In one of the scariest moments in modern history, we're doing our best at ScheerPost to pierce the fog of lies that conceal it but we need some help to pay our writers and staff. Please consider a tax-deductible donation.
In a wide-ranging interview with Glenn Diesen, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern offered a blunt assessment of the political and military order built after the Cold War: the crisis surrounding North Atlantic Treaty Organization, he argued, is no longer a distant strategic debate but a breakdown already visible across multiple fronts—from Ukraine to Iran to the widening fractures inside Western alliances themselves.
McGovern, who spent 27 years inside the CIA and once chaired National Intelligence Estimates while preparing presidential briefings, framed today’s global instability as the result of decades of accumulated policy decisions rather than sudden geopolitical shocks. Speaking with the authority of someone who worked through much of the Cold War, he described how deeply entrenched narratives about Soviet and later Russian intentions shaped generations of American strategic thinking.
One of the central themes of the discussion was historical memory—specifically how Western publics were taught to understand NATO’s origins. McGovern recalled that for much of his own early life, NATO was presented as a necessary response to Soviet aggression, while the Soviet perception of Western military encirclement was largely absent from public discussion. He argued that this asymmetry became foundational to later policy mistakes.
For McGovern, the original contradiction remains unresolved: a military alliance created to contain one adversary did not dissolve when that adversary disappeared in its previous form. Instead, it expanded.
That expansion, he argued, produced exactly the kind of security competition many Cold War strategists once warned against. Rather than creating a stable post-Soviet settlement, NATO’s eastward movement increasingly convinced Moscow that the alliance had shifted from deterrence to strategic encroachment.
The interview repeatedly returned to what diplomats once called “indivisible security”—the principle that one country’s security cannot be permanently secured by making another feel vulnerable. McGovern argued that abandoning that principle after the collapse of the Soviet Union helped create the conditions that now dominate European politics.
He linked that shift directly to the war in Ukraine, insisting that Western discussions often erase the long diplomatic and military buildup that preceded open war. While public narratives frequently describe the conflict as beginning in 2022, McGovern emphasized earlier turning points—especially the struggle over Ukraine’s geopolitical orientation after 2014, NATO’s long-term relationship with Kyiv, and the collapse of negotiated frameworks that might have reduced confrontation.
The former CIA analyst also challenged the broader claim that Russia’s actions reflect a plan for continental expansion. In his telling, Western leaders repeatedly invoke worst-case scenarios without presenting evidence that Moscow intends to move beyond Ukraine militarily into NATO territory.
That argument, he suggested, has become politically useful because it justifies sustained military spending, deeper alliance commitments, and a continuing emergency atmosphere across Europe.
At the same time, McGovern described NATO itself as entering a period of visible internal strain. European governments increasingly speak of strategic autonomy while still depending heavily on Washington for military capacity, logistics, and deterrence. Meanwhile, debates inside the United States over alliance obligations have grown sharper, especially under the political turbulence surrounding future American commitments abroad.
The interview also widened beyond Europe. McGovern devoted substantial attention to the current confrontation with Iran, arguing that the same pattern visible in earlier wars is resurfacing: intelligence assessments becoming politically compressed into narratives that favor escalation.
He pointed to long-standing intelligence findings that concluded Iran halted active nuclear weapons work years ago—assessments that repeatedly shaped U.S. internal analysis across administrations. What concerns him now, he said, is that such findings increasingly disappear from public-facing political arguments even when they remain important inside intelligence circles.
For McGovern, this echoes one of the most consequential failures of recent American history: the path to war in Iraq.
He drew a sharp distinction between intelligence analysis and the political use of intelligence. During much of his own career, he argued, analysts in certain divisions could still challenge official assumptions. That separation, in his view, has weakened over time as political leadership increasingly rewards conclusions that fit strategic goals already in motion.
This concern is central to his criticism of current decision-making around Iran. He warned that intelligence ambiguity is once again being compressed into certainty, while military moves proceed under claims of urgency that remain contested even within parts of government.
Another major theme was the growing fracture inside the United States itself over foreign policy priorities. McGovern noted that long-standing assumptions tying U.S. strategic decisions tightly to Israeli security policy now face more visible public questioning than in previous decades, especially among younger Americans and parts of the antiwar right and left alike.
