Iran: Scott Ritter

Scott Ritter veteran U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence Officer, United Nations weapons inspector

As unfortunately I have been showing you even in the shows we've had on today and certainly this week, that the United States has been lying to the American public, has been lying to so many people around the world to get us into a war of choice, a war that should never have been fought.

And now that it has been opened up, God only knows where it's going to go, how many people will have to die, or what the ultimate objective of this war is and where it's going.

Well, we have somebody who has some experience with that on the show today for the first time at great audience demand.

We have Scott Ritter, who of course is I probably don't even need an introduction to our audience, but Scott is a veteran Marine Corps intelligence officer, former United Nations weapons inspector, now one of the most sought-after military analysts in the business.

Scott, welcome to the Daniel Davis Deep Dive.

Well, thank you very much for having me.

Well, it's a it's a delight to have you on here.

And in case anybody in our audience, I don't know, has been living under a rock and doesn't know who you are, there's something that you said in 2003 that has always kind of got my attention.

It is incredibly poignant today.

We're at war, ladies and gentlemen, and the reality of that war is starting to come crashing home on Americans who were fooled, by and large, by the rhetoric set forth by the Bush administration regarding this war.

Americans who didn't understand what war was, what war meant.

Americans who allowed themselves and their ignorance to be used by the president and this administration to exploit the fear that is inherent in us all, fear that has been enhanced, so to speak, since September 11th, 2001, to allow the president to prey on this fear, to prey on this ignorance, to sell us a bill of goods about Iraq, a war on terror, and the necessity of the United States to preemptively respond to threats abroad.

I could not I swear to God, if I had just, like, dubbed in there and changed the word Iraq for Iran and people weren't watching and didn't see the date, you would think that that was something you said this morning.

I mean, how do you feel?

Somebody who made those statements and lived that whole life and then now it's like you're living it again. How does it feel?

SCOTT RITTER: I mean, people may not understand this, but I it hurts, to be honest. You know, as an intelligence officer, my job has always been to tell my boss not what they wanted to hear, but what the facts were, and hopefully that I could package these facts in a way that enabled them to make the right decisions because, you know, you're part of a team.

And so my my participation as an intelligence officer is to inform my leadership. And based upon this information, they will make theright decisions that lead to theright choices that lead to outcomes that are beneficial to our cause: victory.

So, you know, with Iraq, it is especially painful because I'm not bragging here, but I was uniquely qualified, maybe not because of brains or anything like that, but because of the resume.

I mean, through serendipity, I actually was somebody who invented the concept of arms control.

I was the first weapons inspector on the ground in the Soviet Union implementing the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Not because I was the best. I was the first.

I always tell people there's a couple of ways you could become an expert: you can actually go to school, study, and be really smart; or just be the first person to ever do something.

And therefore, by the benefit of being the first, you're the only and you're the best. So I helped write the book on on-site inspection.

I helped create this notion of a human presence for compliance verification.

And I did it in an intelligence framework.

I got a couple of commendations from the director of the CIA for my work.

I was well regarded. I fought during Desert Storm.

I was on General Schwarzkopf's staff.

I had what they call a good war, which means that I didn't get killed.

And the stuff that I did was contributed. I was accurate in my assessments.

I'm very proud of the fact that I've been very accurate in my assessments.

Presidents of the United States have listened to me.

Secretary generals have listened to me.

Four-star generals have listened to me.

And so here I go and I become a chief weapons inspector in Iraq.

I was brought in to head up the intelligence capability.

I built an intelligence unit in the United Nations that never existed before.

And we were the best. We were the best in the world.

The entire world came to us about information about Iraq.

So when I resigned and was protesting against the lies being told by the U.S. government, I felt that this should be the easiest case in the world to make.

I mean, there was no one more qualified than me to make this case.

And I made the case with all the facts I had available to me, which turned out to be 100% correct. Why not? I was the guy who was doing the job.

So, of course, I'm going to be accurate in reporting what we did. Yeah.

But I wasn't able to convince people. I wasn't able to convince the government.

I wasn't able to convince the American people. And this weighs on me.

It weighs on me every day. You know, people may not realize this, but, you know, I was against the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

If anybody studies my resume, you saw that I was dead set against it.

But when it became clear that we were going to go into Iraq, I was at that time out of active duty.

I called the prior service recruiter and I said, "Please bring me back on active duty."

He said, "Why would we bring you back on active duty?"

I said, "Because I can save Marines' lives. I know Iraq better than anybody out there. There's nobody who knows Iraq better than me. I've been to Iraq. I've been everywhere in Iraq. I can help save Marines' lives because that's my number one priority. I care about the Marine Corps. I care about Marines. I don't want them to die in a war that they don't need to be fighting in."

Now, the Marine Corps was happy about that. The CIA said no.

So I didn't get an opportunity to go off and do that, which is probably good.

I was a little long in the tooth and, you know, soft in the belly.

I wasn't quite the Marine I used to be at the time.

But the point is, you know, I don't do this for gratification.

I don't do this to look in the mirror and say, "Man, I'm really good."

I do this because it's the right thing to do.

And you, as an intelligence officer, it's my job to tell the people who matter what the truth is, to lay the facts out.

And in this case, I always have to ask myself, could I have done it better?

Is there something I could have done better?

I take no pride in getting it right because getting it right got it wrong.

Getting it right for me, it looks good on the pages of history.

But the reality is thousands of Americans died because our leadership didn't do theright thing.

And so I don't sit there and pat myself on the back.

I literally wrestle with it. What could I have done differently?

Was I too egotistical, too insistent on my facts, unwilling to compromise and debate? Could I have approached this differently, sold it less forcefully so that?

Yeah. No, no. I can tell you, as a somewhat lesser whistleblower myself, I can confirm to you that there was nothing you could have done.

These people were hell-bent and there would be a war.

If Jesus Christ himself came down, I swear to you, I'm saying this literal, that would not have swayed anybody because you had all the evidence and all the facts out there and they were self-evident.

But it just didn't matter because they didn't want the facts.

In fact, they wanted you hidden and they wanted you discredited, etc., because they wanted anyone discredited because of that.

So there's nothing you could have done there.

And I totally get the issue about not patting yourself on the back for beingright because of the consequences. But you were right.

And so that is one of the reasons we are happy to have you on today.

Just to give you a little bit of a taste for how these three days of negotiations went, three separate times.

Jared and I opened up with the Iranian negotiators telling us they had the inalienable right to enrich all their nuclear fuel that they possessed.

That's how they opened up. We, of course, responded that the president feels we have the inalienable right to stop you, dead in your tracks.

They then went on to say that beyond the inalienable right to enrich, that that was going to be their starting point.

And Jared and I just sort of looked at ourselves flummoxed and said, "Well, we're really in for it now."

The reason why I played that soundbite there is because while history doesn't repeat, it rhymes, as they say.

And to me, when I hear him say this and then you hear Foreign Minister Iraqi, who was on the other side of that table during that, and when you hear the Omani foreign minister characterize what they viewed this six-hour, that last six-hour meeting where he said they were flummoxed, the other side came out saying, "Well, what you told us, we thought we had the outlines of a deal that we would have avoided war altogether."

As someone who's been in this similar situation here and as an intelligence analyst, what can you say about those two contrasting visions?

Well, first of all, we have to understand that, you know, when Donald Trump sent Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff to Oman to negotiate, he sent his two most highly qualified people.

I mean, Jared has his PhD in nuclear physics and he's.....wait a minute - He doesn't. He's a corrupt real estate broker.

And Steve Witkoff doesn't know anything about nuclear weapons or nuclear enrichment either.

He's a corrupt real estate broker and they work for a corrupt real estate broker.

I mean, we're already behind the curve here when we had these two people representing because they have no idea what they're talking about.

When the Iranians said they have an inalienable right to enrich, it's Article Four of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which, because it hasn't been walked away yet by this administration, continues to be the supreme law of the land.

I remind people that constitutionally, when we have a treaty that's been signed by the president, ratified by the Senate, it is the supreme law of the land, the supremacy clause of the Constitution.

For all you people out there that say you're proud Americans and you're MAGA and all this, you know, we are a constitutional republic where the Constitution is the only thing that matters.

And so right off the bat, these negotiators are showing their absolute ignorance.

The president has no inherent right to do anything except what the Constitution allows him to do.

He doesn't get to go around and say, "I want to do this. I want to do that. I want to do this."

And so we went in there not being honest about what our intent was.

We brought people whose job wasn't to succeed, but to fail.

Now, the Iranians and the Omanis, on their hand, were looking to succeed.

Let's remember what they started off with.

We have 450 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium hexafluoride.

That's what they said.

