Scott Horton Interviews Ray McGovern

Scott Horton, February 24, 2010

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Ray McGovern, former senior analyst at the CIA, discusses the successor to IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, the rift between US intelligence agencies and the Obama administration over the 2007 Iran NIE, why Adm. Mike Mullen‘s resistance to Israel’s hawkishness on Iran appears to be weakening, how the terrorist attacks of US-supported Jundallah have disrupted diplomacy with Iran and the new poll that indicates Americans are ready to be lied into yet another war.

MP3 here. (25:47)

Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years, from the John F. Kennedy administration to that of George H. W. Bush. His articles appear on Consortium News and Antiwar.com.

12 Responses to “Ray McGovern”

  1. The missiles to be deployed on ships in the Black Sea in Bulgaria and on land in Romania and Poland by 2015 are a necessary component for an unanswerable first strike – - to shoot down surviving Russian missiles which are launched in retaliation according to former Trident missile engineer Bob Aldridge-http://www.plrc.org-. An unanswerable first-strike capability leads to Launch On Warning.

  2. Israel will NOT rest until it LIES America into yet another war. Mullen needs to resign and to go to Israel.

  3. Scott, you may not remember this, but candidate Obama during the debates said that he would negotiate with Iran. But that it would not be completely open ended and he set a time limit. As I recall, that time limit was December 2009. Of course what he didn't say is that while he was negotiating, the US government would also be doing things behind the scene to sabotage the negotiations. And to top it off many of the "offers" made were designed to be totally unpalatable to the Iranians.

    So December has come and gone and since that time the war drums are beating louder. This appears to be all according to schedule. It's safe to say that most people that voted for Obama in the primaries did not want to bomb Iran. It was Hillary Clinton that wanted to "obliterate" Iran. And then you had McCain with "Bomb, bomb, bomb… bomb,bomb Iran". Obama was supposed to be the peace candidate.

    There are two things that I just don't understand. What possible benefit can come from either the US or Israel bombing Iran? Why doesn't anyone talk about the fact that Israel already has one of the biggest nuclear arsenals in the world?

  4. The result will be the closure of the Strait Of Hormuz and the West will loose 40 % of its oil supply.

  5. $3 Billion a year doesn't translate to any leverage? Actually the leverage is them (Israel) on us. That's how they get the money.

  6. Pssst. Got a secret. The US has to follow Zbig's advice and tell Israel it will not be permitted to fly over Iran. The US probably does not have to defend Iraqi airspace under the SOFA, but it could choose to do so if requested by Iraq. Nor could it do anything to interfere with Iraq's attempts to take out a few Israeli planes.

  7. Big big kudos to Ray and Scott for finally saying openly what none have dared say till now: yes, we are on the virge of another war of aggression blatantly based on lies. Reset, rerun.

    But Ray, you MUST stop assuming that Obama has good intentions and is just too weak to resist the momentum around him. Ray, you need to take the next step, the one that – frankly – you should have taken a long time ago: you need to realize that Obama is just the conciliatory face on a brutal policy. Look back over Obama's career; it's not hard to see that gestures and words clearly arranged to appeal to the antiwar crowd are invariably betrayed by words, gestures and actions that move the ball along towards war. I think you make an excellent point about the terror attack in Iran being arranged to subvert any chance that Iran would accept the uranium exchange deal, but that chance was never good. There's no possible way that Iran would have agreed to entrust it's uranium to Russia, which is notorious for dragging its heels, and then to France, which is almost as rabid against Iran (for obvious reasons, since France has a big stake in monopolizing the nuclear energy biz): I'm sure Ahmadinejad shocked the hell out of the US by appearing ready to take the deal and maybe this motivated the extra little push…but I think it's amazingly naive to think that that deal was ever intended to work (as a deal, that is).

    Let's put aside this 'Obama is a secret peacemaker' stuff and start talking about why the hell the US and Israel are sooooo determined to court a war that could turn into a flaming disaster? If you see someone pouring gasoline on a fire, don't you ask yourself why they want a bigger fire? I mean, they could have made a mistake and thought it was water, and maybe they were weak and meant to throw the gas over to the side but just weren't strong enough and were buffeted by a wind … but, come on, the real question is why they want to create a bigger fire.

    It's now or never. Let's get real about this. No more 'secret peacemaker' theories. If anyone wants to see a dizzy tin foil hat conspiracy theory, there you are: the 'obama is a secret peacemaker' theory. Even the freaking Nobel Prize Committee put their imprimatur on that one. Doesn't make it any less dizzy because it happens to be popular. Everyone wants to believe in Santa Claus again.

  8. God bless Ray Mcgovern and god bless this website!

  9. It's simple, and to answer it you have to tread certain waters that most people don't care to tread.

    Iran is the biggest supporter of resistance groups(hamas, islamic jihad, hezbollah) in the world.

    The government heads in Israel are not doves. They are right wing likudnik hawks that are biblical zionists. They will never allow a palestinian state and in all actuality want to STEAL more land!

    They want lebanon, syria, Iraq, jordan etc.

    They would rather go down in flames (armageddon) then have to live side by side their semitic brothers.

    They would much rather war it out with hezbollah, Iraq, IRan, etc. than have to give up any land whatsoever.

    The evil genius part of their plan however is that they won't have to do MUCH of the warring (sure they'll do some) , they will get the United States to carry the heavy load.

    Obviously, in their minds, if they can get the US to knock out the biggest supplier of Israeli expansion resistance, and not shed any israeli blood, it's a win-win for them. It's what they did in Iraq. And it's what they think they are gonna get away with with Iran.

  10. McGovern mentions that top U.S. officials–Clinton, Panetta, Mullen, et al.–have visited Israel recently. No doubt they’re getting their pep talks and instructions for attacking Iran!

    Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei is a great man. He deserves his Nobel Peace Prize, unlike the warmonger in the White House.

  11. It does seem as if the U.S. is a client state of Israel, doesn't it?

  12. That's right man. They all just visited that country and either said "wait, We'll do your dirty work" or "go ahead and attack, We got your back"

Leave a Reply