From Democracy Now--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.

Full transcript at Democracy Now's site.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (69)

PLAYS: (144)

From The Situation Room Sept. 24, 2009. Lady McCheney Matalin is still out there trying to say that George Bush's foreign policy made the world a safer place to live. What a completely ridiculous thing to say. Walk is what keeps peace in the world. No, "walk" is called starting wars Mary. Why CNN feels the need to continue to give this woman air time as though she has anything credible to say is beyond me.

BLITZER: Mary, let's talk a little bit about the substance, though. Do the folks and the leaders in Iran or North Korea or the Taliban for that matter or al Qaeda, do they fear President Obama?

MATLIN: Well, absolutely not. And what Paul just said is emblematic of how the Democrats think about foreign policy in general. That's demean our strongest friends our greatest allies, like the Australians, like the Polish, like the Czechs, like the central and eastern Europeans who are working so hard at democracy and just demean any kind of opinion.

Look, this is not some sort of partisan or right wing or Murdoch thought. Since the beginning of time the history of the world is that weakness invites provocation. And we have -- and talking is good and relationships are fine. But our allies need to know that they can rely on those relationships and that there will be consequences for the bad guys when the talk runs out and they're not doing the walk.

As for proliferation and chairing a U.N. committee, great. Oh, isn't that wonderful? It's the U.N. that wouldn't enforce 17 of its resolutions against Saddam in the first place, so big deal. He's chairing and talking in another instance.

But the proliferation security initiative of the Bush administration was responsible for quantum leaps in the reduction of proliferation and including the disarmament of Libya, the capture and detention...

Continue reading »

Oh, I'd say this is a pretty safe bet! (In an unsafe kind of way.)

WASHINGTON — Members of Congress have been told in confidential briefings that Pakistan is rapidly adding to its nuclear arsenal even while racked by insurgency, raising questions on Capitol Hill about whether billions of dollars in proposed military aid might be diverted to Pakistan’s nuclear program.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed the assessment of the expanded arsenal in a one-word answer to a question on Thursday in the midst of lengthy Senate testimony. Sitting beside Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, he was asked whether he had seen evidence of an increase in the size of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal.

“Yes,” he said quickly, adding nothing, clearly cognizant of Pakistan’s sensitivity to any discussion about the country’s nuclear strategy or security. Inside the Obama administration, some officials say, Pakistan’s drive to spend heavily on new nuclear arms has been a source of growing concern, because the country is producing more nuclear material at a time when Washington is increasingly focused on trying to assure the security of an arsenal of 80 to 100 weapons so that they will never fall into the hands of Islamic insurgents.

The administration’s effort is complicated by the fact that Pakistan is producing an unknown amount of new bomb-grade uranium and, once a series of new reactors is completed, bomb-grade plutonium for a new generation of weapons. President Obama has called for passage of a treaty that would stop all nations from producing more fissile material — the hardest part of making a nuclear weapon — but so far has said nothing in public about Pakistan’s activities.

It doesn't look like Obama's going to have much downtime anytime soon:

SEOUL, South Korea — The North Korean military declared an “all-out confrontational posture” against South Korea on Saturday as an American scholar said North Korean officials told him they had “weaponized” enough plutonium for roughly four or five nuclear bombs.

Thousands of North Koreans turned colored cards to form the image of an atom last year during a performance at a stadium in Pyongyang, North Korea’s capital.

American intelligence officials have previously estimated that the North had harvested enough fuel for six or more bombs, although it has never been clear whether the North constructed the weapons. The scholar, Selig S. Harrison, said the officials had not defined what “weaponized” meant, but the implication was that they had built nuclear arms.

The North conducted a test of a nuclear device in 2006, but it appeared to result in a fizzle and experts concluded the explosion was relatively small. While the country has often claimed to possess a “deterrent,” this appears to be the first time it has quantified how much plutonium it says it has turned into weapons.

After the threats on Saturday, South Korea ordered its military to heighten vigilance along the heavily fortified border with North Korea, according to a spokesman for the South Korean military joint chiefs of staff.

[...] With President-elect Barack Obama about to take office and negotiations over the North’s nuclear program expected to resume, it is possible that the North is merely setting up its negotiating position. But analysts said the North’s remarks could also be an indication that it was intending to hold onto its arms despite an agreement it signed with five countries including the United States in 2005, in which it committed to eventually giving up any nuclear weapons. The exact conditions under which it would do so were left vague.

Coming in the wake of Russian warships passing through the Panama Canal and visiting Cuba, conflicting reports that Moscow intends to sell an advanced anti-aircraft missile system to Iran are ratcheting up tensions with the United States. But more worrisome still is the heightened prospect of a preemptive Israeli air strike against Tehran's nuclear infrastructure before the S-300 system would become operational.

On Sunday, Iranian official Esmail Kosari seemingly confirmed earlier rumors of the purchase, telling Tehran's IRNA news agency, "After a few years of talks with Russia, now the S-300 system is being delivered." But the next day, the Russian agency responsible for monitoring international defense cooperation denied plans for imminent deliveries of the S-300 to Iran, claiming the Iranian's revelation "does not correspond to reality." Yigal Palmor, a spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry, also said a senior Russian official had "told Israel that the new report about delivery of the S-300 was false."

As the AP reported Tuesday, despite the Russian assurances American officials believe the sale of the SA-10 (as it is known in the West) is going forward. While protesting that the sophisticated anti-aircraft system would pose a threat to U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington's bigger concern is the prospect of dramatically improved air defense for the Iranian nuclear program. As the Washington Post detailed:

Israel and the United States fear that, were Iran to possess S-300 missiles, it would use them to protect its nuclear facilities, including the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz or the country's first atomic power plant now under construction at Bushehr by Russian contractors. That would make any potential military strike on the Iranian facilities much more difficult.

Make that much more difficult.

Continue reading »