Now, if I were Kushner and Witkoff, I would have looked at it and go, "Okay, they've admitted to having it. So now what we need to do is get it. We need to get the Iranians to turn this over to us. We need to get this diluted down so that we eliminate the immediate threat of nuclear weapons,"

which is what the president told us publicly, what he wants to do.

I would have been relieved at that point in time.

I would have said, "We have a chance now. We have a chance."

And again, that's what the Iranians and the Omanis did.

They agreed to the procedures in which this 450 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium, which is only two cycles of enrichment through 164 centrifuge IR-8, IR-9 cascade, which the Iranians have, to becoming 90, 92%, which is what makes fissile material for nuclear weapons.

So here was our chance to actually get rid of this stuff, to do what the president said he wanted to do, to deny Iran a pathway to a nuclear bomb verifiably.

Because the other thing the Iranians agreed to at the time wasn't just the return of IAEA inspectors, international inspectors, but they would be accompanied by American inspectors.

For the first time in the inspection history of the Iranian nuclear program, American inspectors would be allowed on the ground to verify what the Iranians said.

This is the biggest victory in arms control one could imagine if this president was serious about arms control.

But the fact is, the day he initiated these negotiations was the day after he agreed upon the date to attack Iran with Benjamin Netanyahu when he visited us.

They had already made the decision. We lied.

And again, I just want to remind people, you know, these details are important.

Perfidy is a war crime. Okay?

Perfidy - that hiding behind a flag of truth is a war crime.

Not only have we carried out an illegal war of aggression, and again, Justice Jackson, who is the prosecutor at Nuremberg, has said that, you know, he's the guy who prosecuted the German war criminals, hung several of them.

The greatest war crime is the crime of an illegal war of aggression because from that all other crimes emanate.

The United States has just committed an illegal war of aggression, a surprise attack.

How many people out there on December 7th hang your head and say a prayer for those who perished in Pearl Harbor when the Imperial Japanese Fleet carried out a surprise attack?

A day that will live in infamy, President Roosevelt said, and a day that should live in infamy.

Well, we just trumped that because what we did is under the flag of truth carried out a surprise attack against Iran that assassinated Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader.

Now, for the people out there who aren't familiar, he is a, you know, Iran is an Islamic republic.

The supreme leader is the head jurisprudent.

They call it the vilayat al-fatih.

He's the head jurisprudent of the faith.

He is the equivalent to 12 or Shia, which is a faction of the Shia faith, the major faction in Iran, Iraq, and elsewhere, of the Pope for the Catholic Church.

So this is like us carrying out a surprise attack against the Vatican to kill the Pope.

This is like the Archbishop of Canterbury for the British. We just killed him.

It's like Kirill, the head of the Orthodox Church for the Russians. We just killed him.

We killed a major religious figure that resonates deeply with these people because they are, after all, the Islamic republic.

This is the man who issued a fatwa.

Remember, President Trump says he doesn't want a nuclear bomb.

This is the man who issued the fatwa, which has been recognized not only by Barack Obama when he signed the JCPOA, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action back in 2015, where he recognized that we recognize Iran has a religious fatwa or edict that prohibits them from developing nuclear weapons and we take this seriously.

Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence for Donald Trump, made the same statement before Congress and she mentioned the fatwa.

She said, "There is a fatwa. We have seen no political move by the Iranians to reverse this fatwa. Therefore, there's no evidence of them pursuing a nuclear weapon."

The guy who issued the fatwa in 2003 and kept it relevant, we murdered, we killed.

And now they replaced him with somebody who says, "Eh, maybe that fatwa is not all it was."

And guess what the Iranians have today?

450 kilograms of uranium hexafluoride enriched to 60% that they can, within a matter of two weeks, turn into uranium metal rich to 90%, which can be used to produce 5 to 10, 10, 15 to 20 kiloton nuclear bombs, the size of those we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that can be put into warheads, mounted on the Fattah IV missile, which is now operational, striking Israel as we speak.

The weapon we said we don't want them to have, we just opened the pathway for them to have.

By the way, we just had, just before you came on here, we had Ambassador Chaz Freeman, who went further than John Mearsheimer has previously on our show, saying he didn't understand why they haven't.

Chaz Freeman said he now thinks they will. Where do you fall on that? 100%.

We know that there was a lot of pressure placed on Ali Khamenei and starting in the fall of 2024.

And, you know, the people around him were saying, "The Israelis and the Americans are getting ready to attack us.

This will be a war of existential survival for Iran.

We need nuclear weapons to deter them."

And Ali Khamenei said, "No, under no circumstances."

I met with the Iranian president in September in New York City and I asked him that question.

I said, "Is your ballistic missile deterrence capable of actually preventing these nations from attacking or do you need to have a nuclear weapon?"

He said, "We don't want a nuclear weapon. We believe our missiles are enough."

But moreover, he said, "We're prohibited from even thinking about it because of this fatwa, Ali Khamenei."

But Khamenei was under a lot of pressure.

And what happened is some certain of the ayatollahs did get him to admit that if the Islamic Republic of Iran is under existential threat from powers who possess nuclear weapons, then the fatwa can be done and it will be religiously acceptable to produce nuclear weapons as a way of preserving the Islamic Republic in the face of this nuclear threat.

Today we have nuclear-armed Israel and nuclear-armed the United States attacking Iran with existential desires.

So we've just literally created justification.

If the Iranians couldn't have asked for a bigger favor from us, because if there were people in Iran that wanted a nuclear weapon, what was preventing them was a fatwa issued by the supreme leader.

We killed the supreme leader.

And the fatwa, there were conditions set where it could be overcome and we created those conditions.

And now we've empowered them.

Moreover, we've proven that there is no diplomatic path out of this.

Because regardless of what Iran may want to do, the United States and Israel can never again be trusted, ever, across the board.

And every American should be ashamed.

Aside from just the practicality of what you just said, there's also the literal letter that Trump wrote today on Truth Social demanding, saying that there would be no negotiated settlement and only unconditional surrender is now on the table.

What does that do to the move that you just described?

Well, that means that the United States will have to unconditionally surrender to Iran when we lose this war because we are going to lose this war.

We can't win this war. We don't have a plan.

Our plan changes every 24 hours. We don't have the ammunition. That's proven.

You know, I mean, Hegseth and Trump can talk about unlimited ammunition, but we're literally talking about, you know, gravity bombs.

Up until now, the weapons we've been using are standoff munitions.

We have a finite number of them and we're running out of them.

And when we run out of them, we're going to have to put our airmen at risk because now instead of being able to stand off and strike targets, we're going to have to close with the targets, which means we have to bring in the wild weasels, clear out enemy air defense, and we're going to put people at risk.

Anybody who thinks that claiming air supremacy means we don't lose anybody, look at the Gulf War. Look at Desert Storm.

We were losing aircraft up until the very last moments of that war.

Because even if we had air superiority, we don't have air supremacy as long as there's any means left to defend.

And when you force airplanes to close with the enemy, they are vulnerable to being shot down.

So this president is going to put American lives at risk because we didn't think this war out. But air defense is the big problem.

The Iranians have shown a proclivity to destroy the totality of our Middle East infrastructure.

Colonel, I don't know how many THAAD batteries we deployed into the region, the THAAD being the more advanced of our air defense system.

So that's probably a classified number.

What I do know is that there's photographic evidence that five radars associated with THAAD batteries have been destroyed by the Iranians.

The Iranians are precisely picking us apart.

They're taking us apart piece by piece by piece.

They took out our early warning eyes in Al Udaid, $1.1 billion early warning radar, gone.

They've taken out other radars.

They've destroyed five THAAD batteries, which I believe, and I wrote this earlier, is the maximum number we have deployed in the region.

So our THAAD is no longer operational outside of Israel.

And they are now picking us apart, destroying that.

There are people who are saying the amount of destruction done to American military infrastructure is the greatest in the history of the United States that outside of the Civil War, nobody has ever inflicted this much harm on the United States.

Nobody has attacked American military installations to this degree.

And the Iranians are just picking us apart piece by piece by piece.

They're using intelligence provided by the Russians and the Chinese that specifically identify locations, and they have the weapon systems that are able to strike these locations and we don't have the ability to defend ourselves.

So ask yourself, who's winning this war?

The trajectory is in favor of Iran.

I can tell you, if you ask an Israeli general, Zamir, he thinks we are.

Watch this.

I am in continuous contact with my American counterparts, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States, General Dan Kane, and the commander of CINTCOM, Admiral Brad Cooper.

We are fighting based on shared interests and values.

In this war, shoulder to shoulder, they are true friends.

Through coordinated action, we are stripping the regime of its military capabilities and bringing it to strategic isolation and a point of weakness in which it has never been before. Yeah.

So pretty much game over.

