83119
Analysis on all things geopolitical. I will never initiate contact for the purpose of solicitation.
THE BIRTH OF A NATION
When recounting politically sensitive events, the truth can get lost in the narrative.
The issue of Crimean statehood looms large in the narrative surrounding the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. In the West, especially in the United States, a strong bias exists in favor of the Ukrainian narrative, which holds that Russia, in 2014, forcefully occupied and unlawfully asserted its political control over a Crimean Peninsula which had been part of the Ukraine since 1954, when then-Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev transferred control of the territory to Kiev.
Read more on The Russia House with Scott Ritter
TRUMP: “VERY BAD THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN.” NETANYAHU WANTS THE U.S. TO DESTROY IRAN
By Dennis Kucinich
The U.S. Intelligence community, in its annual Global Threat Assessment, refuted Netanyahu’s oft-repeated claim about Iran building a nuclear weapon stating, "Iran is not building a nuclear weapon."
Read more CLICK HERE
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
WHY WAR WITH IRAN WOULD BE AMERICA'S BIGGEST MISTAKE
Interview for Dialogue Works
01:35 Dangers and consequences.
15:03 Regional consequences.
37:54 Israel and Iran.
51:22 Iran and air defense.
01:20:24 Consequences of an attack on Iran.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
I’m always struck by the ignorance of the digital mob.
Especially those who claim to have “supported me all these years” and suddenly take umbrage over my assiduous insistence on adherence to international law by all parties.
If you truly knew me you’d know I cut my teeth on treaty compliance verification implementing the INF treaty.
Where I was deeply involved in a crisis that hinged on treaty interpretation that ultimately showed the Soviets were correct.
Yes, that meant that I and others argued against the official US position because the treaty which we were bound to argued the opposite.
You’d know that while I articulated sympathies with the Iraqi stance against Kuwait, I waged war against Iraq because the United Nations passed a Chapter VII resolution authorizing the use of military force because Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait.
You’d know that while I agreed with the Iraqi complaint that even if they complied with UN demands to disarm (another Chapter VII resolution) sanctions would not be lifted, I was unyielding in implementing the disarmament mandate to the full extent required by international law.
You’d know that my stance against the war against Iraq was grounded in the fact that Iraq had complied with its disarmament obligations, and the US case was premised on a lie.
But that if Iraq was, in fact, non-compliant, then I believed military action would have been justified.
If you truly knew me, you’d know that my position has always been strict adherence to treaty obligations.
And that my interpretation of Iran’s compliance status is consistent under the NPT.
But you don’t know me.
You only pretend to.
And you know nothing of international law.
You are the digital mob. Charlatans all.
I’ve never said military action by the US is justified.
So don’t put words in my mouth.
In order for any military action against Iran to be justified you would either need Iran to attack another nation, triggering Article 51 of the UN Charter, or the UN Security Council would need pass a resolution under Chapter VII authorizing military force to resolve a clearly articulated threat.
An argument under preemptive self defense likewise fails because there is no imminent threat; even the emergence of a dedicated nuclear weapons program in Iran would not justify unilateral military action since there would be an opportunity to resolve the emerging threat through the United Nations.
So there are no existing circumstances that would justify and/or legitimize military action against Iran by the United States.
But that’s not the point.
Trump is on track to attack Iran.
This is reality. A reality I don’t support. A reality I condemn.
And a reality I am trying to avert.
Trump has articulated his case against Iran as being centered on Iran’s potential to produce nuclear weapons.
So my focus has been on how best to craft a pathway to peace.
One premised on Iran’s adherence to the letter and intent of the NPT.
You can disagree with my approach.
But don’t ever say that I am justifying a military strike by the US against Iran.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
WILL TRUMP BRING PEACE OR CHAOS TO MIDDLE EAST?
Interview for India & Global Left
01:21 Trump's policy in Ukraine and the Middle East.
10:38 Ending aggression in Gaza.
17:43 Reality and the need for adaptation.
27:59 Iran's nuclear program.
52:25 A diplomatic approach.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
SIGNALGATE
Interview for MOATS with George Galloway ep. 433
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
I DON'T APOLOGIZE FOR ANYTHING
Interview for Sabby Sabs
00:02 Discussion of the EU, the US and NATO.
11:39 About the European army.
16:27 Murder of journalists in Gaza. Trump's policy in the Middle East.
