Strikes disrupt nukes, IAEA seen biased, Israel ties risk war, intel key but flawed.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:

1. What is your assessment of the capability of conventional weapons to destroy deeply buried nuclear facilities in Iran?
2. How effective do you think targeted military actions are in halting a country's nuclear program, especially considering dispersed equipment and expertise?
3. Do you believe that the IAEA maintains impartiality in its monitoring of nuclear programs globally?
4. What risks do you see in aligning U.S. foreign policy closely with Israel’s security concerns?
5. How significant is the role of intelligence accuracy in shaping decisions about military action against Iran?

Scott Ritter:

1. Conventional weapons may not be sufficient to destroy deeply buried facilities; even nuclear weapons might fail without precise targeting.
2. Military strikes can disrupt but not eliminate nuclear programs, as knowledge and infrastructure can be relocated or hidden.
3. The IAEA is seen as biased, especially when comparing how it handles different countries like Iran and Japan.
4. Aligning too closely with Israel could lead to dangerous escalations, including potential nuclear conflict involving Pakistan or others.
5. Intelligence accuracy is crucial, but there are concerns about politicization, especially if the U.S. president relies on unofficial or foreign sources.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.