I mean, you saw the Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is, like I said, yeah, they're toast. We are definitely winning.

And boy, you ain't seen nothing yet, he said yesterday.

Much, much more is coming.

What do you say to that? Well, I believe much, much more is coming.

I believe we'll continue to drop bombs on Iran.

I think we're going to continue the video of things blowing up.

I saw on your resume, Colonel, that you were a participant in Operation Desert Storm.

So you know full well that we blew up a lot of infrastructure in Iraq as well.

I was one of the people to help design the strategic air campaign and I monitored it as a battle damage assessment officer.

And then I went into Iraq afterwards as a weapons inspector and visited all the places that we blew up, all the places that were in our target package.

And what I found is that we blew up a lot of buildings. I was told by an Iraqi general, a very senior Iraqi general.

He said, "Mr. Scott, you guys are really good at blowing up buildings." Really good. He said, "You know, we're pretty good at pouring concrete."

And he said, "The thing is, when you blow up the buildings, they're all empty. But when our concrete cures, we put everything back in and we're back in business."

And that's what happened to us after Desert Storm.

We didn't destroy anything.

I'm just here to tell you that straight up.

We blew up everything and we destroyed nothing.

I can guarantee you right now, this is a war that the Iranians have been preparing to fight for over 20 years, since Dick Cheney threatened to invade them back in 2005.

And they have broken their country into 12 autonomous military districts.

And each one of these has been preparing.

They've been going underground.

Here are those, the enrichment facility that Trump bombed, Operation Midnight Hammer.

That place wasn't carved out to put in centrifuges.

That was part of over a hundred different places prepared around Iran to evacuate material.

So that when they think they're going to be attacked, sensitive material is evacuated.

This one was converted to be used as an underground enrichment facility.

But around Iran are hundreds of others that are there to receive all of the precision equipment, all of the production equipment, all the sensitive stuff that's very difficult to replace, very expensive, is now in hiding.

We're blowing up empty facilities and we will continue to blow up empty facilities.

And then we pretend that it's victorious, that we're doing some great stuff.

We're not. We're not doing it.

And I also want to remind people, if you study history, just take a look at a simple thing.

Measure Schmidt fighter production in Nazi Germany during World War II.

And then plot the number of Messerschmitt fighters built by the Germans in 1942, then in the 1940s, and then overlay the strategic bombing campaign.

And what you will see is the more we bombed, the more fighters were produced.

Because the better the Germans got to adapting to our bombing.

Bombing doesn't accomplish anything unless it's attached to sound targets.

And we saw, tragically, with the murder of over 170 schoolgirls on the first day of the war that we have no idea what we're hitting.

We used a target deck that's dated 15 years and we had nobody, where's the intelligence officer whose job is to go through that target deck and vet it to make sure we have the most up-to-date information that we're not bombing a target based upon 15-year-old intelligence?

I did this in 1985 when I went through the war plan for the amphibious assault against Bandar Abbas in Shah Bahar.

I had to go through each target because it was my job to do and go, this is dated information, update the information, vet each target to make sure that we have the most valid updated information to justify this target still being in the target deck and to ensure that when we bomb the target, we get the results we want.

People need to understand that by bombing that school, we have destroyed our credibility, not only in Iran, but around the world.

Again, we are mass murderers.

We, the people of the United States of America, are citizens of a nation that has carried out an illegal war of aggression with no legal authorization, an act of perfidy, and mass murder.

There's no justification out there at all for murdering 170 schoolgirls.

And you know, Scott, as it turns out though, I hope I don't give you any PTSD with what's about to come up here, but we are looking to replicate exactly what happened in that war there by convincing American people that this is not only justified, but it's like a moral imperative.

And one of the people they trotted out, they trotted out from the 2003 war.

The most important thing is to recognize that Iran has been at war with us for at least 47 years, all the way from 1979. People may forget.

They took our embassy hostage 444 days.

They were responsible for the killings of 300 plus Marines in Lebanon in the early 1980s.

And if you ask people about Iraq, what was the source of many of our casualties in Iraq, you'll get estimates as high as 75 or 80% of them were due to Iranian-made roadside bombs.

If it is trying to deny them a conventional umbrella for their nuclear ambitions, that is a worthy goal.

Now, what comes after?

People are, of course, concerned about that.

But if you can render Iran essentially incapable of military action against us and against our allies, that's worthy.

And I think what they're trying to do is to neuter Iran as a military power in the region.

You know, it's strange to me that when we're trying to sell a war, we're going to bring somebody out who is known to have sold a fraudulent war in 2003.

And there was a, I think it was yesterday, we had a sound bite from an Iranian, I'm sorry, an Israeli general who was citing Tony Blair from the 2003 war as another way to justify what we were doing here.

And I'm thinking that's just weird on its own.

But let's get to the substance of what she said there.

Do you believe that this is an imperative?

And because the Iranians have killed all of us before, all we have to do is take away their military capacity now.

I hope I made it clear to your audience that when I said that I was going to, I apologize, a school bus is pulling up in front of my house.

My dogs are going crazy. My dog does the same, so I got it.

So hopefully I'll stop barking soon.

But the, you know, when I said that I was willing to go back on active duty, I was willing to go on active duty, not because I supported that war, but because I support Marines.

I want to keep Marines alive.

And so no one can ever make the case that I would ever articulate anything that could bring harm to my fellow Marines or to soldiers, sailors, you know, the Coast Guard, anybody.

American life is anchor sink. I am an American patriot.

And I will do what I can to preserve the lives of my fellow Americans.

But we also have to be realistic here.

You know, with all due respect to Condoleezza Rice, who is a war criminal, by the way, she was part of the cabal that led us into the last illegal war of aggression that we waged before this one, which was the illegal invasion occupation of Iraq.

No justification under international law or domestic law.

Unlike Desert Storm, again, I just want to remind people because law is very important.

Desert Storm, we had a Chapter Seven resolution passed by the Security Council that authorized the use of military force.

And the United States Congress passed a war resolution before the bombs fell that gave us congressional authority to do this as well.

So everything we did in Desert Storm may not have been wise, but it was definitely legal.

Nothing we've done in Iraq in 2003 was legal.

And nothing we're doing to Iran today is legal.

In 1979, you know, the takeover of the U.S. Embassy didn't happen in a vacuum.

It happened because the CIA was working hand in hand with SAVAK, which was the secret police arm of Reza Shah Pahlavi.

And they were committing horrific crimes against the people of Iran.

And the people of Iran rose up and they took over the embassy.

I'm not in favor of that. I wish they hadn't taken the embassy.

But to pretend that it happened in a vacuum, that people just woke up one morning and said, "Hey, what can we do to really get America?"

No, it woke up because they were furious at the United States, because they were furious at how we had worked with the SAVAK to torture Iranians that we were giving safe haven to Reza Shah Pahlavi, who had cancer and he was in the United States.

And Iranians said, "No, you got to get him out here, back here to be accountable to us." So they took the embassy.

You know, one of the things is the CIA was shredding documents back then.

And that's before we had cross-shredders.

And so we had these long strips of one-eighth inch shredded paper.

And these students actually pulled out the burn bags that didn't get burned and put all those documents back together and they published them.

And it proves just how bad we were.

So when you want to sit there and say that Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years, I would make the counterargument.

The United States has been at war with Iran for even longer than that.

Because you know who put the Shah in power? We did. How?

Through a CIA orchestrated coup that removed Mossadegh from power in 1953, the constitutionally elected prime minister of Iran.

We removed him from power using a CIA coup.

We installed this fake Shah who then, with American backing, butchered the Iranian people until he was removed from power by the Islamic Revolution.

What happened in Beirut? Dead set against it.

But ask the Marines who were there. They know that we chose sides.

We walked into a civil war-like environment and we chose sides.

We started shelling people. We started intervening. We became the enemy.

And then we cry when we get treated like an enemy.

I don't want those Marines dead. I don't want them dead at all. I want them alive.

But the best way to have kept them alive is to keep them out of Lebanon.

We put them in a place where they shouldn't have been and then they paid the ultimate price.

Don't blame us when people choose to defend their homeland using the means necessary.

You know, everybody talks about the American Revolution.

You know, of course we hid behind trees and we hid behind bushes and to shoot at the British redcoats marching in there.

Because that's the way we had to fight.

What do you want people to do when they have to go up against a battleship in New Jersey, when they have to go up against aircraft carriers, when they have to go up with Marines with helicopters and everything?

You want them to line up and say, "Kill us," or you want them to use the tactics necessary to achieve the results they want, which is the eviction of Marines from their territory?

Again, I don't want Marines dead, but we shouldn't have been there.

And then we come down to the toughest one of all because there's a lot of veterans out now.

They're going to get really mad at me. I don't care.

