Ex-National Security Adviser John Bolton Criticizes Trump’s Iran Deal as Risky Surrender

Former U.S. national security adviser John Bolton, who served under the late President Ronald Reagan, met with the late Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in October 2001, shortly after he was appointed to his position.

Bolton worked closely with President Donald Trump during his first term in office, but is highly critical of the current administration’s policies regarding Iran. He tells RFI why negotiations to end the Middle East war are likely to fail.

Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed a deal on Wednesday intended to bring an end to the current U.S.-Iranian conflict with the Islamic Republic.

A two-month negotiation period now begins, with all eyes on the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and whether progress can be made over Iran’s nuclear program.

Under the agreement, Washington commits to immediately waive oil sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy. Once a final agreement is reached on the Iranian nuclear program, the U.S. will also facilitate the release of a $300 billion (€258 billion) reconstruction fund supported by regional nations.

However, Trump’s decision to end the war, in which 13 U.S. service members were killed, has sparked criticism from some of his allies at home — with U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy from Trump’s Republican Party describing it as the “worst foreign policy blunder in decades.”

Trump, who has often boasted about his military interventions in the Middle East, said at the G7 summit this week that he was prepared to “bomb the hell” out of Iran if they violated the agreement.

Another former national security adviser, John Bolton, is also critical of Trump’s policies in the Middle East. He tells RFI why.

Bolton, who oversaw the Iraq invasion and later resigned after a dispute with Trump over the Iran nuclear deal, argues that the current situation is a potential political failure.

“What was at least a partial military success risks being turned into a political failure,” Bolton told RFI.

You asked why this particular course of action was taken. U.S. intelligence officials have not made public their understanding of events under Trump’s administration. How did he arrive at this specific moment to decide on this action?

Bolton aggressively pursued regime change during his second tenure at the Pentagon and his first period as national security adviser. He states that “the U.S. objective for many years should have been regime change in Iran, because I don’t think there will ever be lasting peace and stability in the Middle East until that happens.” He continues, “What Trump’s objectives were in launching the strikes with Israel back on February 28th, to this day, I don’t know.”

Bolton adds that while substantial destruction was caused to Iran’s military industrial complex, the regime remains in power. He argues that the ongoing negotiations risk “a political surrender by Trump to the regime that will allow it to remain in power in Tehran, sell oil on international markets, gain substantial revenues, re-entrench itself in control in Tehran, rebuild its nuclear weapons program and its terrorist activities, and continue to threaten the international economy by its sway over the Strait of Hormuz.”

The negotiations now aim to bring about a political agreement between Trump and Iran, but Bolton doesn’t believe this will lead to regime change.

Bolton was asked why he is so critical of Trump’s Iran policy. He explains that Trump’s approach is “a failure to understand the regime itself. It is deeply committed, right down through all elements of the Revolutionary Guard, to the ideals of the revolution. And that means it’s not a regime where just removing the head person could potentially change the regime. That’s not a question of underestimating Iran’s capabilities. It’s a failure to understand the regime itself.”

There are concerns that the U.S. and Iran may be diving into the same failed strategies seen in previous negotiations. Will these negotiations be any different?

Bolton suggests that the experience of past negotiations has taught nothing. It’s akin to the failed Reagan-era efforts to negotiate with the Soviets. He argues that using direct negotiations to change the behavior of an ideological regime like Iran is “a fool’s errand.”

Some believe the U.S. underestimated Iran’s military capabilities during the recent conflict. Did Trump and his allies make these same mistakes again?

Trump’s** decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 and his current negotiations have drawn criticism. What are the potential consequences of this decision?

Major players like Saudi Arabia, France, and Germany are pushing for a strategic realignment in the Middle East. However, if the negotiations fail, what happens next?

The U.S. economy is deeply tied to global oil markets. If negotiations collapse, what could be the economic implications for the U.S. and Iran?

These negotiations may limit future U.S. influence in the region. How will this impact U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East?

It could strain relationships with key allies like Israel and Gulf states who oppose Iran’s nuclear ambitions. How might this affect U.S. security commitments in the region?

”

Source link