Scott Ritter

ATTACK ON YEMEN, DEPOPULATION OF GAZA?
Interview for Gegenpol

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

👍188🙏18🕊12😢5😐3

26.5K views05:49

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

👍398❤102👏64😐41👌10

20.4K views10:51