I don't care if you get mad at me now because I'm going to tell you the awful truth.

If you were in Iraq in 2005 and you got hit with an explosively formed projectile that had been provided to the Shia of southern Iraq, Muktadir al-Sadr's people by Al-Quds Force, Hussein Soleimani and the Iranians.

And it kills your, killed your comrades, wounded you, wounded other people.

You shouldn't have been there.

You do know that you illegally invaded and occupied a sovereign state, that there was no justification for you being there whatsoever.

And the people who resided in that country didn't want you there.

And they resisted you.

Now, what would you do if a foreign power invaded your hometown, kicked in your door, took your family out, lined them up in the streets?

Your younger brother came down a little too fast so the guy shot him because I felt threatened. You don't belong there.

We didn't belong in Iraq. We illegally invaded and occupied that nation.

And the people who live next door to them, co-religionists, supported the resistance. It was a resistance movement. And we paid the price.

We shouldn't have been there.

Do I want any of Marines or any soldiers to have died in that? Absolutely not.

I wish they were all home doing the right thing, training for a legitimate conflict, one that were a real threat.

This was a war of choice in Iraq, a war of choice. We didn't need to be there.

And can I just say that, I mean, and I'm sure that you'll probably resonate well with this one as well.

It's hard for me to hear those arguments that she made there about the EFPs and all the stuff that we suffered there.

And a lot of it is legit, but that probably number 600 probably is close to beingright.

But I got to think, what in the world, how do we point a finger at Iran and say that they're worthy of death when we do it on a four-year basis in Ukraine against the Russians for the purpose of killing Russian soldiers?

We are doing on an industrial scale what you're saying they did on a moderate scale. And it just troubles me.

We lost 600 soldiers, I think, is an accurate number.

I wouldn't dispute that number.

We are responsible, we, the United States, are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers because of what we provided to the Ukrainians.

And remember that war started when we instigated a coup in 2014 and replaced the legitimate government of Ukraine with the Ukrainian nationalist movement that had been supported by the CIA since 1948.

If you guys want to get into history lessons with me, I'd be more than happy to do it. I bet you can.

I don't want to get to the Russia-Ukraine thing, but I, you know, again, the facts are on my side. Yeah. Don't forget about Russia.

I'm going to get to the Russia-Ukraine thing here in a second.

But I want to hit another topic that you brought up already a little bit about where we areright now.

And you talked about how that was an illegal war.

You've talked about how other things we've done have been illegal.

The Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, yesterday went to pains to say, "Okay, no, this deal is totally legal.

In fact, we are overcompliant with the law."

So we've complied with all, we've overcomplied with the law and what it requires.

This is an action by the president to address a real threat, a real threat.

This is hostilities designed to eliminate a threat to the safety and the security of the United States and to our allies.

I almost hear a little Donald Rumsfeld in my ear, but anyway, what do you say to that?

Well, again, I've studied law. He's, what he's saying, overcompliant.

He's talking about the War Powers Act of 1973 and any subsequent modifications that have been made by the United States Congress.

This is basically where Congress punted on its constitutional responsibilities and has given the President of the United States the ability to engage in military action if there's an imminent threat to the United States of such a scope and scale that he can't go to Congress.

So Congress is saying, "Okay, we're going to let you go to war for 45 days, maybe 90, maybe up to 180 before you have to come to us and get permission."

But it has to be an imminent threat.

So here's where Marco Rubio falls apart.

The threat cited is Iran's nuclear weapons program.

As defined to Witkoff and Kushner, which they apparently took seriously, it wasn't a nuclear weapons program.

Meaning that the 450 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium hadn't been turned into something that could be a weapon.

Moreover, we were engaged in a negotiating process, an ongoing negotiating process that the Iranians had not walked away from and they were negotiating in good faith.

So there's literally no case that could be made under any notion of the War Powers Act that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States.

Insofar that it has been articulated as such, it's that Iran was preparing.

I mean, if you remember initially, we had to preempt the Iranians who were seeking to attack us.

Well, then the Pentagon had to come to the Congress and admit, "Nah, actually the Iranians weren't going to attack first.

We know they weren't going to attack first.

But what they were going to do is that when Israel attacked them, they were going to strike back at us.

So therefore we had to join Israel in attacking them to preempt their response."

Marco Rubio, this is the problem. We don't know our own laws.

I mean, this is the easiest thing if you're a war.

Do you think it's we don't know our laws or we just don't care about our own laws? We don't care about our laws.

Again, I've been told by my wife, "Don't read the comments. Don't read the comments."

So I'm doing my best to comply with her desires.

But I just see so much ignorance in there.

People who, I can guarantee youright now, if I gave you a test of the Constitution, you would fail.

If I asked you what Federalist 10 was, you would have no idea.

You wouldn't know who wrote it.

You wouldn't know what they were talking about.

You wouldn't know its relevance to the current situation.

Nor would you know about Federalist 51.

These are foundational documents that the Supreme Court relies upon when they study constitutional issues that are brought before them.

Issues that pertain to separation of powers, issues that pertain to the importance of the Constitutional Republic functioning as it is.

Marco Rubio's words prove that this Constitutional Republic is not functioning the way it should be.

We are a nation that has lost its moral compass.

We are a nation that has been taken over by a literal cult of personality.

Prove me wrong.

We have a president who says, "I don't believe in the rule of law. I believe in my own personal moral compass."

That's an impeachable offenseright off the bat.

There's no reason why he should be president after that.

No Congress worth its salt would tolerate a president saying that.

He has said before the World Economic Forum, "I am a dictator."

Well, gosh, I can't disagree with that.

It's one of the few honest things he's said.

And we have a Congress that is punted when you have the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, saying, "I don't know. This isn't a war. It's a defensive operation. This is a defensive series of defensive things that are defensive in nature."

Dude, we attacked them. It wasn't defensive. We attacked them, an illegal war.

You can't give out a declaration of unconditional surrender from the President of the United States in a non-war situation.

I mean, it's so absurd. It's just hard to even, hard to even get your head around.

And yet that is what we're saying. It's, it's, it's so bizarre.

It's just, I can't even hardly get my head around that it's reality.

No, again, Colonel, I wake up every day just pinching myself hoping this is all just a nightmare.

That because I love my, I know you love your country.

I know you love, I follow you. I listen to you. I respect everything you say.

And I know you love your country. Our country, our country. We love our country.

And that's what the people need to understand.

This isn't President Trump's country.

The Constitution doesn't say the President of the United States.

It says, "We, the people of the United States.

We, the people of the United States. It's our country, our document.

It's everything we're supposed to stand for.

And yet we're standing by passively allowing this cabal to just lead us down this path of destruction."

Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to lose this war.

We're going to, we have already lost this war.

If this is a war of regime change and it was supposed to be precipitated by the murder of Ali Khamenei on day one, you know, what were we supposed to do?

You're murdered. We're going to fail to achieve the objectives.

And so by definition, that is a loss. I mean, we're. That's a loss.

And now we don't know what the objective is. What is our objective now?

Unconditional surrender of a nation that's kicking our ass? Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

We went from an incredibly hard set that he laid out on the first day of the war to something that's virtually impossible with no ground force, with no army.

You can't compel compliance. But I don't want to go back to repeat all that.

Because you brought this up. Okay.

I'm glad the president now says that he's not going to send ground troops.

Because that's reflective reality. You were in Desert Storm.

I see old iron sides up there. Okay.

I assume that you were in Desert Storm with old iron sides.

I actually served in old iron sides in the 2000s, but I was with the second U.S. Cavalry in Desert Storm. Okay. Well, you were with the ground force.

So you know what a tip fiddle is. You know what a, okay.

And you know what it takes to move ground forces.

You're probably of an age where you participated in some reforgers.

Absolutely. Absolutely. So, you know, there was a time, ladies and gentlemen, where we had, what, 300,000 American troops in West Germany.

And in a space of 10 days, we could fly in 250,000 reinforcements who would marry up with prepositioned equipment and leave and be ready to fight the Soviet horde coming across the border.

That's what we trained for in the Cold War.

I was in the Marine Corps as a junior officer doing the exact same training.

But it doesn't happen by accident.

It happens because you train, you train, you train, and you have the equipment prepositioned, etc.

Today it takes, if old, I don't need it. Is old iron sides even up and running nowadays? I don't know. Yeah, we still have it. Yeah.

Because I know we've shut down a number of our armored divisions.

But let's say we wanted to move a heavy brigade of old iron sides from its base in the United States to Europe to participate in the rotational forces of the heavy brigades.

They need a six-month advance notice.

Then they need another three months to make the deployment, nine months under peacetime conditions.

When you landed in the Middle East, the ports weren't under attack.

The airfields weren't under attack.

