John Bolton on Iran

March 22, 2018

On March 22, President Donald Trump announced that John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, will replace National Security Advisor General H.R. McMaster. Bolton served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. An outspoken critic of the nuclear deal, he has advocated for regime change in Tehran and use of military force against the Islamic Republic.

Bolton has also taken a tough line on North Korea, urging regime change. “The only way to solve the North Korean problem is to remove the regime or remove the weapons capability,” he said on Fox News in September 2017. “The answer to China’s fear of uncontrolled collapse is a jointly managed effort to dismantle North Korea’s government, effectively allowing the swift takeover of the North by the South,” he suggested in an August 2017 op-ed for The Hill. Bolton's opinion on negotiating with North Korea differs from Trump's policy. “Talking to North Korea is worse than a mere waste of time. Negotiations legitimize the dictatorship, affording it more time to enhance its nuclear and ballistic-missile capabilities,” he argued. The following are excerpted remarks by Bolton on Iran.

 

John Bolton

“This deal is not a treaty, but in treaties often there's a provision for a 90-day or 180-day notice of withdrawal. That, in effect, is what he served today. Because the idea that Congress and Europe can somehow change the deal in a way that satisfies the president's concerns is simply not going to happen. There's a small complication here. Iran is part of the deal, and they have to agree to it. Believe me, they're not going to do it.”

“I think the president has to say that this deal remains a strategic mistake for the United States, it was a bad deal when we entered into it, it's a bad deal today, we should get out of it. I think there's been far too much debate over whether Iran is in violation of the deal.”

“The alternative policy is regime change in Iran. The people rose at the end of December. That protest is over. But they crossed a red line in Iran, too, by calling for the death of the Ayatollah Khamenei for the overthrow of the regime itself. Widespread across Iran. I think this regime is weak.”

—Jan. 13, 2017, on Fox News “Journal Editorial Report” in reaction to President Trump’s pledge to withdraw from the nuclear deal if the United States and European partners cannot agree to changes to the agreement

 

 

“The outcome of the president’s policy review should be to determine that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 Revolution will not last until its 40th birthday. Now the fact is, that the Tehran regime is the central problem in the Middle East.

“There’s no fundamental difference between the Ayatollah Khamenei and President Rouhani, they’re two side of the same coin. I remember when Rouhani was the regime’s chief nuclear negotiator – you couldn’t trust him then, you can’t trust him today. And it’s clear that the regime’s behavior is only getting worse: their continued violations of the agreement [JCPOA], their work with North Korea on nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, only continues to grow.

“The regime has failed internationally, it has failed domestically in economics and politics. Indeed, its time of weakening is only accelerating. And that’s why the changed circumstances in the United States [President Trump’s election], I think throughout Europe, and here today are so important. There is a viable opposition to the rule of the ayatollahs, and that opposition is centered in this room today. I have said for over ten years since coming to these events that the declared policy of the United States of America should be the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran! The behavior and objectives of the regime are not going to change, and therefore the only solution is to change the regime itself. And that’s why, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran! Thank you very much!”

—July 1, 2017, speaking at the National Council of Resistance of Iran’s "Free Iran Gathering" in Paris

 

 

“There’s so much we don’t know about activity in Iran that for president Obama to say that [“If Iran cheats, we’ll know about it”] really he had to be consciously deceiving the American people. We know that we never got a baseline description of Iran’s nuclear-military related activities. They said ‘we never had a military program’ when everybody else in the rest of the world believes that they did. So the idea that we’ve got enhanced inspection internationally is totally false, and because our intelligence inside Iran is, I’ll put it this way, far from perfect, there’s every reason to think that they’re either violating it in locations we don’t know about inside Iran, or quite likely in North Korea, another place our intelligence is not great.”

—March 5, 2018, speaking to Fox Business

 

“My preference, and I’ve said this all along, is that we just oughta [ought to] abrogate the deal and get out of it.”

“This deal doesn’t mean a thing to the Iranians, and the very fact we’ve gone through this negotiation shows they can’t be trusted. People seem to have forgotten, starting with John Kerry, not to mention the Europeans, that Iran is a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty where they solemnly pledged never to seek or acquire nuclear weapons. They’ve been violating the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty…”

—Oct. 13, 2017, speaking to Fox News

 

 

“The United States and Israel must also avoid the latest snare set by the Europeans, who are desperately seeking to prevent the Trump administration from doing what Trump has repeatedly said he wants to do, namely exiting the failed Iranian nuclear deal.”

