace the position of these targets now or reinforce the defence around these areas. This of course would make a US airstrike too risky if not impossible.


By capturing the drone Iran has turned the tables in its psychological war with the US. The US might still continue its belligerent war mongering but everyone and most importantly the Iranians know that US threats of war are a lot of hot air.

Islamic Iran’s determined self-assertion and self-sufficiency

The Islamic Republic’s successful test in late May of a medium-range, solid-fuel missile diminishes Tel Aviv’s potential threat to the Islamic East. This should be the conviction of all Islamic observers, whether they are totally involved in or operating at the periphery of the global Islamic movement. This development coupled with the progressive power-increase of the Islamic State could either cement or crack the American-Israeli duet.

The US Secretary of War Robert M. Gates commenting on the Sejjil-2 surface-to-surface missile’s range as being about 1,200 to 1,500 miles said “it was a successful flight test.”



The Sejjil-2 missile can be launched more quickly and with a shorter warning time than a liquid-fuel missile. Liquid fuel rockets are more vulnerable to preemptive strikes because it takes hours or even days to fuel them. Insiders say that this is the first time Islamic Iran successfully launched a solid-fuel missile of this range. Solid fuel rockets can be launched with greater frequency and are more mobile. The advantage of solid fuel is that it can be put on a truck and driven around or even stored in a cave, according to one expert on the subject.
Another technical breakthrough for the self-reliant military industry in Islamic Iran is that it was a two-stage missile. Such a rocket can go farther because it jettisons some of its weight in mid-flight. A country has to develop a two-stage system in order to build intercontinental ballistic missile systems.

Whether or not the timing of this launch had anything to do with the June 12th presidential elections in Iran is anyone’s guess. If members of the Islamic movement were to vote in the upcoming presidential elections, the overwhelming majority would vote for president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who has been fearlessly breaking diplomatic ice and political new ground for this type of military industry to proceed at full strength and intensity.



The Israeli crowd is nervous and their Zionist supporters are on edge, watching the only Islamic political orientation in the world acquire war technology at a pace that challenges the Zionist and imperialist schemes within the “house of Islam.” Imperialist talk about countering Iran with a buildup of missile sites in Europe is a distraction from the real policies of Washington and Tel Aviv: the beefing-up of military bases in Asia.

From now on, Washington’s political class should know that acquisition of weapons and weapon-systems by an Islamic State is for the security of Muslim peoples, and that the time when militant supporters of Zionism could flash their military credentials as the bullies on the block is coming to an end. Tel Aviv’s nuclear arsenal and the means to deliver will no longer go unchallenged. And this is only the beginning. It should be clear that a nuclear-armed Israel with deliverable weapons systems is the reason and has always been the reason for an arms race in the Islamic East.



Israel reacted to this development by saying that Europe and the United States should share Israel’s goal of stopping Iran’s missile program. Therefore it only makes sense for the Islamic world to say back to Israel: all the Muslims share Islamic Iran’s goal of checking Israel’s military hegemony in the region.

Israel’s Deputy Foreign minister Danny Ayalon, ever anxious to bring the US into the picture, said, “Israel believes that Iran is also trying to develop a ballistic missile with a range of 6,250 miles, which could reach the United States!”

The Islamic Republic of Iran has not forgotten the war lessons of the past 30 years: hot wars and cold wars, psychological warfare and economic warfare… And true to its Islamic nature and future it builds its military might to defend against all enemies: domestic and foreign. The regimes in the Arabian countries have recently joined the chorus of a “Persian nuclear threat.” We think they are still in deep slumber but their Zionist and imperialist masters are trying to scare them by painting a nightmare scenario of a nuclear Iran. Nuclear Israel has never been of any concern to these heads-and-butts of state. Nor were they alarmed or intimidated by an Israel that hides its nuclear arsenal from the public eye but which these rulers are well aware of. Now all of a sudden Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and even minuscule Jordan are thinking about going nuclear! There must be something very Islamic about Iran that has caused the Zionists and the Arabian political hypocrites to embrace each other. Voices are heard now in the West saying that for the first time since the creation of the Zionist nation-state, “Jews” and “Arabs” see eye to eye concerning the strategic threat a nuclear Iran would present. The truth is beginning to come out — that Arabian leaders say one thing to their friends and something quite different to their enemies.



Let us make one thing very clear, the regimes in the Islamic world are companions of Zionism and imperialism, while the peoples in the Islamic world are supporters of the Islamic leadership in Iran. President Ahmadinejad may not be all that popular in the elitist and upper crust ranks of Iranian and Arabian societies but he is very popular throughout the Muslim and oppressed worlds. When he took to the podium at the Durban II anti-racism conference in Switzerland in April and spoke words of honesty and certainty about the Zionist regime, he captured the hearts of Muslims everywhere. Some Muslims came to realize that president Ahmadinejad, who is not a Palestinian, said what Mahmud ‘Abbas knew but would not dare utter. Ahmadinejad, who is not an Arabian, said what all other Arabian rulers knew but would not dare to say either. Many individuals when they heard an Islamic head of state pronounce the truth about Zionism said: He makes me feel proud of being a Muslim. Others in Arab countries said: When I heard him speak, even though I am an Arab, I wished I were a Persian! (This of course is no nationalist statement, it simply says that finally a Persian speaking person spoke the truth that no Arabian president or king could speak at such an international conference).

This man comes from the generation that suffered the brunt of war — in all its horrible manifestations. Along with him are millions of others who lived through an American-Zionist imposed war on their own country — for no other reason than the desire to be an Islamic country. How can this war-hardened generation have any confidence in imperialist and Zionist officials who are still incapable of confessing their political sins and their war crimes?

Pity the individuals and officials in Islamic Iran who have lost sight of imperialism and Zionism. Pity some ex-revolutionaries who regret their anti-imperialist past and have an earnest and strong desire to let imperialist bygones be bygones and want to live and let live with the imperialist shaytan. Meanwhile, the shaytani officials in Washington and its sister city Tel Aviv are thinking war, planning war, and preparing for war against any Islamic self-determination anywhere in the world.

Twenty years after Imam Khomeini passed on to heavenly company, some officials in Islamic Iran are still true to their Imam while others have found their secular, sectarian, or money-making escape routes away from him. Muslims beware: a Mu‘awiyah lurks beneath the surface.

Fmr. UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter Warns Against “Politically Motivated Hype” on Iran Nuke Program

Fmr. UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter Warns Against “Politically Motivated Hype” on Iran Nuke Program
Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter joins us to discuss what he calls “politically motivated hype” over Iran’s nuclear program. The Obama administration has warned of sanctions unless Iran allows inspections of a newly disclosed nuclear site. Iran insists the site has been used for peaceful purposes. The row comes just after Iran’s test-firing of medium- and long-range missiles and before Iranian officials are due to hold talks with the US and five other nations in Geneva.
Guest:
Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991-1998. He is author of Iraq Confidential and Target Iran and the forthcoming Dangerous Ground: America’s Failed Arms Control Policy from FDR to Obama. His latest article in the UK Guardian newspaper is Keeping Iran Honest.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Iran test-fired two long-range missiles Monday, just days before Iranian officials are due to meet with the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany to discuss a range of issues, including its nuclear program. Western powers condemned the Iranian test as “provocative” and “deeply destabilizing.” Iranian officials said the missiles were tested as part of an annual military drill and bore, quote, “no connection whatsoever with the nuclear program.”
Monday’s missile tests follow Iran’s disclosure last week of a second uranium enrichment plant.. On Friday morning, President Obama, along with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, accused Iran of building a secret nuclear fuel plant.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Good morning. We are here to announce that yesterday in Vienna, the United States, the United Kingdom and France presented detailed evidence to the IAEA demonstrating that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been building a covert uranium enrichment facility near Qom for several years.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: French President Sarkozy warned that Europe and the United States would tighten sanctions against Iran unless it halted its nuclear program.
PRESIDENT NICOLAS SARKOZY: [translated] Everything must be put on the table now. We cannot let the Iranian leaders gain time while the motors are running. If, by December, there is not an in-depth change by the Iranian leaders, sanctions will have to be taken.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Iran, however, refuted Western fears and said its nuclear activities are purely peaceful. This is Iranian delegate Mansour Salsabili addressing the UN General Assembly Saturday.
MANSOUR SALSABILI: The delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran would like to put on record that these allegations, fears and concerns are totally untrue and without any foundations. Iran’s nuclear activities are, and always have been, for peaceful purposes and therefore pose no threat, pose no threat whatsoever. The IAEA reports bear witness to the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear activities.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, my next guest was a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq in the 1990s. Scott Ritter is the author of Iraq Confidential and Target Iran. His forthcoming book is called Dangerous Ground: America’s Failed Arms Control Policy from FDR to Obama. His latest article appears in The Guardian newspaper in London; it’s titled “Keeping Iran Honest,” where he warns against, quote, “politically motivated hype.” Scott Ritter joins us right now from Albany, New York.