25:02 Analysts must adapt to new data.
28:56 Nuclear disarmament and moral obligations.
34:38 America's power.
39:23 Trump's policy and global confrontation.
47:07 Global problems and responsibility.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
In this episode of The Russia House, Scott Ritter probes the psychological underpinnings of modern day Ukrainian nationalism with noted Russian analyst Andrey Vajra, who was born and raised in western Ukraine before moving to Russia in 2015.
Watch on The Russia House with Scott Ritter
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
BILLETS WHO HELP VETERANS
By Stuck In Cali
Watch on YouTube CLICK HERE
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
ASK THE INSPECTOR EP. 248 Highlight
▫️Iran Won't Exist If We Go Nuclear.
▫️The Ukrainian Banderists Would Try To Punish America.
▫️There Is No American Military in Kursk.
See the FULL EPISODE HERE
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
When I met with President Raisi in September 2023, he was very eloquent about the severity of the threat posed to the Islamic Republic of Iran by the domestic unrest perpetrated by foreign intelligence services that sought to use Iran’s diversity of ethnicities and cultures as a weapon. Raisi called the summer of 2023 the most dangerous period for Iran since the Iran-Iraq War.
The Islamic Republic was able to survive because the government was able to rally support from the Iranian people.
What happens if central authority is eliminated/reduced by a US attack?
What happens if the hostile intelligence services again seek to exploit Iran’s diversity?
Can you guarantee Iran will prevail?
Everyone thought Assad was secure following the Russian/Iranian intervention.
However, sanctions had weakened Syria to the point that it collapsed like a house of cards.
I’m not saying this is Iran’s future.
I’m saying many in the West believe Iran will fold like Syria did.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
THE STANFORD EXPERIMENTS
An insane asylum where the doctors cannot properly diagnose mental illness, and a prison where the guards have no moral boundaries—how Ukraine is more like a mental hospital inside a concentration camp than a modern functioning nation state.
Read more CLICK HERE
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
WHY WOULD US FIGHT IN YEMEN?
Interview for Judging Freedom
02:05 Doubts about the effectiveness of the bombing.
14:03 The strike on Iran and its consequences.
17:21 Psychological warfare.
24:11 Preparing for war with Iran.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
Let’s make this as clear as possible:
Iran is a signatory to the NPT.
It has been since 1970.
Iran is not allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Iran has said it is not seeking nuclear weapons.
Iran’s Supreme Leader has issued a religious edict prohibiting Iran from having nuclear weapons.
So everyone should be in agreement:
Iran is committed to adhering to a treaty obligation which prohibits it from having nuclear weapons.
There is no clause that provides an exception to this obligation because Israel has nuclear weapons.
Not even Iran makes that argument.
Last year a succession of Iranian leaders made statements which, when viewed in totality, call into question Iran’s intent when it comes to nuclear weapons.
In February 2024 Ali Akbar Salehi, a former leader of Tehran's nuclear program, said that Iran possesses all the necessary components for a nuclear weapon.
In April 2024 Ahmad Haghtalab, an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander who serves as the head of security for Iran’s nuclear sites declared “It is possible and conceivable to revise the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear doctrine and policies to deviate from previously declared considerations.”
And in October 2024 nearly 40 members of parliament sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, its top security policymaking body, requesting that the council revise the defense doctrine of the Islamic Republic of Iran to permit development of nuclear weapons.
Statements such as these have prompted President Trump to make the denuclearization of Iran a top priority.
Trump recently sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme leader in which a stark choice was offered: negotiate or go to war.
Iran has indicated any attack against its nuclear facilities would likely cause them to change their nuclear doctrine.
It is believed Iran could rapidly move to build a believable nuclear weapon within a few weeks once the decision was made.
It is believed Iran’s critical nuclear infrastructure is buried deep underground.
So deep no conventional munitions could destroy them.
If Trump were to attack Iran’s nuclear infrastructure with conventional munitions that failed to achieve their objective of destruction, an Iranian nuclear weapon would be all but assured.
This is why Trump ordered the US nuclear posture and employment plans to be altered so that low-yield nuclear weapons possessing the ability to destroy underground facilities such as those housing Iran’s nuclear program would be developed and deployed.