“Israel, of course, will welcome the withdrawal, but there must be diplomatic preparation both for such an announcement and the West’s follow-up actions that will make clear that denuclearization is Iran’s only way forward.”

—Jan. 24, 2018, in an op-ed published by The Hill

 

“Most important, there is no evidence Iran’s intention to obtain deliverable nuclear weapons has wavered. None of the proposed “fixes” change this basic, unanswerable reality. Spending the next 120 days negotiating with ourselves will leave the West mired in stasis. Mr. Trump correctly sees Mr. Obama’s deal as a massive strategic blunder, but his advisers have inexplicably persuaded him not to withdraw. Last fall, deciding whether to reimpose sanctions and decertify the deal under the Corker‑Cardin legislation, the administration also opted to keep the door open to “fixes”—a punt on third down. Let’s hope Friday’s decision is not another punt.”

“Tehran’s rulers are far more unpopular than previously believed. Like many seemingly impregnable authoritarian regimes, the facade belies the reality. Iran’s opposition needs external support, material as well as rhetorical, to continue its momentum. It would be tragic not to torque up the economic pressure by reactivating all sanctions now under waiver, and adding more.

“America’s declared policy should be ending Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution before its 40th anniversary. Arab states would remain silent, but they would welcome this approach and might even help finance it. Israel can also remain silent but pressure Iran’s forces, as well as its clients, in Lebanon and Syria, to maximize the stress on Iran’s security assets.”

—Jan. 15, 2018, in an op-ed published by The Wall Street Journal

 

 

“Some say that trashing the deal will spur Iran to accelerate its nuclear-weapons program to rush across the finish line. Of course, before the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action], Iran was already party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which barred it from seeking or possessing nuclear weapons, but which it systematically violated. … Burying Iran in paper will not stop its nuclear program.”

“Nor will abrogating the deal somehow induce Iran to become more threatening in the Middle East or in supporting global terrorism than it already is with the JCPOA in force. Consider Tehran’s belligerent behavior in the Persian Gulf, its nearly successful effort to create an arc of control from Iran through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon, threatening Israel, Jordan and the Arabian Peninsula, and its continued role as the world’s central banker of international terrorism. The real issue is how much worse Iran’s behavior will be once it gets deliverable nuclear weapons.”

—Oct. 9, 2017, in an op-ed published in The Hill

 

“These protests [in December 2017 and January 2018 over economic grievances and corruption] are about whether the regime survives, or not. And that makes them much more threatening to the ayatollahs, much more dangerous, and raises the stakes considerably. I think President Trump has already signaled a huge difference from the Obama administration by supporting the protesters, but I think we need to do more. We do not want to make the same mistake that America made before in 1956, calling opposition out in Hungary and standing by watching while Soviet tanks crushed the opposition, after defeating Saddam Hussein in 1991 we called for that regime to be overthrown and stood by where Saddam massacred other Iraqis.

“So I think we do need to provide assistance, I think we can do it in several ways. Number one, this is yet another reason why the president should get out of the nuclear deal with Iran, should resume all of our previous sanctions, putting increased economic pressure on the regime. We should provide material, financial support to the opposition, if they desire it. We should work with intelligence services from other countries, Saudi, Israel, to provide more pressure. There’s a lot we can do and we should do it. Our goal should be regime change in Iran.”

—Jan. 1, 2018, speaking to Fox News

 

“The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure. The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed.”

“The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.”

—March 26, 2015, in an op-ed titled “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran” in The New York Times

 

“Mrs. Rajavi’s [leader of the Mujahedin-e Khalq] position is exactly the right position. Because an Iran with nuclear weapons will be a less secure Iran. If this regime gets nuclear weapons, you can count on Saudi Arabia getting nuclear weapons, Egypt getting nuclear weapons, Turkey getting nuclear weapons, perhaps others getting nuclear weapons. So, in a very brief period of time, five to 10 years, you could have a multipolar nuclear Middle East that will make everybody less secure, and particularly Iran. This is why it’s so important that we support the democratic opposition in Iran to see regime change at the earliest possible date.”

—June 2010, speaking at a National Council of Resistance of Iran/People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran rally in Paris

 

Homepage photo credit: John R. Bolton 2017 by Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America (John Bolton) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons