BOLTON: ‘With no likelihood of American use of force, that leaves Israel’
RUTHIE BLUM LEIBOWITZ interviews JOHN BOLTON
John Bolton makes no bones about his bleak forecasts. Rather than leaving his listener in a state of despair, however, his straight talk is surprisingly comforting, especially under the circumstances.
Former US ambassador to the…
On the heels of a war likely to be resumed any minute now, and on the last stretch of an election campaign that has been heavier on slogans than on substance, having someone in the know “tell it like it is” is refreshing, to put it mildly.
Not everyone feels this way about the former US ambassador to the UN and current senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, in Israel this week to attend the ninth annual Herzliya Conference. In fact, his unflinching assessments of where the world is headed in general, and what Iran is up to in particular, have some seeing him as an alarmist and others bracing for inevitable doom and gloom.
But the 60-year-old Bolton, a lawyer with a long list of public service positions under his belt (prior to his 16-month stint as US permanent representative to the UN, he served as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, senior vice president of AEI, assistant secretary for international organization affairs at the State Department, assistant attorney-general at the Justice Department and assistant administrator for program and policy coordination and general counsel at the US Agency for International Development), sounds as calm about his convictions as he is undeterred by his critics.
During an hour-long interview before leaving Herzliya’s Daniel Hotel and heading to the first panel-packed day at the campus of the Interdisciplinary Center, Bolton gave his take on Gaza, Iran, Turkey and, of course, on the outgoing and incoming American administrations.
Operation Cast Lead was timed to end immediately before US President Barack Obama’s inauguration. Since then, rockets have continued to be fired on Israel from Gaza, with limited retaliation, and preparations for a possible second round. Had Israel not pulled out, would that have put an automatic strain on Jerusalem-Washington relations?
I do think the Obama administration will be less friendly to Israel than the Bush administration. And I understand why the leadership in Israel might have wanted the operation finished by January 20. There may have been other reasons to stop, as well, although with the renewed launching of rockets, those reasons are less apparent.
Military operations like Cast Lead should be carried through to their own logical conclusions, and I think Israel has to calibrate its military actions based on its own self-interest. Trying to judge what it should do based on American politics is a perilous venture.
But doesn’t Israel rely on the US? Can Israel “go it alone,” without American approval?
Well, it has done so in the past. For example, it undertook the very important operation, in September 2007, to destroy the North Korean nuclear reactor in Syria. That was done, if not over US opposition, certainly without US approval. Personally, I think that US policy was wrong. I think Israel’s destroying of that nuclear facility was beneficial to international peace and security.
You’re saying the US was actually against that operation?
Secretary of state Condoleezza Rice wanted very much to avoid that strike. In fact, when Israel came to the US and first proposed it in the spring of 2007, she urged that it be postponed indefinitely. The Israeli response was, “We’ll postpone it, but not past the end of the summer.”
And that’s exactly what happened.
Speaking of Rice, she seemed to have shifted to the left over the course of the Bush administration, particularly in its second term, when she became secretary of state. Does it really make a difference, then, whether it’s Bush running the show or Obama?
Sadly from my perspective, there will be a lot of continuity between the Obama and Bush administrations where Middle East policy is concerned – generally on Iran, and specifically on a range of other issues. That doesn’t warm my heart. It shows that mistakes were being made, especially during the second term of the Bush administration, many of which were made at secretary Rice’s behest.
Was this because Bush came to rely on her so heavily, or did he actually hold with her views?
He did trust and rely on her very extensively in the second term, when a number of major voices of the first term left the government in one way or another and others, like vice president Cheney, had a much lower profile. I believe historians will judge that Rice was the dominant – in fact, nearly exclusive – voice advising the president on foreign policy in his second term.
Was he personally under her spell in some way, or did he change his mind about his own doctrine?
I can’t explain it, quite frankly. It was a big disappointment to see the changes that were made in a variety of policy areas. It was one reason for my not seeking another appointment at the UN, and I thought it appropriate to leave in December 2006, because the administration had shifted on too many important foreign policy issues.
At last year’s Herzliya Conference, you responded cynically to the suggestion that Bush might bomb Iran before the end of his presidency. Why, at the time, were you so certain he wouldn’t do it?
Well, I had changed my view on that subject. I originally thought that president Bush was prepared to use military force. He had said repeatedly during his first term that an Iran with nuclear weapons was unacceptable. And, being a man of his word, I thought that his use of the word “unacceptable” meant it was not acceptable, and therefore if diplomacy failed – which I was sure it would – that left the robust response as the only option.
I think what happened was that the president was persuaded by secretary Rice that a military answer to the Iranian nuclear threat would have provoked Iran to respond in Iraq, by increasing its destabilizing activities. I happen to think that analysis is incorrect – that Iran, if it retaliated at all, would retaliate by having Hizbullah launch attacks on Israel. But I think that secretary Rice persuaded the president that his biggest legacy in Iraq could be threatened and undermined if Iran stepped up its destabilizing activities.
CONTINUE
Many of the world’s problems would have been solved had this man been elected President. Of all of the politicians from the USA, he is the best.
I believe him to be correct when he says that Israel is own her own as pertains to Obama. Maybe that’s a good thing. The US has her own interest and in the current case, Obama’s interest.
I realize that this idea is pie in the sky, but Iran is a direct threat to the Saudis and the Emirites and if Israel could get permission from the Saudis to use their air space to attack Iran, the most difficult part would and could be handled. Israel’s problem is how would we do this thing? HaShem, give us a solution.
Ed, if I read John correctly I would venture to say “Go ahead and do what you need to do”.