You were able to come off, join up with your equipment, and in a very controlled, nonviolent fashion, move to your assembly area and begin the war, everything all up.

If you tried to do that today, you're not going to make it.

There's no ports we can go into.

There's no airfields we can land at.

And when we get on the ground, we'll be hit by drones.

We'll never be able to assemble.

And we don't have the force structure.

We have, we do not have the ability to put 500,000 boots on the ground today in that theater.

We also don't have 500,000 boots on the ground. Bingo. Period.

So everybody out there saying that we can do this and the other thing, you literally have no idea what you're talking about.

And one of the things that gets me frustrated is debating with the ignorant.

I mean, it's like wrestling a pig.

You know, one of them is going to get, both are going to get muddy, but one of them is going to be happy.

You got to learn your facts.

We are not going to, we are going in with one-third less airpower than we had in Desert, in Desert, Desert Storm.

One-third less airpower.

And we're fighting a country four times the size of Iraq with an infrastructure that hasn't been devastated by war and everything that's been spending 20 years going underground.

And you think we're going to win this?

You think we're going to win because we're blowing up everything?

You got to add that to it. And no army. And no army. And no army whatsoever.

We're going to rely on the Kurds.

How many times are the Kurds going to be fooled?

Because literally the Kurds get lied to every generation by Americans.

We're the greatest liars in the world.

The other thing I want to point out to people is somebody who's been around the world, etc.

And I, Colonel, you have too. I know you have.

You know, we always position ourselves.

We say, we're your friend. We're your ally.

But the harsh truth is coming home to roost.

America is the friend of nobody. We betray everybody. We have no allies.

We will, we will sacrifice you for our best interests.

And we have done that to literally everybody.

We're sacrificing Israel as we speak.

Would America allow its ally to be struck the way Israel is being struck today?

And the answer is no, especially if it was avoidable.

So we, we just can't be trusted.

I mean, this is a horrible thing for me to say as an American. Because back in the day, I used to travel with that blue passport around the world.

And you got off and you went, you know, backpack or whatever.

And they loved to see you. They loved to see you.

We're the most hated people in the world today. And there's a reason why.

Because we stand for nothing. Because we betray everybody.

I'll ask you a question kind of on that, that, that term there about how people can't trust us.

So one of the things that's being trotted outright now to try, again, to build support at home for this war, so people don't ask a lot of hard questions, is they're trying to go back to something we did a lot after 9/11, that the Muslims are the scary people,right?

So now that you've had a number of people, and I'm going to show you here from Senator Kennedy who wants to make this a religious work.

Lindsey Graham is the other one who's really, really played this up here.

But I'm going to play this and tell me if you don't see some problems with some of our allies who might be under the same category.

Watch this. I see a country that is run by Jack Nicholson in The Shining, The Shining. These are religious zealots.

If you don't agree with their version of Islam, you have to die.

I see a bunch of religious zealots who are determined to get a nuclear warhead.

They're never going to stop.

I see religious zealots running a country that even after we bombed their nuclear facilities in June, they've already started back and they've lied about it.

I see a powerful country that's amassing anywhere from 200 to 600 missiles a month, a month.

So that eventually they'll have enough missiles to threaten the whole world and prevent us from doing something about their nuclear capability.

So they're going after the whole world, first of all.

But this is a religious war and they want to kill everybody who's not a Shia Muslim.

What do you say to that? I mean, what do we call Israel?

Is Israel a non-religious state? I mean, it is a Jewish homeland.

They've bought into a biblical notion of greater Israel that it's all about religion.

What do we call Christian Zionists? You know, the people who are actually surrounding Donald Trump as we speak, making the decisions.

When we hear Ted Cruz say that he became a United States Senator to save Israel, I thought he became a United States Senator to represent the people of Texas as part of the Union of the United States.

When you hear Mike Huckabee, a former governor who's now the ambassador to Israel for the United States, saying, no, I think Israel has aright to greater Israel, meaning they have a biblicalright to take over the territory.

This is a Christian, you know, there's some disturbing things too.

Again, I don't like to age us too much, Colonel, because we, you know, but we are of a certain age. We have been there. We have done that. We got the t-shirts.

We got several of them.

So you know the former Delta Force commander, gosh, Charlie Squadron Mogadishu went on to become a general.

And he's the one after 9/11 that basically talked about this was a Christian crusade against the Muslims. And he was shot down.

I can't remember his name off the top of my head.

I had it on the tip of my tongue. But, you know, we all knew him.

We all knew who he was.

But we knew that when he spoke out that way, that that's just language that American military officers can't use.

We don't get to do that. We're not crusaders. We're not a Christian army.

We're an army of professionals. We're a corps of professional Marines.

You know, we don't embrace God this way. And yet that's what he did.

And he was rightfully, you know, shut down because at that time, you know, basic principles mattered.

Today we have people or soldiers who are talking about how their commanders are saying that this is, this war is a good war because it's going to bring about end of days.

It's going to bring out Armageddon.

It's going to be, and I'm, as a military professional, I'm like, you know, if we have to win by invoking God, we have problems.

We win because we're tactically better than the enemy.

We win because I can close with and destroy them with firepower maneuver.

We win because we have a better strategic air campaign because we're just logistically prepared for this.

God has nothing to do with it.

What it has to do with is the professionalism of the men and women who wear the uniform implementing the, you know, the sound instructions given to them by their civilian leadership.

By the way, I'll just throw out there, I am a genuine born-again Christian, follow Jesus Christ.

And that just grinds my teeth when I hear that kind of stuff, almost implying God needs our help and he can't do stuff without us.

And so we need to help him move this stuff along here.

And that is, that is deeply offensive to the Almighty if you're actually a follower of his. So we might want to rethink that part too.

I'm glad you said that because I didn't want, but since you brought it up, I'm going to say, because this, the hubris of any human who believes that through our actions, we can help facilitate Armageddon.

What you're implying is that God needs our help. Right.

Last time I checked, God doesn't need our help. We need God's help. Indeed.

You know, so again, the ignorance of people that say that we're doing this because we have to create the conditions for end of days.

I think if there's going to be an end of days, it's going to happen on God's timeline, not your timeline.

And, you know, but again, I avoid religion because it gets a lot of people angry.

But heck, I probably have irritated just about everybody in your audience today.

So why not keep going? But the point is now we come to the Islamic faith.

I have spent a lot of time in the Middle East, more than the average bear.

My father was stationed in Turkey for two and a half years in the 1970s.

And I have been back throughout the 80s and 90s as a military officer, as a weapons inspector, and as a historian, as somebody who just travels to collect information, etc.

I have interfaced with religious officials in a number of countries at the highest level. And what I can say is this.

There's no doubt that Islam produces some very bad actors.

Wahhabism, Salafism, the extremism there, it's bad.

But I can also say this, that Islam produces men of peace, a significant number of men of peace.

And just to throw something out there, behind me there, that flag there is the flag of the Akhmat Special Forces.

Abdi Aladinov is the commander of it.

That flag has a Christian cross and the Islamic moon and star.

And what it represents is the ability of Christians and Muslims to come together in support of a single cause.

The notion that Christians and Muslims are bound by history to fight one another, that it's us versus them, good versus evil, is absurd in the extreme.

The Russians have set an example of how Christianity and Islam can work together for peace.

The Russians fought two wars against the Chechens in the 1990s and the early 2000s, horrible wars.

Look at the photograph of Grozny, 2002, flattened. Looks like Stalingrad.

I've been to Grozny. It's a modern city today.

It had better neon lights than Las Vegas.

And the people there live in peaceful harmony with their Russian counterparts.

There are Russian Orthodox churches. There are Muslims' mosques.

They live in peace and harmony.

So the notion that we are bound as Christians to fight Islam is absurd. Great point.

Great point. Some of the greatest men of peace are Islamic scholars and Islamic imams who have flocks, just like Christian pastors have their flocks.

They have their flocks. And I've listened to them.

They are promoting peace. They're promoting harmony.

So this idea that this is a war between Christian America with our Jewish allies against Islam is insulting, deeply insulting.

And it's just wrong. It's just straight up wrong.

And you know, we were so, we were so right now, it just focused on the only instrument we have in our international tool kit is a military to the such that we have literally mothballed diplomacy and that extends everywhere.

DANNY DAVIS:

Well, listen, before I let you go, I appreciate all this stuff you've been telling us here. It's incredibly knowledgeable and very useful.

But I'd like to ask you a little bit about the Russia-Ukraine war.

Because I know you spent a lot of time covering that.

And since so much focus has been on this war here for obvious reasons here, a lot of people have kind of lost the ball on what's been going on over the last couple of weeks in the Russia-Ukraine war, other than Zelensky saying that he'll sell us some of his drone killers as long as we give him PAC-3 interceptor missiles.

