Former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter and Investigative
Journalist Seymour Hersh on White House Plans for Regime Change
SEYMOUR HERSH: So, Scott, in your book you write
at some point -- you list a -- you have an account of some
of the things that are going on today inside Iran. You say
Israel and the United States were carrying out -- this is on
page 147, etc. -- were carrying out a full-court press to
try and identify and locate secret nuclear facilities inside
Iran. Israel made heavy use of its connections to the Iraqi
Kurdistan and to Azerbaijan to set up covert intelligence
cells inside Iran, whose work was allegedly supplemented
with specially trained commandos entering Iran disguised as
local villagers.
The United States was conducting similar operations using
Iranian opposition forces, in particular the MEK -- that’s
the Mujahideen cult, which is a terrorist group, defined by
us as an at-one-time anti-Saddam, now anti-Iran group that
works very closely still with us, despite its being listed
as a terrorist group.
And you describe using opposition forces inside Iran and
the MEK to conduct cross-border operations under the
supervision of the CIA. The US has also made use of its
considerable technical intelligence-collection capabilities,
focusing the attention of imagery and electronic
eavesdropping satellites, etc., for operating along Iran’s
periphery. The problem was that neither the Israelis nor the
United States could detect any activity whatsoever that
could point to a definitive location on the ground where
secret nuclear weapons activity was taking place.
A couple of questions. Says who? I haven’t read this in
the New York Times. You don’t source it. What’s the
source? And what do you know? And how do you know this?
SCOTT RITTER: Well, as I mentioned in the back,
where I talk about sources, most of that information is
readily available in the press -- not the American press.
You’re not going to read about it in the New York Times,
you’re not going to read about it in the Washington Post,
you probably won’t read about it in most mainstream
English-language newspapers. But, you know, we used to have
an organization in the CIA called FBIS, the Foreign
Broadcast Information Service, that would translate the
newspapers of the various nations around the world to give
you literally a bird's-eye view of what’s going on in that
country.
So if you read the Azeri press, for instance, you’ll find
out that the Israeli Mossad has upped its efforts to build a
station in Azerbaijan. And the Azeri press will delve into
that more. Why does the Mossad want to build a station
operating? There’s a couple reasons. One, the Mossad is
working with the Azeri population. You know, there is a
Jewish minority in Azerbaijan that has emigrated to Israel.
And so, there’s a number of Azeri Israelis that the Israeli
government now is bringing back to Azerbaijan to work on
this issue. This is spelled out in the Azeri press, so if
you want to get some good insights, read the Azeri press.
Read the Turkish press. The Turkish press will also talk
about what’s going on in Iran and Azerbaijan. This will give
you the leads.
And then, because I’m not an active in-service
intelligence officer anymore, I will take these leads and
call friends who are active serving intelligence officers.
And while they’re not going to divulge classified
information, I’ll say, “Hey, I read something, where certain
activities are taking place. Can you comment on this news?”
We’ll sit down over some beers, and they’ll comment. And
then you dig even further. And I’ll tell you that I wrote
the book before I went to Iran. But when I got to Iran and I
talked to Revolutionary Guard commanders, what surprised me
is that they knew all this. The Iranians were very cognizant
of what was going on in the Azeri section of Iran, in the
Kurdish section. They could quote, you know, chapter and
verse about what the CIA is up to, what the Israelis are up
to.
But, you know, again, the bottom line is, why don’t I
footnote this? For probably the same reason why a lot of
people don’t footnote things, because if I commit to a
specific piece of information coming from a specific written
source, that means that another piece of information that I
don’t commit to a specific written source, where did that
come from? Well, maybe it came from a human source. Now,
I’ve just made it easier in this day and age for those who
don’t want factual information to get in the hands of the
average American citizen, those who want to keep American
foreign policy and national security policy secret from the
Americans they are supposed to be protecting. They’ll go
after these people, and you know they go after these people.
And I’m going to do everything I can to ensure that I don’t
facilitate harm coming to those who have the courage to
assist me in trying to get facts out to people so they can
know more about this problem we call Iran.
SEYMOUR HERSH: Why doesn’t my colleagues in the
American press do better with this story?
SCOTT RITTER: One of the big problems is -- and
here goes the grenade -- Israel. The second you mention the
word “Israel,” the nation Israel, the concept Israel, many
in the American press become very defensive. We're not
allowed to be highly critical of the state of Israel. And
the other thing we're not allowed to do is discuss the
notion that Israel and the notion of Israeli interests may
in fact be dictating what America is doing, that what we're
doing in the Middle East may not be to the benefit of
America's national security, but to Israel's national
security. But, see, we don’t want to talk about that,
because one of the great success stories out there is the
pro-Israeli lobby that has successfully enabled themselves
to blend the two together, so that when we speak of Israeli
interests, they say, “No, we're speaking of American
interests.”
It’s interesting that AIPAC and other elements of the
Israeli lobby don’t have to register as agents of a foreign
government. It would be nice if they did, because then we’d
know when they’re advocating on behalf of Israel or they're
advocating on behalf of the United States of America.
I would challenge the New York Times to sit down
and do a critical story on Israel, on the role of Israel's
influence, the role that Israel plays in influencing
American foreign policy. There’s nothing wrong with Israel
trying to influence American foreign policy. Let me make
that clear. The British seek to influence our foreign
policy. The French seek to influence our foreign policy. The
Saudis seek to influence our foreign policy. The difference
is, when they do this and they bring American citizens into
play, these Americans, once they take the money of a foreign
government and they advocate on behalf of that foreign
government, they register themselves as an agent of that
government, so we know where they're coming from. That’s all
I ask the Israelis to do. Let us know where you’re coming
from, because stop confusing the American public that
Israel's interests are necessarily America's interests.
I have to tell you right now, Israel has a viable, valid
concern about Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. If I were an
Israeli, I would be extremely concerned about Hezbollah, and
I would want to do everything possible to nullify that
organization. As an American, I will tell you, Hezbollah
does not threaten the national security of the United States
of America one iota. So we should not be talking about using
American military forces to deal with the Hezbollah issue.
That is an Israeli problem. And yet, you’ll see the New
York Times, the Washington Post and other media
outlets confusing the issue. They want us to believe that
Hezbollah is an American problem. It isn’t, ladies and
gentleman. Hezbollah was created three years after Israel
invaded Lebanon, not three years after the United States
invaded Lebanon. And Hezbollah’s sole purpose was to
liberate southern Lebanon from Israeli occupation. I’m not
here to condone or sing high praises in virtue for
Hezbollah. But I’m here to tell you right now, Hezbollah is
not a terrorist organization that threatens the security of
the United States of America.
Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and relevant to the story. We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Do not include personal information such as names, addresses, phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity – are not permitted.
See our complete Comment Policy and use this link to notify us if you have concerns about a comment. We’ll promptly review and remove any inappropriate postings.