Philip Giraldi


Former CIA and DIA officer Philip Giraldi discusses the usual suspects who are calling for war with Iran, the practical limitations on the U.S. military’s ability to fight a third concurrent war, the ploy of letting Israel start a war with Iran so the U.S. will be obligated to finish it, likely U.S. sponsorship of the terrorist organization (and former al Qaeda satellite group) Jundallah, birth defects in Iraq linked to depleted uranium and the terrible U.S. network news shows exemplified by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell’s conflicted reporting.

MP3 here. (30:48)

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is a contributing editor to The American Conservative and a fellow at the American Conservative Defense Alliance. His Smoke and Mirrors column is a regular feature on

43 thoughts on “Philip Giraldi”

  1. 29:48 "In fact I've banned major network news in my house. My wife tries to turn it on and I immediately start screaming." I'm curious about what Dr. G is screaming as he screams. This is likely an issue in daily life for many; roommates, family, etc. who don't quite get what Noise is: It includes the disinformation and sado-fictions we've heard trumpeted for years now, not just whip-cracks and dog barks… . In the days before radio/TV one could avoid this manifestation of noise; articles & lectures have a more or less self-selected audience. I've found I tend to avoid discussions about the noise that certain friends crave; but isn't this a kind of surrender? Aren't they 'polluting' your immediate environment? How does an ex-analyst deal -personally- with noise of this second kind in this ridiculous new era? Many might profit from such advice!

    1. "sado-fictions" – that's very good. That's exactly what seems to pass for most entertainment these days, and many folks seem to be addicted to it.

    2. What passes for "news" looks more like sick voyeuristic entertainment. Much like sitting in the colliseum while the blood flowed and munching on that government bread.

  2. It Obama didn't want a war with Iran, he could start negotiating in good faith, and that would start with refusing to play into the Iran threat hype – but that would have to start with letting Israel know that it no longer has unconditional US support – none of this is Obama remotely interested in doing, so it's time to stop blaming his wildly aggressive foreign policy on the meanies and bad guys and start putting the blame where it starts – on him. No, he isn't a Secret Peacemaker. He's quite obviously a big time warmonger.

        1. Obama has no power to do anything differently – he's just a spokesmodel for the MIC and the bankers. We can get rid of him, but it won't make any difference.

  3. Thankyou so much for telling it like it is about the NewsHour. Someone turned it on the other day and Margaret Warner was reporting about how grateful the people of Chile were that the military had 'taken over' and how they wished the military would have done so earlier … I had to wonder at the determination they must surely have had to comb through the ruins of Chile to find one or two people who would actually say that, cause we all know that the military are the solution to every problem.

  4. People need to recognize that the corporate media is not an objective news source. In fact, it is part of the complex that shills for war. Many of the corporations that own the media are the same one that profit from our aggressive foreign policy.

    The only way to turn the tide is for people to wake up, understand what is being done in their name, and begin to reject it. That means hitting the GEs of the world where it hurts: in their bottom line. Boycott MSNBC. Turn off the TV. Better yet, unplug the stupid thing and throw it in the dumpster.

    1. I use my TV as a video playback device and nothing more. Satellite? Cable? Sorry… haven't had that in many years and I'm richer for it.

  5. I was listening to a rado program the other day, and was surprised by the self centered scope of the host. The radio host is someone who believes "sales solve a lot of problems". I agree that this is a reasonable position, but I found it laughable that he would criticize the Chinese for funding the US debt ridden lifelstyle that would eventually go to buying many Chinese goods. The Chinese were somehow evil for forcing us into debt was the connotation.
    I guess he has never analyzed the foreign aide of the US and how that usually goes back into purchases of US weaponry and other US goods. We didn't get rich in the 20th century just because we made good products. We manipulated others to enrich ourselves.

    1. All US foreign aid does not go back into purchases, i.e., Israel is given cash and not required to purchase US products. Moreover, Israel usually copies the US technology and then sells the technology to countries to whom the US WILL NOT sell. Most of the foreign aid dollars are not profitable for US tax payers!

  6. Great interview.

    But Philip Giraldi said "I dont think Hezbollah can take on the Israeli army in any sense". Uh… 2006 called and wondered what he means.

    1. I mean that they are not able to initiate offensive operations against Israel in support of Iran – they are equipped and positioned for defensive fighting if Israel were to try again to enter Lebanon.

      1. You're right. Hezbollah gave the boys in Tel Aviv a boxing lesson in 2006 when the latter invaded Lebanon. (Naturally, the U.S. stood idly by while this was going on.)

        If Israel attacks Iran, the world will know that the U.S. is complicit. We wouldn't deny Iraqi overflight to Israel. The Iraqis are opposed to it, but what the hell does their opinion matter? It's the Zionist darlings in Tel Aviv we've got to accomodate, right?

      1. Does your Mommy know you're at the computer again? Yo, Junior, it's time for you to stop bothering the adults online and get back to your Talmudic studies. Run along now.

  7. Agreed. Obama is carrying on where the former Chickenhawk-in-Chief left off. These wars are now Obama's wars. And if Obama is so degenerate as to attack Iran–on the basis of lies and Israeli pressure–he'll disgrace himself and his country even further. . . .

