⁣ASK THE INSPECTOR EP. 247

Live Stream Scheduled for March 18, 2025 at 3:00pm ET

You can submit your questions via voice or text message: https://ustourofduty.org

You can also call live, 🇺🇸 +1(520) 525-8359

Watch on ustourofduty.org, Odysee, Locals, X (formerly Twitter), Rumble, Facebook, Twitch, Telegram, VK

You can download the audio version of each episode on Spotify.

We're waiting for you!

Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack

⁣THE SOUND OF THEIR VOICES

Classical conditioning holds that a neutral stimulus, when associated with a specific response, will over time become a conditioned stimuli which triggers a conditioned response. It’s basic cause-effect relationship analysis. Ivan Pavlov made it a household concept by studying the relationship between a dog’s salivation and the presence of food. “Pavlov’s response” is one thing when it is generated under controlled laboratory conditions. It’s another thing altogether when it occurs in “the wild”, where the impact of conditioned stimuli and its related conditional response often goes unnoticed in a world which overlooks these relationships until it is too late.

Read more CLICK HERE

IS THE US ON THE BRINK OF A MAJOR MIDDLE EAST WAR?
Interview for Dialogue Works

00:55 Disappointment in Trump's policies.
12:36 Economic corridor and the role of Israel.
21:44 The uniqueness of American military power.
27:42 The future of war and Iran.
32:50 Criticism of the Trump administration.
36:21 Problems with Russia.
43:43 Evolution of analysts.
52:24 The role of Russia and China.
58:49 Compromises and international recognition.

Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack

THIS IS REAL DIALOGUE THAT HASN'T TAKEN PLACE FOR SOME TIME NOW

No previous American administration, especially the Biden administration, had been willing to engage Russia to the level that the Trump administration is engaging Russia… This is about reengaging diplomatically. This is about normalizing relations. This is real dialogue that has not taken place for some time now.

Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack

⁣DIANE SARE TALKS ABOUT THE TROUBLES OF CHUCK SCHUMER
Interview for Issues that Matter with Cynthia Pooler

Watch on YouTube CLICK HERE

Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack

TRUMP STUMBLES WHILE RUSSIA MARCHES ON
Interview for Interview for Garland Nixon

01:39 Trump's Foreign Policy.
11:24 US Plans for Iran.
19:01 Russia and Iran.
23:27 Propaganda and Reality.
32:57 Russia's Strategic Thinking.
44:12 Europeans and Their Attitude to Russia. Historical Memory and Panic.
01:01:45 Russian Academy and Military Thought.

Q&A | The Russia House with Scott Ritter | Substack

⁣ASK THE INSPECTOR EP. 248

Live Stream Scheduled for March 21, 2025 at 8:00pm ET

You can submit your questions via voice or text message: https://ustourofduty.org

You can also call live, 🇺🇸 +1(520) 525-8359

Watch on ustourofduty.org, Odysee, Locals, X (formerly Twitter), Rumble, Facebook, Twitch, Telegram, VK

You can download the audio version of each episode on Spotify.

We're waiting for you!

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

⁣IRAN
Interview for Issues that Matter with Cynthia Pooler

Watch on YouTube CLICK HERE

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

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

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