I am in agreement. Unfortunately we in the U.S. are strapped with a weak and timid president and administration with no backbone.
If Netanyahu is elected I would hope he would make a quick appearance here in the states where I believe he is popular. He needs to sell the Americans on providing unconditional support to Israel. I trust the public will respond and begin to put pressure on our representatives.
We need to do something sooner rather than later. Obama is out in left field if he thinks he can negotiate Iran out of their quest for a nuclear power. This isn’t Chicago politics.
If he thinks so he is in for a rude awakening.
Israel could be our salvation.
Bomb the shit out of Iran and Turkey. Islamic countries have no right to exist.
Laura if we ever go to war, I want you in my fox hole.
That explains a lot, and it makes me sick. If it’s true, George W. Bush will go down in history as America’s foremost wimp.
Farewell Israel:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=399_1191453713
I’m not so sure about that. It is established that the CIA and Israeli intelligence had both concluded there was a nuclear reactor under construction. There were also reports of US collaboration in the attacks in which the US had a limited role. It is established that the US knew before hand and that Rice had push to postpone the attack. Regardless, after the attack both the US and Israel were censored by the UN and the White House defended, if not the attack itself, the validity of the reason for an attack.
The US administration knew Orchid was justified and at a minimum worked to keep the international heat down after the strike.
Back to Bolton; He is among the best of the very best that has participated in the political arena over the last decade or more. It is unlikely we will see anyone of his caliber at such a high level in politics for a while unless it is in Israel. Don’t look for any high level US figure to come out like he does.
In the agreement between US and Iraq now in force, US agreed
So the US can’t legally attack Iran from Iraq.
Also the agreement puts Iraq in control of Iraq airspace.
Bolton on Rice: Bush sold out Israel
When Sarkozy of France says he is a friend of Israel, and then proposes policies that will inevitably lead to Israel’s destruction, nobody believes him.
But when President Bush (the worst president in American history) did the same thing, he was proclaimed the greatest friend of Israel ever (you can fool some of the people all the time).
However Bush may have felt toward Israel at the beginning of his term, as Iraq became a quagmire and his popularity plummeted (along with that of congressional Republicans), he did an about-face with respect to Israel, but never announced it openly.
Instead, he did it in a a roundabout fashion: he abandoned the “Jewish” neo-cons, and switched to the Jew-hating “realists” represented by James (“F— the Jews”) Baker, Robert Gates, and Condi Rice (“Israelis are Jim Crow southern redneck racists, while palestinians are lovable Martin Luther King wannabees”).
To justify his new position, he produced the Iraq Study Group report that said Israel is the main impediment to Middle East peace, and the National Intelligence Estimate that said that Iran is not working on a nuclear bomb after all, and there is no need to attack it.
The new positions led to Annapolis and the demand that Israel retreat to 1949 borders, the American refusal to attack Iran, and the American veto of Israel attacking Iran.
So we see that for the last three years in office, Bush advocated the destruction of Israel, either through Israel surrendering to Hamas and retreating to 1949 borders, or by allowing Iran to arm Hamas and Hizbollah while itself working feverishly on an atom bomb.
And if you hadn’t noticed, the American embassy is still in Tel Aviv, and Jonathan Pollard is still rotting in an American prison.
Conclusion: Obama will not be worse than Bush; he will be the same as Bush.
To put it very succinctly-America and most of the west is flat broke-money is being printed without any backing whatsoever- The economic meltdowm is spreading through out the world as if it was some highly contagious and mysterious virus.-A major war in the Middle east, with the possible use of nukes is just not possible, given the current financial situation. And I suspect that Bolton is quite aware of that simple fact.
A real student of history would understand that these are precisely the circumstances that lead to international conflagrations.
And by the way, nukes are cheap.
And the aftermath of any major war facilitates lots of economic activity, i.e., infrastructure spending and job creation. Perfect for an ailing global economy.
Just ask Obama.
Ted I am surprised at you. Legal and America is an oxymoron; for arguments sake were America to break the agreement what consequences or penalties could or would anyone impose? Iraqi control of their airspace, that’s a funny one now isn’t it?
Peskin, Wars are and always have been the major tool of correction to economic, social,religious,ideological, nationalistic, tribal as well as a myriad of other maladies real or perceived problems, desires and injustices by mankind from our primordial past to the present.
Listen up. The U.S. and Israel both can use Iraq airspace to attack Iran. Who is going to stop them and who cares. If the Arab world doesn’t like it tell them to go pound sand. That should keep them busy for awhile.
peskin!
The people are flat broke, the American elite are richer and more powerful than they ever were. You and most others are victims of MSM propaganda. What you call a “meltdown” is a transfer of power and capital to the elite. They have more control than ever and endless resources to wage a war. If they want a war it’s a prosperity stimulus to a disempowered and disinherited nation.
..
The reverse of what you say is true: By creating a climate of economic desperation the elites have created a climate favourable to the success of any project of industry they so desire, including the most lucrative industry of all which is War.
What you really mean to say is that you don’t want Israel to hurt your nasty political allies in Iran. I thought you said that you lefties were tired of getting bashed? Don’t stand so close to the Islamofascists and you wont get bashed and you’ll get less radiation poisoning.
Rongrand:
Ronny, you might be very willing to have Laura in your foxhole, but the real question to be asked (drumroll please),DOES LAURA WANT YOU IN HER FOXHOLE?
Laura, we are all waiting, with baited breath for your response.
There is one thing I am sure of in this life and that is nobody alive today would want Peskin in their foxhole or in anything else I can think of. I have a nagging feeling that you feel threatened by Laura. I can imagine why YOU would.