  8. About the missiles to be deployed on ships in the Black Sea in Bulgaria and on land in Romania and Poland with command center in the Czech Republic : "Whether they are on ships or land, they are still a necessary component for an unanswerable first strike."

    1. There is no such thing as an unanswerable first strike. Please read some technical manuals and books about nuclear strategy. Not all locations of enemy nukes are known, hence no strike would be unanswerable even if all known nuclear targets were hit prior to launch. I could go on and on and on about this, but nuclear war means mutually assured destruction, I think you are transmitting from the 1960's due to some weird time warp.

      1. By the way Scott, could you please try to find someone who could talk about what a war with Iran could look like logistically speaking, since you seem convinced that it could happen? Maybe someone with actual war experience? Preferably a naval or Air Force officer or analyst who knows something about the technical capabilities of weapons systems as well as doctrines of irregular warfare. It's really doesn't take too much brainpower to be able to anticipate the broad outlines of what a war would look like, but this website never addresses this aspect. I find this strange, because to me the most convincing argument to the widest number of people against a war on Iran is simply that Iran can very vigorously defend itself. Getting someone, preferably credible, on your show who can explain this could be extremely influential and is something the American people and government officials need to hear.

  9. Why does Mr. Giraldi habitually describe the Neo-con agenda as "wanting to make the world a better place" …through use of force? Why this gentle euphemism?

  10. Can Mr. Margolis please provide his sources for his alleged Afghan Communist Party drug network?

    What off the ‘Opium Warriors’, Britain?

    Thanks for the great show Scott.

  11. Keith Olberman can usually make more sense in one hour than Bill O'Reilly can make over the rest of his lifetime…but in the controlled media one can only say so much..

  12. Robert Gates said that the US shouldn´t go below 1,500 warheads. Minuteman-3 is a state-of-the-art first-strike weapon. And Trident-2 D5 is a first strike weapon all by itself. Maybe they think they can avoid Nuclear Winter by only hitting military targets. Brigadier Harbottle said, "They are all bloody fools in the Pentagon because they don´t believe in The Nuclear Winter Report.". One wonders whether that´s still the case ? Pursuing a disarming first-strike capability doesn´t make any sense at all if Nuclear Winter finishes us off anyway. MAD is not enough for the Pentagon, they go for NUTS. Bob Aldridge- this and resigned.

      1. Dear David Spero. Nuclear Winter isn´t what you think it is. The living will envy the dead. Please see The Aftermath by SIPRI, Stockholm.

  13. I don’t know what we can do to prevent a war with Iran. I am the only person I know (outside of antiwar people on facebook) who even recognizes the problems that would come from an attack on Iran or the contradictions in the “tea” movement.

    As far as Zionism goes, I am starting to wonder who is more at fault, us or Israel. It looks we are constantly seeking new ways to bend over backwards for Israel.

  14. It seems that they think in the Pentagon that they can somehow deliver a disarming first strike avoiding Nuclear Winter by the delusion that it´s possible as only first-strike and second-strike targets are hit. They didn´t believe in The Nuclear Winter Report then. Uni of Colorado made a study according to which 100 warheads Hiroshima-size are enough for Nuclear Winter. So, pursuing a first-strike capability indicates that the Pentagon doesn´t believe in Nuclear Winter. But no matter how it´s executed it´s impossible to launch a disarming first strike without Nuclear Winter.

  15. Brigadier Harbottle called them "bloody fools" in the Pentagon because they didn´t believe in The Nuclear Winter Report. I´d like to refer to Bob Aldridge´s books, especially Robert C. Aldridge: First Strike! The Pentagon´s Strategy For Nuclear War.-

  16. Israel, the U.S.; they've unfortunately become one and the same..And that was one of the main "benefits" of 9-11 ( " I think it's very good"-Netanyahu on the very day the Dancing Israelis fm Dominic Suter's Urban Moving Systems were dancing a jig..but they should have been happy-the thermite laced columns in the vacant flrs exploded perfectly-except Bldg 7 which wasn't wired correctly and had to be re-done for 5:20 in the evening…And WTC6, the 2nd plane hit the S.Tower at 9:03, at 9:04 WTC6 blows sky-high..) If people really knew what happened on 9-11 they would go to the Israeli Embassy, drag those people out and beat the crap out of them..

  17. Benjamin, I´d like to refer you to Robert C. Aldridge: First Strike! The Pentagon´s Strategy For Nuclear War. 2: The Counterforce Syndrome. 3. Nuclear Empire. And -. Weinberger stated, "The US aims to achieve a first-strike capability". And that has always been the Pentagon´s strategy for nuclear war. Many people don´t realize that long ago the US Navy obtained the capability to track and destroy all enemy submarines simultaneously. RCA:Nuclear Empire, ch.9. The point is that even a successful disarming first strike will be suicidal because of Nuclear Winter. But what if the Pentagon doesn´t believe in Nuclear Winter ? They didn´t believe in The Nuclear Winter Report 20 years ago (like the British government which called it "blatant propaganda"). But do they believe in N.W. today ? At any rate, seeing the US capability coming, the Russians will surely implement a semi-automatic Launch On Warning. Which means that Nuclear War may happen by technical failure, mistake. People don´t seem to understand what Nuclear Winter is. The living will envy the dead. The Aftermath by SIPRI, Stockholm.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.