But aside from that, what can you tell us about what's been happening on the war? Has it been mothballed or has it continued on?

SCOTT RITTER: No, the Russia-Ukraine conflict continues to go on tragically.

It's a war of attrition that Russia's winning hands down.

The Ukrainians are in a bind.

As you know, Colonel, war is an extension of politics by other means.

There's something we learned from day one.

Klausewitz and those who follow Sun Tzu know that that comes, that core layer exists in the art of war.

So we can't just look at what's happening on the battlefield.

The Russians have been waging what's called a special military operation, which means it's not a war.

But it's a special military operation designed to achieve a specific outcome.

That means the Russians are factoring in not just what's happening on the battlefield, but economic issues, political issues, etc.

Economically, Ukraine is a basket case.

Their economy has been destroyed.

They are reliant totally upon hundreds of billions of dollars and euros that are gifted to them every year.

If you remove that, their economy collapses.

Politically, it's a mess. Zelensky is in a political crisisright now.

You have the British supporting General Zaluzhnyi, a former commander.

You have the Americans supporting Budanov, the former head of intelligence, current head of the presidential administration as alternatives to Zelensky.

Which means this man has already lost favor.

Corruption is beyond belief in Ukraine.

You know, you give, you give a dollar, the dollar's gone.

There's just, they just arrested people, I think, going through Hungary with carfuls of cash and gold bars that are being secreted out of Ukraine into the bank accounts of Ukrainian politicians who are going to jump ship before they want.

The reason why I bring this up is that when we talk about the collapse of a nation, it's not just the collapse that's taking on the battlefield.

It's the collapse of the society.

You need economic collapse and political collapse that leads to societal collapse.

When the society collapses, society cannot sustain this military.

And so right now you have a Ukrainian military that has to basically forcefully, you know, conscript, I mean, thump them on the head, about 10,000 to 20,000 to 30,000 guys a month.

They're losing all of them.

They're losing more power than they can replace.

The Russians, on the other hand, and I've been there and I know this to be the case, the Russians have volunteers that are well excessive of the casualties they've suffered.

Don't believe anything you hear about Russian casualties.

I will tell you right now that I have it on the highest authority in Russia.

I have a rough idea what the casualties are.

It's a little less than 200,000 dead over the course of this conflict.

That's a lot. Don't get me wrong.

But when we say that the Russians have suffered, you know, casualties equivalent to the Ukrainians, they haven't, not even close.

It's about a 10 to 1 ratio.

The Russians are winning this war.

They have amassed reserves.

They'll be able to commit these reserves.

They've converted their defense industry into a, you know, they're pumping out, you know, munitions like you've never seen munitions pumped out before.

We haven't done that. Nobody in Europe has done that.

And they're winning the war geopolitically as well.

They have more support around the world.

You know, when we try to strangle them, we tell India, you can't buy Russian oil.

India is buying Russian oil.

We tell China, you shouldn't. China's buying more Russian oil.

And now we've given Russia the greatest gift of all by creating an energy crisis in the Middle East that has, you know, we see Vladimir Putin just saying, wow, I guess we're just going to have to go out and get new markets because all of the places that aren't getting Middle Eastern oil now need energy.

And Russia's now going to find those markets.

And they're going to get that.

And we thought we were strangling Russia's ability to sustain this war financially.

We've just guaranteed that the Russian budget will be an immediate UAE European gas cutoff.

That'll be the death of the European economy. It will collapse.

The Indian economy is under the weight.

Let me ask you a question there, because it seemed to kind of come as a surprise, because Trump has been talking about, you know, putting more pressure on India to do tariffs on them to keep them from buying Russian oil and all this.

And then seemingly out of nowhere, all of a sudden he goes, you know what?

Okay, that's cool. I think it's for like 30 days, something like that, you can sell some oil to Russia.

I mean, that's because everybody's been focused on the Iran war.

There's not been many commentation going on in the United States.

But a lot of people are going, wait a minute, what?

We're supposed to be putting pressure on them.

What do you understand about why that changed?

Why did he do that? Because of reality.

First of all, the Indians told him no.

I mean, sadly, we have to understand that Donald Trump doesn't tell the truth about anything to anybody.

He likes to posture.

He likes to believe that I'm in charge.

He's in charge. So he says, I put pressure on India.

Remember, he bragged, India will not buy Russian oil.

I got Modi to say that India won't buy Russian oil.

And the Indians were silent.

And then later on, the parliament came out and said, nah, you got to remember we're a democracy.

Modi doesn't get to make that call.

We get to make that call. And we've decided we're buying Russian oil.

And so Trump says, oh, well, I've given him a 30-day window to buy Russian oil.

That's my decision, not their decision. I did this. No, they're going to do it.

Now it's going to get even worse because India receives 15%, 20% of their energy from the Middle East that they're not getting anymore.

And they're going to have to go to Russia to get that energy.

You know, Japan, our great ally that we, we're not allied with anybody, I mean, because we betray everybody.

But Japan, if this continues, is going to, they get 90% of their energy from the Middle East. Where are they going to replace that? The United States?

We don't have excess capacity to do that. It'll come from Russia.

They'll reopen Sakhalin. They have no choice.

By the way, the price of oil since this started on the 28th of February has gone from 67 to 91 as ofright now.

I think you're going to see $120 oil if this continues for another week or two.

And welcome to, you know, everybody who's like me and at the end of each month can pile the amount of dollars you have left over after you pay your bills into a thin little pile like this and maybe take your wife to dinner in a movie.

That's gone.

Because you're going to have to fill up your gas tank and you're not going to be able to afford it.

And let me ask you about this, by the way, if you need to leave, I know we're a little bit over the time.

No, no, no. I'm here for you, Colonel. I'm here for you.

Okay, great. Gary's showing you this headline here.

This is Washington Post today.

It's from this morning.

Russia is providing Iran intelligence to target U.S. forces.

One of the questions people had at the beginning is, what is Russia and China going to do for Iran?

They're not going to get into a fight.

You know, they're not going to be a military ally.

But the question is, what would they do, if anything at all?

And based on this, what can you tell us about what the Russians are going to do?

Well, we know that the Russians and the Chinese have provided Iran with some capabilities, I think primarily in the electronic warfare.

Colonel, one day they're going to write a book about this war and you're going to get the truth from the American operators out there right now.

And I'm going to tell you what chapter one's going to say.

We were jammed the entire time.

Half the weapons we sent in didn't function because they were jammed by advanced electronic warfare capabilities that we didn't know the Iranians had.

You know, all that equipment we provide the Ukrainians, HIMARS, ATACMS, and things like that, most of it gets jammed.

It just, it doesn't work because the Russians have, you know, figured out how to defeat it.

But the other thing too is, why are the Iranians able to provide, you know, carry out these very effective pinpoint attacks against the United States on a daily basis?

They're getting the intelligence from somewhere.

It appears now it's from Russia.

Now for all the people out there saying, my God, how dare the Russians do it.

I just want to remind you that on December 28th of last year, while President Trump was on the phone with President Putin talking about potential peace, the CIA gave intelligence to Ukraine drone operators.

And 91 drones with CIA intelligence were launched by Ukraine to strike the building, the residence in Valdai that President Putin was ostensibly there taking the phone call from Donald Trump.

So before you get a little bit out of shape, you guys know that we tried to kill President Putin using CIA-provided data to send Ukrainian drones in there.

The CIA has admitted that it gives Ukraine all the data.

Trump tried to kill Putin.

And the CIA has admitted through a big New York Times article that was clearly planted in advance that they've enabled the Ukrainians to take out Russia's strategic oil infrastructure, specific places to strike, etc.

We've provided the targeting for HIMARS to take out Russian command and control centers so that, you know, we kill Russian generals and colonels and we brag about it.

Can you imagine being the family of an American colonel and general, lieutenant colonel or captain or major or sergeant or corporal or PFC who was killed by, you know, the weapons provided by an enemy that Russia guided in?

I mean, my God, we lost it when they, when we lied about Russia providing a, you know, putting a bounty out on American troops.

Straight up lie. Straight up lie.

But we lost it because three Americans died outside a bog ground.

We said that happened because Russia paid a bounty. Straight up lie.

They died because the Taliban got them.

But if Russia provided the intelligence that led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, we'd be freaking out as a nation.

And yet this is what we do.

We have provided the intelligence to Ukraine to strike Russia soldiers, to strike their command posts, to strike their strategic infrastructure.

We enabled Ukraine to strike Vovodkhinsk.

That was the factory that I worked at as an inspector, the missile factory, 1,300 kilometers away from the front line.

It's the place where Russia's strategic, you know, intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles are made.

It's the most important strategic facility in Russia.

And we allowed Ukraine to attack it.