That debate, he suggested, is no longer peripheral—it now intersects directly with military planning, congressional politics, and alliance management.
Throughout the conversation, McGovern returned repeatedly to one broader warning: military institutions can survive contradiction for long periods, but eventually political narratives and strategic realities collide.
His argument is not simply that NATO is under pressure, but that the political logic sustaining it is increasingly unstable. European governments fear abandonment while escalating rhetoric against Moscow. Washington debates retrenchment while expanding military commitments elsewhere. Public trust in official war narratives continues to erode even as new crises emerge.
For McGovern, that combination creates a dangerous historical moment—not because institutions collapse overnight, but because leaders often continue operating as if old assumptions still hold.
What makes the interview notable is not only McGovern’s criticism of Western policy, but the way he links historical episodes often treated separately: Cold War doctrine, NATO enlargement, failed diplomacy, intelligence politics, and present wars now feeding into one another.
McGovern’s larger point lands with force: the strategic order built after World War II is under visible stress, and many of the assumptions that governed it for decades no longer command the same authority they once did.
In that sense, McGovern’s warning is less about the formal death of NATO than about something potentially more consequential—the erosion of confidence in the political story that has sustained it.
Echoes of Iraq: Intelligence, Politics, and the Push Toward War
McGovern revisited themes familiar from his past critiques—most notably, the way intelligence can be shaped to support predetermined policy outcomes. Drawing parallels to the lead‑up to the Iraq War, where the U.S. intelligence community’s assessments were used to build a case for invasion despite later being shown to be incorrect, he warned that similar dynamics are emerging around Iran.
In the interview, McGovern emphasized that a National Intelligence Estimate from 2007, agreed upon unanimously by all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, concluded that Iran had halted any nuclear weapons‑related work and had not resumed it for years. This finding, he noted, was central to averting an attack at the time, with senior policymakers later acknowledging it constrained military options. According to McGovern, this consensus has since been sidelined in public discourse—even as questions about Iran’s intentions are presented as settled threats, rather than contested assessments subject to political influence.
“It’s the same playbook used in Iraq—where exaggerated threat narratives were paraded as facts,” McGovern said, arguing that intelligence once a restraint on war has increasingly become a prop for it. He underscored that Tehran’s nuclear program has been repeatedly found not to pose an immediate weapons threat, yet public and official rhetoric often suggests otherwise, fueling support for military escalation.
The Risk of Escalation
McGovern’s warning did not stop at critique. He expressed concern about how current policy narratives could lead the U.S. and its regional partners into a broader, potentially catastrophic confrontation. In other recent discussions, he has warned that ongoing tensions and military actions risk drawing multiple states deeper into conflict, raising fears about regional instability and unintended escalation.
Particularly alarming to McGovern is the potential for intelligence messages to be overshadowed by political imperatives: where claims of imminent threats justify pre‑emptive or preventive military action. He highlighted the legal and constitutional norms that constrain unwarranted military attacks, noting that any such strike requires clear evidence of an immediate danger, which has not been credibly established in Tehran’s case.
NATO, Global Order, and Iran
Although much of the interview focused on broader questions about North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the post‑Cold War order, McGovern framed the confrontation with Iran as part of a larger pattern: a Western security architecture that increasingly relies on military solutions and rhetorical threat inflation. He argued that this approach erodes trust, undercuts diplomatic alternatives, and heightens the risk of unnecessary war.
Analysts outside the interview note that the broader geopolitical situation around NATO and the Middle East is indeed causing fresh strain on alliances. Recent reporting by international news agencies highlights how tensions over policies toward Iran have contributed to divisions within NATO, even leading some policymakers to question long‑standing commitments.
Contextualizing McGovern’s Position
McGovern’s warnings about Iran are rooted in his long‑standing skepticism of intelligence being used to justify war, a position he first made public in the run‑up to the Iraq conflict. In 2008, he publicly challenged military leaders and policymakers to resist pressures toward war with Tehran, pointing out that neither legal norms nor credible threat assessments justified such action. In that editorial, he urged military leaders to inform the public of the grave potential consequences before any attack unfolded, arguing that intelligence was already being manipulated to create a crisis narrative where none existed.
While McGovern’s views represent one critical strand in debates over Middle East policy—distinct from official U.S. positions—they reflect real concerns about how intelligence, politics, and military strategy interact in decisions that shape global stability.
Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.