Philip Giraldi


Former CIA officer and contributor Philip Giraldi discusses his new article “Target Iran,” the bogus RAND paper claiming Iran could have a nuke in months and somehow under the IAEA’s nose contrasted with Sy Hersh‘s New Yorker piece on the 2011 NIE, the Ha’aretz article showing more Israeli threats to attack Iran, which would draw in the U.S. timed before September to kill the bid for a Palestinian at the UN.

MP3 here. (20:09)

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is a contributing editor to The American Conservative and executive director of the Council for the National Interest. He writes regularly for

12 thoughts on “Philip Giraldi”

  1. The real purpose of an attack on Iran would not be to 'take out the nuclear weapons/materials'. That's just a cover-up. The real purpose would be to terrorize the population. That's also the real purpose of torture too – not to get information about the so-called ticking time-bomb. That's also a cover-up.

  2. The real purpose of Isreal's desire to have American attack Iran is to remove the one enemy in the middle east of Isreal that might be able to fight back, to use American money and blood to accomplish it and to further involve American in this mess; in another words, attach America to the tar baby permanently. Make America the prime target, the big satan.

  3. What's the enrichment problem? Years ago, Scott Ritter said that Iranian uranium was contaminated with molybdenum, which is particularly difficult to separate out. But I haven't heard a word about their anywhere since. Still wondering….

  4. BTW, Valerie Plame hosted a firedoglake book salon a couple of weeks ago. Most of the Qs went to her rather than the author. She averred that Iran has (or had, I can't remember which) a nuke weapon program. I immediately challenged her on that, and she, of course, ignored my question.

    Leading me to instantly recategorize her from solid citizen category into flake category.

  5. RAND claims that Iran could have a nuclear weapon in months. That's pure, unadulterated bullshit. Anything to parrot the neocon line, huh, RAND?

    NuttyYahoo and his boys are crafty, scheming fellows. They wouldn't mind attacking Iran, and then dragging their puppet–the U.S. Government–into it.

  6. There´s only one good thing about war with Iran. How can the Pentagon then justify the missiles in Bulgaria, Romania and Poland ? A nuclear missile threat from North Korea ? Trident missile engineer Bob Aldridge on the missiles in the three countries: "Whether they are on ships or land, they are still a necessary component for an unanswerable first strike." This leads to Launch On Warning, probably by 2014.

  7. Both Scott Horton and Philip Giraldi should have noticed that nuclear reactor failures in Japan are considered to be a global catastrophe, and they are merely leaking. So maybe bombing reactors and blowing their contents sky high would also be a catastrophe. Duh, do you think? The Bushehr reactor sits right on the shores of the Persian Gulf, loaded with 80 tons of enriched uranium. Half of the world's oil comes from the Persian Gulf (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, and the Emirates). Blowing up Iran's nuclear reactors will permanently contaminate the source of our oil. Not only will that kill millions of Iranians and others downwind in Turkey, India, Russia, which ever way the wind is blowing, but it will also destroy the economy of the USA as oil spikes to $200 or $400 per barrel. Bombing reactors in the Persian Gulf region should be considered an act of war against the USA. Not many people in America will be driving cars afterwards, what with gasoline at $20 or $40 per gallon. Lights out for America. When the royal families of Kurwait and Saudi Arabia suddenly take holidays in New Zealand or Chile, then we know we are about to enter the new Dark Ages, thanks to Israel and her supporters in Congress.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.