Imagine again if that happened.

Imagine if Morton Thiokol went up in Utah.

Imagine if, you know, the, I don't know what they call it nowadays, but what used to be a Magna Utah, if that got blown up by Mexican drones enabled by Russian intelligence. We'd be freaking out.

We'd be saying, it says, strike against our strategic infrastructure.

So we've been providing intelligence to Ukraine to facilitate this war.

But it's not enough. The Russians are winning.

The Russians are dominating on the battlefield. I've been there.

I've toured the special military operation.

I have interviewed the officers that fight there.

You know, and I'm pretty good at interviewing.

I'm the guy that got, you know, I've covered all of the Iraqi lies over the course of seven years by sitting down and interrogating them.

I'm very good at what I do. Very good at what I do.

And so when I sit down with Russians, I can tell when I'm having smoke blown at me, I can tell when they're telling the truth.

Plus I don't accept anything at face value. I verify everything.

And what I'm telling you right now is I'm sitting down with the Russian commanders. They are very honest.

They, first of all, they all admit how hard this war is.

When have you seen a lying soldier come in, you know, how, it was easy. We kicked their butts.

We're, you know, they didn't do it. Hmm. Okay.

Why do you have an artificial leg?

But, you know, the Russians are just honest.

This is the hardest thing they've ever done.

They say the Ukrainians just fight like wild animals.

They don't surrender. They fight hard. Their tactics are good.

The equipment's good.

I mean, Avdi Aladino, the man who gave me that flag, the commander of the Occupy Special Forces, talks about U.S. equipment.

He said when the Ukrainian army went into Kursk in August of 2024, they came in with the best command and control equipment that NATO had, new computers linked to satellites, providing AI-assisted maneuvering, etc.

He says, pretty, we don't have that. You guys did a great job.

That's really good stuff. Then we figured out how to beat you.

And they do that.

They're just honest. They're honest about their casualties.

They're honest about their shortcomings.

And I have no reason to doubt that everything I was told by the Russians is the truth because it's hard truth.

It's not, when people are lying to you, they're trying to, you know, create a certain impression.

These guys are telling the hard truth, which means it leaves you with some questions about, well, why do you continue to do it that way?

If you're going to lie to me, sell it so that everything's perfect and it's all roses.

Don't tell me a truth that is a hard truth that causes me to ask follow-on questions that are difficult to answer.

The Russians tell the hard truth. This is a hard war.

DANNY DAVIS: Let me ask you a question I've got.

Tell me if this has ever come up in your conversations.

There is a line of thinking in the United States at some of the highest levels in our government, I'll say, in some of the context that I have, is that yes, Russia has all these advantages.

They have the manpower.

They have the industrial capacity.

But they're just, their soldiers just aren't that good.

And you can tell that because in four years, they've still hardly been able to go anywhere.

In the last two years, they haven't gone very much farther because they can't.

That's as fast as they can go.

And that shows that they're really just not that good against this little tiny Ukraine soldiers. What do you say to that? Is this as fast as they can go? Or is it a conscious decision? And if it is a conscious decision, why wouldn't they go faster?

SCOTT RITTER: Well, it's a conscious decision.

First of all, people need to understand that Ukraine has been digging into this territory since 2014, especially in Donetsk and the Donbas.

The defenses they have prepared are extensive defenses, reinforced defenses. They've been preparing for this for a long time.

So it's like fighting a fortified position.

And Colonel, I know you know this.

And maybe there's some people in your audience that know this.

But, you know, man, taking on a fortified position is the hardest thing you can imagine in ground combat.

And you're going to get chewed up.

You know, we talk about three to one advantage.

But a fortified position, you need about five to one advantage because there's just a lot more complexity involved in the assault.

And yet the Russians went into this conflict, you know, with little, around 200,000 troops going up against the Ukrainian military that had 700,000 to 900,000 troops.

People need to understand that.

When this war started, the Ukrainians had 700,000 to 900,000 troops, many of whom were trained by the United States.

Since 2015, the United States and NATO have been training Ukrainian forces in Western Ukraine, one battalion, 500 troops every 55 days.

And we admit to go over to the Donbas so they could fight Russians and kill Russians.

And we were proud of that.

We openly bragged about how we're training Ukrainians to fight and kill Russians.

Our special operations forces were working with Ukrainians to teach them, you know, deep reconnaissance, to teach them direct action, covert action, etc.

We've been helping Ukrainians for this fight for some time now.

So the Russians come in and they were hoping they could get the Ukrainians to resolve this thing through negotiation.

The purpose of the special operation was to get the Ukrainians to the negotiating table.

Less than a week after the war started, Ukraine was at the negotiating table.

Three rounds of negotiation, Gomel, two rounds in Istanbul.

And by the end of March, we had a peace plan that was going to bring peace and prosperity.

And Boris Johnson went in and killed it.

And now we have a war that's dragged on.

So the Russians have been adopting this.

The Russians have to, had to build up the forces.

300,000 partial mobilization in September of 2022.

Since then, they've been relying upon, you know, contract soldiers, volunteers.

To advance rapidly, you need that three to five to one advantage.

And Russia isn't mobilized to do that.

Russia continued, to this day, Ukraine has more manpower than Russia.

Russia's not in the business of taking territory quickly.

Russia's gone into the business of a war of attrition.

Yeah, he's going to, yeah, but that's again, because of the expansion of NATO. People have to understand that when you bring in Sweden and Finland and you extend the Russian front, that doesn't, Russia has to respond.

And they put a 70,000 man.

They're at 1.5 right now, right? So that's a 900,000 increase? Yep.

They started at 900,000.

And then after this, they went to 1.5.

And so while they're reinforcing this war, they're also expanding their military.

They have the defense industrial capacity to do that.

People don't ever reflect on that, you know, that in addition to supplying a war, they're building an army that's bigger than our army.

They built it by 600,000.

And now they've gone up by an additional 800,000.

And we, you know, I don't want to get into it, but we just can't do it.

The point is, the Russians are very good at what they do.

But here's the other factor that came in.

Right about the time that the Russians solved the tactical problem, meaning, for instance, look at the summer 2023 counter offensive in Robotino.

Big NATO offensive. Ukraine was supposed to roll through.

And the Russians just wiped it out because they brought a general, Romanov.

General Romanov was the deputy commander of the 58th Army operating in the Zaporizhzhia area.

He was taken out, sent to the Russian General Staff Academy, and told to rewrite Russian defensive doctrine based upon what you've seen.

And he rewrote it, came up with a manual.

And then they said, now take your manual back to Zaporizhzhia and build your defenses. And he did.

And he built the defenses using new doctrine that crushed this NATO offensive, crushed it absolute.

Right about that time, the Russians were starting to get breakthroughs.

Wagner and the paratroopers were breaking through at Bakhmut.

And things look good.

Enter the drone.

And this is the thing that people, I see one in your, on your shelf back there.

Drones have changed everything.

Drone warfare has just changed this.

And the Ukrainians were better than the Russians at drone warfare.

I know this because I've spoken to Russian drone commanders who still today say there are certain things the Ukrainians do better than we do.

They're just straight up honest.

These people are honest.

But the drones changed everything because drones, you had to change the entire way you fought business.

And initially, the drones caused Russian casualties because they didn't know how to deal with it. Russia has been adapting to this.

They now have a drone hunter unit called Rubicon.

When the Ukrainians come in with their reinforced drone units, Rubicon is deployed.

And Rubicon's job is to kill Ukrainian drone operators.

And they do it with a vengeance.

The Russians are dominating the drone battlefield, but it's still, you can't move.

When to get to the front line, you have to start low crawling about 10 kilometers out because you have drones out there looking for you.

And when you get to the front line, you're not running around.

You don't get to have your command post.

I mean, anything I learned as a Marine, I'd be dead because if I tried to operate that, put my company online, maneuver, we'd all die because of drones.

They have tens of thousands of drones they can expend a day as rounds of ammunition.

And they can hunt down individuals.

So you have to build defensive capability.

You have to jam them.

You have to learn how to shoot them down.

And the Russians are doing a very, very good job.

But this means that the pace of advancing is very slow.

The Russians are advancing at an extraordinarily strong paceright now.

But it is slowed down by drones because if you outrun, you have to put a drone barrier on the battlefield and have drone dominance in order to advance.

If you try to advance without drone dominance, you die.

And so the Russians have to come in and win the drone war.

They have to win it 20 kilometers deep.

And then they can begin to advance, until which time the Ukrainians reinforce with drones.

And now they've pushed back the line of contact over the Russian line.

The Russians have to go down.

You thin out your line because you have to reduce the number of targets.

And then you have to come back in with drones and continue to fight again.

This is a kind of war that we in the West don't understand.