Welcome to Democracy Now!, Scott.
SCOTT RITTER: Thank you very much.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Begin by explaining why do you call it “politically motivated hype”?
SCOTT RITTER: Well, I think the answer is quite obvious. Look, on Thursday, this coming Thursday, the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China are going to sit down with Iran, ostensibly to discuss, you know, how to break through this impasse that exists between the Western countries and Iran concerning its nuclear program. But the Obama administration has come to a, you know, preordained conclusion that there’s nothing that can be done about Iran’s nuclear program, that Iran either has to get rid of it all, or there’s nothing to discuss about. That’s not much of a—much of a discussion.
Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has a complete inspection regime conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency. It’s not been found to be in noncompliance. And yet, here we are condemning Iran for doing its job, declaring a facility, inviting inspectors in. And the conclusion it’s reached from this? That they’re producing nuclear weapons. This is politically motivated hype designed to create a situation this coming Thursday that will find the United States unable to reach any sort of agreement with Iran about its nuclear program.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: In his comments, President Obama said, “Iran is breaking the rules that all nations must follow.” You write that he’s technically and legally wrong. Why?
SCOTT RITTER: Well, again, Iran is bound by its agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency. These agreements are between Iran and the IAEA. You cannot compare Iran’s arrangement with the IAEA with any other nation, so it’s an absurd argument to begin with.
Second of all, Iran’s agreements with the IAEA are—you know, the current agreements go back to 2003 period, where Iran, in exchange for Europe and the United States recognizing the legitimacy of Iran’s nuclear aspirations—that means to enrich uranium for peaceful energy uses—Iran would voluntarily agree to what’s called the additional protocol of inspections, as well as what’s known as the Subsidiary Agreement. The Subsidiary Agreement requires Iran to declare any facility at the time that it intends to produce it, create it, to build it, as opposed to the old agreement, which said Iran must declare this facility 180 days prior to the insertion of nuclear material. Iran said, “We will abide by this additional protocol of inspections and the Subsidiary Agreement on a voluntary basis, until which time the Parliament of Iran ratifies these new agreements.” These have never been ratified, so this was a voluntary submission on the part of Iran.
In 2007, Iran withdrew from this voluntary arrangement, citing the noncompliance of its partners—Europe, the United States—in recognizing the legitimacy of Iran’s nuclear program. Iran’s not in violation of anything. Iran is in compliance, and the IAEA has stated this. The IAEA has said that the fact that Iran was in compliance with the old Code 3.1, the Subsidiary Agreement, the old Safeguards Agreements, means that you can’t find them to be in noncompliance with this new set of arrangements.
The key here isn’t the technicality of the legal documents; it’s about the diversion of nuclear material. And the IAEA has a 100 percent accounting for the totality of Iran’s nuclear material. So, even if Iran produces this new facility, which, by the way, is not in operation and won’t be in operation for over a year, no nuclear material has been diverted, there still is a full material balance, and the IAEA is in complete control of the situation. Iran is not in violation.
This is not a reason to panic. This is much ado about nothing. But again, we come back to the original premise: this is about political hype, the United States hyping up a capability in Iran which doesn’t exist, and that is the capability to produce nuclear weapons.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And the issue of Israel reserving the right to launch a preemptive military strike against nuclear facilities in Iran, how does that play into the upcoming talks and how Iran is reacting right now?
SCOTT RITTER: Well, it’s not just the issue of Israel reserving the right, the issue of the United States reserving the right. Remember, President Obama said that the military option is not off the table. Now, if you’re the Iranians and you make a decision that you strategically require an additional source of energy, such as nuclear energy, to supplement your domestic energy usage so that you free up your oil production and gas production for exportation, so you can earn money, this is a big deal. This isn’t insignificant. And so, you’re building this capability. Israel and the United States say they want to bomb it. What do you do?
Well, the first thing you do is you build redundancy, and that’s what this new Qom facility represents. It’s redundancy. It’s a backup to the Natanz primary facility. Again, it’s been declared, no nuclear material has been diverted. But it’s there as a backup. The second thing you do is you fire off missiles in a warning that you have an inherent right and capability of self-defense.
Israel launched a massive air exercise last year, in which it demonstrated the ability to fly hundreds of aircraft, you know, the distance necessary to strike targets in Iran. The United States is carrying out exercises with Israel as we speak. You know, the bottom line is it’s the United States and Israel which are the more aggressive of the players here. Iran is not an aggressor. Iran has not attacked anybody. Iran is simply trying to do that which it is legally allowed to do: produce enriched uranium for the purposes of nuclear power. It’s Israel, which, by the way, is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, claims it will never be a signatory and has a massive nuclear weapons capability—it’s Israel and the United States which are creating a crisis out of nothing.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And what would you like to see happen right now, in terms of the talks coming up on Thursday? This is the first direct talks between the US and Iran in more than thirty years. What would you like to see happen? And what ultimately can come out of this?
SCOTT RITTER: Well, I’d like to see diplomacy succeed. The bottom line is, the more the United States and Iran talk with one another, the less likely it is that the two will engage in hostile actions against one another. But you can’t have diplomacy if it’s a one-way street. If the talks open up with the United States providing a whole list of demands that Iran must accede to or else the talks will fail, then the talks are doomed to fail.
The United States—you know, here we have a president who says he wants to get rid of nuclear weapons in the world today, and he recognizes that a key aspect of this is a viable, valid nuclear nonproliferation treaty. But for a treaty to be viable and valid, it must be applicable to all powers. That means that when Iran signs the treaty, Iran must not only abide by the treaty, but also to be able to operate fully within the context of the treaty. And Article IV of this treaty clearly allows Iran to have the right to enrich uranium for the use—for use in nuclear power. The United States, in citing the law, must be willing to abide by the law, not only in terms of its own actions, but also to allow Iran full obligations and rights under the law.