Today the US has two nuclear weapons specifically fielded for this purpose: the B61-12 gravity bomb and the W-76-2 low yield nuclear warhead for use on the Trident submarine launched missile.
Both weapons are operational and deployed where they could readily be used against Iran.
If Trump were to attack Iran’s nuclear infrastructure with the goal of guaranteeing its destruction, he would have to use nuclear weapons preemptively.
This fits in with both the nuclear posture and implementation plan Trump signed off on which Iran specifically in mind.
There are those who say that by making this assessment, I am advocating for a nuclear strike on Iran by the US.
This simply isn’t true.
I’m providing an assessment, not soliciting in favor of war.
A war with Iran would be a disaster.
A nuclear attack on Iran by the US would be catastrophic.
I am firmly against both.
But that won’t stop me from providing the most accurate analysis of what I believe is actually happening today regarding Iran, whether I support such policies or not.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
IRAN
Interview for Issues that Matter with Cynthia Pooler
Watch on YouTube CLICK HERE
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
Six and a half years ago I wrote a book which chronicled Trump’s precipitous decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) The insights contained in this book are as relevant today as they were when I first wrote them.
Before the JCPOA there was… chaos and lies.
I chronicled it all in Target Iran. Think of it as the prequel to Dealbreaker.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
CAN TRUMP BULLY PUTIN?
Interview for Judging Freedom
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
ASK THE INSPECTOR EP. 251
Live Stream Scheduled for April 01, 2025 at 3:00pm ET
ATTACK ON YEMEN, DEPOPULATION OF GAZA?
Interview for Gegenpol
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
ASK THE INSPECTOR EP. 250
Live Stream Scheduled for March 28, 2025 at 8:00pm ET
I had the honor of addressing the inaugural meeting of the National Unity Club, an international forum formed on the basis of the State Duma of the Russian Federation. I spoke on the issue of US-Russian relations. It was a great discussion with some great people.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
EU WAR SCHEME CRUMBLES WITH NO MONEY OR PUBLIC SUPPORT
Interview for Garland Nixon
00:00 Introduction and importance of cultural interaction.
10:42 Economic and political problems of the EU.
18:03 Logistic problems of NATO
32:02 Comparison with Russia.
39:45 Relations with Russia.
49:25 Criticism of the government.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
With all due respect, Iran knew the deal was temporary when it entered force back in 2015.
Obama didn’t have the support of the Senate for a treaty, so the deal was codified as an executive agreement.
Senate Republicans literally wrote a letter to the Supreme Leader warning that “we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khomenei.”
The Iranian government knew that this agreement would not last.
Trump simply did what everyone knew he would do—withdraw from what he and the Senate Republicans viewed as a bad deal.
If Iran wanted a binding agreement, it would have made the compromises necessary to turn the JCPOA into a treaty.
This is the lesson of the JCPOA and negotiations—any future agreement between Iran and the US must be codified as a treaty, not an executive agreement.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
TRUMP’S CANADIAN FIXATION
US President Donald Trump has reiterated his call for Canada to become the 51st state of the US. While some, including the Trump administration’s nominee as ambassador to Canada, former Michigan Congressman Pete Hoekstra, contend that Trump is joking, an anonymous White House official has insisted that the 51st-state concept is a serious proposal reflective of a fundamental policy shift premised on concepts of “fortress America” that place homeland defense ahead of trans-Atlantic security — effectively moving away from the traditional rules-based international order toward a neo-isolationist strategy.
From the perspective of most Canadians — officials and citizens alike — Trump’s fixation on annexation is insulting and, if allowed to proceed unchecked, would represent a serious threat to Canadian national security. Whether through military force (unlikely, although Trump has not ruled it out) or simply weakening the Canadian economy to the point that annexation might become a more viable option than independence, Trump has put US-Canadian relations in a crisis mode unparalleled since the 19th century.
Read more CLICK HERE
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
Seven B-2 bombers deployed to Diego Garcia.
Numerous C-17 flights into Diego Garcia.
Ten KC-135 tankers to Diego Garcia.
An Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine in the Indian Ocean.
And there are those who still argue Iran shouldn’t negotiate to reduce its nuclear profile.
This is literally becoming a question of Iran’s existential survival.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
TRUMP WILL NUKE IRAN IF NO NEGOTIATIONS
Interview for Jamarl Thomas
01:11 Ukraine and its suicidal actions.