We have no clue about what's going on.

And the trick is Operation Hedgehog 2025, the most recent NATO war games that took place, I think, in Estonia.

They brought in a small number of Ukrainian drone operators.

And they went up against the NATO Armored Brigade.

And they killed it.

That's what's going to happen to NATO.

That's what's going to happen to the United States if we go to war against Russia.

They will kill every single one of us because we don't know how to do drone warfare today.

We're going to come in and think we can put an armored battalion online and do this and do that and do the other, bring the artillery in and mass fires.

We'll lose everything because we don't know how to fight this war.

The Russians are masters of drone warfare, so are the Ukrainians.

But this is why the advance is so slow because it's a different kind of war.

You know, I had seen some comments from the Ukraine side six, eight months ago when the U.S. armor community came out with a new tactical manual for the armor platoon.

And it was, of course, changed to reflect the presence of drones or whatever.

And the Ukrainian, not the Russian, the Ukrainian veterans mocked it and laughed at it and said, are you kidding? That's your change?

Because that, you wouldn't last a week on the front line here if you use those tactics. You'd be wiped out. You have to do it radically different.

And that's a problem that I have and I'm real concerned about.

As a guy, you see, I was in the 1st Armored Division. I was the second in command of an armored cab squadron.

And I can totally validate what you just said.

If I used the tactics I did in 2007 when I was in that unit, I mean, we'd get wiped out just like the Ukrainian side did in June 2023 because we'd have been using the same tactics.

And now it looks like that we've recognized that there's a change, but we changed about this much when we needed to change about this much.

And that worries me.

I was in Russia last fall and talking to the commander of a drone unit.

And, you know, people need to understand, when I go to Russia, I defend America like you wouldn't believe.

I mean, I am fighting tooth and nail to defend the United States.

I don't badmouth, you know, as an American citizen in the United States, I have a First Amendmentright to say anything I want.

And I have a duty and responsibility as a citizen to call out my government when they're doing things bad.

But I don't criticize my government overseas. That's not my place.

And so it's sometimes hard to have conversations because these guys are like pointing things out that it's hard to defend.

But they were talking about the U.S. Army in Europe has a drone school now.

And they published some videos.

And there's a video of this soldier getting his drone.

He's bragging about how he's going to take a hand grenade and he's going to put it under the drone.

And now the drone's going to fly out over the target.

And they're going to drop their grenade down. And they hit it.

And they're like, yeah, we're masters.

Guys do know that that's like the very first thing they did when they started using drones back in 2022, 2023, was the grenade drop.

But today, you don't get to drop grenades unless you have total control aside because you'll be shot down, you'll be jammed, or whatever.

That tactic won't work.

So we are literally adopting drone tactics and trying to learn drone tactics that won't work on the battlefield.

If you look at some of the modern battlefields right now, go to Pokrovsk where there was heavy fighting.

The fields over Pokrovsk are covered with fiber optic lines, covered, literally covered.

It's like woven in. Think about it.

Each one of those lines is a single drone, fiber optic, which means it can't be jammed.

So they're flying at you with a fiber optic drone that can't be jammed.

Once they lock in on you, unless you can shoot it down, you're going to get hit.

And that field is covered with them going both ways.

That tells you the reality of drone warfare today.

We're not even close.

Colonel, you know this, and I know this.

Try and get a Lance Corporal to be issued a, you know, $2,500 piece of equipment.

And he's like, I don't want this. I don't want to sign for this.

And then tell them that you have permission to crash it.

And they're going to be like, nope, my paycheck isn't good enough. I can't.

In order to train on modern drone warfare, you have to have a budget that allows you to buy dozens of expensive drones so that your Marines and soldiers can crash them, can train to do it right.

And there could be no, there could be no consequence for crashing them.

If they take it off and it crashes into a tree, you can't say, oh, that's a $2,000 piece of equipment, soldier.

No, because in drone warfare, you're going to be literally flying these things nonstop.

And they're expendable rounds of ammunition.

We had people get in trouble in Afghanistan. There it is.

There's the fiber in Afghanistan for flying Javelins at the wrong target because Javelins are expensive and you need to pick drones, you just fire them.

You fly them, you crash them, you do whatever.

They're expendable rounds of ammunition.

And they are literally using tens of thousands of them a day on a particular part of the battlefield.

It's a whole new way of war that we in the West have no understanding of.

100% agree with you.

And I fear that one day we'll find out the hard way.

But listen, we'll leave it there for now because I'd like to.

Just so you know, Colonel, I sorry to interrupt.

Today, the report came out.

The Iranians are starting to use FPV drones.

This is the very drone weapon we, the Iranians are starting to employ FPV drones against, you know, American targets and against, for instance, the Kurds.

The Kurds now that the CIA is trying to get them to advance, the Iranians are using FPV drones to interdict them about 15, 20 kilometers into their rear.

So if we ever did send ground troops into Iran, the Iranians have mastered drone warfare.

We have. Okay.

And that's actually what I was going to tell you about because I've just gotten a note from a friend, somebody that you probably know well.

I've gotten two things.

One is that there was an alert that the 82nd Airborne Division canceled suddenly an exercise to go back for potential deployment somewhere.

Then just now, I received, and this is from the Stars and Stripes media service, says the Armed Services Blood Program is asking Kaiserslautern, that's in Germany, military community to step up and donate ahead of possible increased demand.

This is in Germany.

So I don't know if those things are connected or not or if there's just some reason they think that there's going to be a lot of civilian need for blood all of a sudden.

But there are some actions that seem to be in line with somebody thinking they're going to do something on the ground.

God help us if anybody's even thinking about that, especially, and it looks to me like, and we'll end with this, it looks to me like we had a plan A that we're going to come in and kill the Ayatollah, that they were going to collapse, fall down, and we would get some kind of Maduro-like deal to where it was over, nice and clean, in a week and out or a few days.

And now that it hasn't, they've solidified and their resistance has hardened.

And now it looks like we're scrambling for something different to do.

And God help us.

Do you think that anybody's actually thinking about if the Kurds can't do it, maybe we can send in some of our troops?

What do you think about that?

Well, first of all, I don't think that I still have respect for the politicized generals who are in charge of our military today.

They've been politicized.

And that's just a sin.

But I still believe that they're professional.

And so I don't believe there's anybody in the U.S. military who thinks putting the 82nd Airborne anywhere on the ground in this conflict would be a good idea anywhere because they can't.

The 82nd Airborne cannot fight this fight. They'll all die.

What they can do, though, is reinforce embassies.

And so we know from the past that the 82nd Airborne and the Marines were called upon to reinforce the Green Zone.

The Green Zone is under threat today.

We may need the 82nd Airborne to be a rapid deployment force because we have American forces in Iraq that are increasingly under risk.

And so, you know, we have to be careful where we might find Irbil, you know, in risk of being overrun.

Maybe the 82nd is going to go to reinforce Irbil.

We're building up, you know, zones of operation in Western Iraq that could potentially be used for special operations, incursions into the Middle East.

I hate to speculate about this kind of stuff because.

Yeah. Yeah. And that's all we can do right now.

But it is.

No, but I mean, it's just because if they're doing it, then nobody should be talking about it.

But unfortunately, there's a lot of media reports about how they went out there to do something.

The Iraqis found them and there was a firefight and all that.

But the 82nd Airborne might be needed to secure a forward operating base.

Yeah. So I think that's what the 82nd is there to do.

I think it's being called upon to come in as emergency reinforcement for embassies, for consulates, for already deployed American forces in Iraq, and maybe for the creation to the secure of new forward operating bases for other American forces who may or may not be eventually involved in this fight.

Well, we'll have to wait and see on that, like all these other things.

But we were very grateful for your insight on all these issues today.

Super interesting.

And we'll look forward to having you back real soon, actually.

Well, thank you very much for having me.

It's a pleasure to finally be on your show.

Thanks a lot, Scott. We appreciate you a lot.

And we appreciate you guys too.

Be sure and like and subscribe if you haven't done that.

And by the way, for any of our new viewers here, we're also on podcast.

We are on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Podcast Addict.

Just type in Daniel Davis, Deep Dive.

You'll find us there. We're also on Substack.

We have the written word out there.

Just about anything you'd want.

We're on X. Believe me, there's many ways to get your information.

We are unintimidated and uncompromised to bring you the truth, no matter what it is, even if it makes people unhappy, unfortunate about that.

But people deserve to know the truth.

Find out what we have here.

Share it with other people who'd desperately need the kind of truth we heard here today, folks. We appreciate you.

And we'll see you tomorrow on the Daniel Davis Deep Dive.

You know we don't have sponsors because we hate to hit you over the head with ads. I don't like them.

So show a little love back.

Subscribe, like, and send this to somebody you care about.