If this isn’t what’s going to happen, then these talks are doomed to fail. I want these talks to succeed. And I’m hopeful that the Obama administration right now is carrying out pre-game posturing but, once it comes time to sit down at the table, will actually let the tools of diplomacy work, which means it has to be a two-way street.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And Iran fired these two long-range missiles on Monday. Why do you think that it did that just days before these talks? It’s a sensitive situation.
SCOTT RITTER: Well, I think the answer is obvious. Iran is making it clear that it has its own deterrence capability, that at a time when the United States and Israel and France and Great Britain and others are calling the Qom facility evidence of a covert nuclear weapons facility, raising the specter of a nuclear weapons-armed Iran, creating an emergency-type environment where people are talking about the need and requirement for a preemptive strike, Iran is saying, “You do so at your own peril.” The bottom line is, if Iran is struck, Israeli cities will be struck in return with Iranian missiles, not equipped with nuclear weapons, but with conventional weapons. Iran is simply saying, “We are a sovereign state with our own inherent capabilities for self-defense. And if you attack us, you do so at your own risk.” Is this the ideal situation? No. But then again, it’s not Iran that started this game of saying, “We’re going to bomb you.” Iran is simply saying, “If you choose to attack us, we can and will defend ourselves.”
Again, this is an argument or discussion we shouldn’t be having. If the Obama administration was responsible here, they’d de-emphasize this hype, this politically motivated hype, and deal with the reality that there is no nuclear weapons program in Iran, that the newly declared Qom facility is not a threat to international peace and security, and that when Iran and the United States sits down this coming Thursday, that we will—you know, the United States hopes to find a way out of this morass, that we hope to find a way to peacefully coexist with Iran, an Iran that has a nuclear energy program fully monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Unfortunately, that’s not the premise going forward, and then you get both sides behaving in a precipitous and irresponsible manner. The Iranian missile launch is precipitous, it’s irresponsible, but it’s in keeping with the trend that all parties are participating in.
SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Scott Ritter, I want to thank you very much for being with us. Scott Ritter was a UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He’s the author of several books, Iraq Confidential, Target Iran. His forthcoming book is called Dangerous Ground: America’s Failed Arms Control Policy from FDR to Obama.