10:34 Distrust of the USA.
30:38 Iran and nuclear weapons.
43:46 Reality and justice.
58:07 Islamic extremism is not Islam.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
ASK THE INSPECTOR EP. 249
Live Stream Scheduled for March 25, 2025 at 3:00pm ET
In the fall of 1992, when I was a weapons inspector in Iraq, we had hit an impasse with Iraq.
I had just finished a nine-month inspection campaign designed to account for Iraq’s SCUD missiles.
Iraq had initially lied in its declaration and tried to hold onto 100 missiles.
I helped expose the lie, then compel Iraq to tell the truth.
This meant carrying out inspections backed by the threat of military force.
In the end, Iraq told the truth, and we inspectors were able to verify this fact.
The Security Council had just passed a new resolution requiring Iraq to subject to the permanent monitoring of its dual-use facilities—pretty much any facility that could be used to help produce weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq refused, claiming that sanctions needed to be lifted first.
I was eating lunch with my Iraqi counterparts.
They made the point that there was no reason to cooperate since the US refused to lift sanctions until Saddam was gone.
I said that the law was clear—Iraq had to agree to monitoring inspections.
They replied such inspections would be tantamount to spying.
I sketched out a proposal on a piece of paper. Instead of having inspections like the ones I led come to Iraq every few weeks, why not allow an inspection team to carry out a three month survey of Iraq’s missile production capabilities, jointly with Iraq, and develop joint monitoring standards acceptable to both parties?
The Iraqi leadership accepted this, and thus began the interim monitoring program, which helped get Iraq to accept long term monitoring inspections and prevented a war.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
EUROPE AND ZELENSKY | IRAN
Interview for Jamarl Thomas
▫️The NATO Experiment Is Over.
▫️On Iran And Gaza.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
George Murdoch Connell was a close friend and mentor.
As a Colonel of Marines, he taught me more about leadership and what it meant to be a leader of men than anyone else.
He also is the man who guided me along the path from warrior to peacemaker, overseeing my work in the Soviet Union as a weapons inspector implementing the INF Treaty.
In May 1966 George Connell, at the time a First Lieutenant assigned as the Executive Officer of C Company, 1st Battalion, 9th Marines, was deployed to South Vietnam. His unit was part of an offensive called the Ky Lam Campaign, designed to clear the enemy out of a broad swath south of the Thu Bon River all the way to the coast known to the Marines as “Arizona territory.”
General Võ Nguyên Giáp, the commander of the North Vietnamese Army, promised President Ho Chi Minh that he would wipe out the 1st Battalion, 9th Marines, as a present for the leader's birthday (May 19, 1966). Giáp referred to the Marines of 1/9 as “Di Bo Chet", translated as the "Walking Dead".
George Connell and the Marines of 1/9 did not die. In the heavy fighting that followed, they inflicted a massive defeat on Giáp and the NVA/VC, who were compelled to withdraw from the valley.
The Marines of 1/9 proudly took on the name “The Walking Dead.”
George Connell was awarded a Silver Star for heroism in action that saw him overcoming painful wounds while leading his Marines in close combat against the enemy.
When I visited Colonel Connell’s home in Virginia, on the wall was a black and white photograph of George during that campaign. He was young, tired but defiant, holding an M-16 with bayonet fixed.
Connell had just led his Marines in a bayonet charge to clear the enemy from dug in positions from which they had just disabled two US tanks.
We may have lost the Vietnam War.
But the Marines of 1/9–The Walking Dead—were never defeated.
George Connell never lost a battle.
When he retired in 1990, Major General Matthew Caulfield, who had served with George in Vietnam, and who was serving at the time as the Director of the USMC Warfighting Center, read Connell’s Silver Star citation to a graduating class of The Basic School, the Marine’s 6-month “finishing school” for all Marine lieutenants, regardless of military occupation specialty. All Marines are riflemen, and all Marine officers are platoon commanders. These future leaders of Marines stood proudly listening to an account of heroism that would inspire them, as it inspired me.
I looked at George Connell standing there, proud, unbent—undefeated.
Men like that don’t suffer defeat.
Because they belong to an organization that cannot be defeated.
America left Vietnam because it lost the will to fight as a nation.
But the “Walking Dead” and the other Marines who served in Vietnam were never defeated in battle.
Lesson over.
Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack
