When President Donald Trump announced March 22 that John Bolton would be his new national security advisor, critics and supporters alike showered the news with their thoughts on the president’s new pick.
Bolton, of course, is no stranger to most who dabble in foreign policy and/or national security, having served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations as well as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security under President George W. Bush. He is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and is also the author of Surrender is not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations, and How Barack Obama is Endangering our National Sovereignty.
Amid the punditry and what “they” are saying about Bolton, Homeland411 decided to take a look at what Bolton himself has said on the many matters of national security. While no guarantee of what he might do in his new post, it perhaps could serve as a philosophical roadmap for challenges the administration might face in the near term. Please explore the links associated with each passage for a more comprehensive look at each entry.
Middle East
“Vice President Mike Pence’s trip to Egypt, Jordan and Israel exemplifies how much the Trump administration has changed America’s Middle East policy in its first year. Initiatives to destroy the ISIS caliphate and combat international terrorism, reverse the misguided Obama administration policies on Iran’s nuclear weapons program and its pursuit of regional hegemony, and launch new efforts on the Arab-Israeli peace process all emerged in 2017. Considerable difficulties remain on all these fronts, but Pence has underscored the administration’s commitment in what will concededly be a long, hard slog.”
— “Mike Pence in the Middle East: The New Pointman on Foreign Policy?” The Hill, Jan. 24, 2018.
“The Iran agreement rests on inadequate knowledge and fundamentally flawed premises. Mr. Obama threw away any prospect of learning basic facts about Iran’s capabilities. Provisions for international inspection of suspected military-related nuclear facilities are utterly inadequate, and the U.S. is likely not even aware of all the locations. Little is known, at least publicly, about longstanding Iranian-North Korean cooperation on nuclear and ballistic-missile technology. It is foolish to play down Tehran’s threat because of Pyongyang’s provocations. They are two sides of the same coin.”
— “Beyond the Iran Nuclear Deal,” The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 15, 2018.
“I believe that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city and relocating our Embassy there on incontestably Israeli sovereign territory would be sensible, prudent and efficient for the United States government. Indeed, fully regularizing the American diplomatic presence in Israel will benefit both countries, which is why, worldwide, the U.S. Embassy in virtually every other country we recognize is in the host country’s capital city.
— “Testimony of John R. Bolton on the Implications for Moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem,” House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security, Nov. 8, 2017.
“Was Trump in control, or were his advisers? Defining a compelling rationale to exit Obama’s failed nuclear deal and elaborating a game plan to do so are quite easy. In fact, Steve Bannon asked me in late July to draw up just such a game plan for the president—the option he didn’t have—which I did.
“Here it is. It is only five pages long, but like instant coffee, it can be readily expanded to a comprehensive, hundred-page playbook if the administration were to decide to leave the Iran agreement. …If the president is never to see this option, so be it. But let it never be said that the option didn’t exist.”
— “How to Get Out of the Iran Nuclear Deal,” National Review Online, Aug. 28, 2017.
“On Inauguration Day, the president inherited acute dangers and longer-range strategic challenges, ignored or mishandled for years. While Trump has emphasized his intention to reverse course, the national security agencies have a mixed record in actually following his lead. Events in 2018 could well determine whether America resumes control of its international fate, or whether it continues to be buffeted by threats it could overcome but chooses not to.”
— “Threats of 2017: Mideast, Terror, Weapons—Will Linger in the New Year,” The Hill, Dec. 28, 2017.
JOHN BATCHELOR: “’Zero Option’ frightened people in Kabul and puzzled people in the United States. What would we lose, what are the risks of pulling all the troops out immediately?”
JOHN BOLTON: “I think it accelerates the risk that’s inherent in Obama’s initial policy—or his current policy—which is that when the United States and NATO leave Afghanistan, the structures of the Karzai government are so weak, and its military forces so poor, that I’m afraid Taliban and Al Qaeda taking over again in Afghanistan is a question of when and not whether. So an earlier U.S. withdrawal—a complete withdrawal this year—I think simply means Taliban can move into the presidential palace in Kabul a little bit earlier. And what that means is a huge strategic setback for the United States, both in terms of allowing Taliban and Al Qaeda to use Afghanistan once again as a base for international terrorist operations worldwide, and also because of the risk it poses for the government of Pakistan and its large arsenal of nuclear weapons.”
— “5 Years Ago: John Bolton Decries Taliban and Al Qaeda Revival in Obama’s Afghanistan,” The John Batchelor Show, March 31, 2018 (Broadcast from 2013).
North Korea
“Pre-emption opponents argue that action is not justified because Pyongyang does not constitute an “imminent threat.” They are wrong. The threat is imminent, and the case against pre-emption rests on the misinterpretation of a standard that derives from prenuclear, pre-ballistic-missile times. Given the gaps in U.S. intelligence about North Korea, we should not wait until the very last minute. That would risk striking after the North has deliverable nuclear weapons, a much more dangerous situation.”
— “The Legal Case for Striking North Korea First,” The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 28, 2018.
“Security Council weapons inspectors monitoring North Korea’s compliance with United Nations sanctions have reportedly concluded that, for several years, the North has been selling Syria materials for the production of chemical weapons. Additional sanctions violations also are reported, but none compare to the gravity of this evidence that Pyongyang is trafficking in weapons of mass destruction (WMD) technology.
“This information should be a pivot point for the United States and European governments that truly care about stopping North Korea’s nuclear programs and WMD proliferation. Pyongyang’s dangerous behavior today dramatically foreshadows exactly what it will do with nuclear and ballistic-missile technology as soon as it thinks it is safe to do so.”
— “John Bolton’s Trib Exclusive: Syria’s N. Korean Chemical Connection,” Pittsburgh Tribune Review, March 10, 2018.
“Trump’s speech to South Korea’s National Assembly, the first by a U.S. president since 1993, was impressive. He made clear he would do what was necessary to protect America, saying, “Do not underestimate us and do not try us. We will not allow American cities to be threatened with destruction. We will not be intimidated.” But Trump also reaffirmed the importance of the alliance between the United States and South Korea, thereby denying Kim Jong Un the opportunity, at least for now, to drive a wedge between the allies.”
— “America’s Decision on North Korea Hinges on Trump’s Success in Asia,” The Hill, Nov. 15, 2017.
“Now that North Korea possesses [nuclear weapons], the U.S. has few realistic options. More talks and sanctions will fail as they have for 25 years. I have argued previously that the only durable diplomatic solution is to persuade China that reunifying the two Koreas is in its national interest as well as America’s, thus ending the nuclear threat by ending the bizarre North Korean regime. Although the negotiations would be arduous and should have commenced years ago, American determination could still yield results.
“Absent a successful diplomatic play, what’s left is unpalatable military options.”
— “The Military Options for North Korea,” The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 2, 2017.
Russia
“The safest conclusion based on currently available public information is that Russia did not intend to advantage or disadvantage any particular candidate and that Russia was not “supporting” anyone for president. Instead, its saboteurs sought to sow discord and mistrust among U.S. citizens, undermining our constitutional processes and faith in the integrity of our elections. Advertising or demonstrations for or against Trump or any other candidate were means to the Russian end of corroding public trust, not ends themselves.”
— “Russian Assault on ‘American Idea’ Enables Trump to Take Tough Action,” The Hill, Feb. 19, 2018.
“On Russia, the president has not given up on Vladimir Putin, at least not yet, but that may well come in 2018. Putin is an old-school, hard-edged, national interest-centered Russian leader, defending the “rodina” (the motherland), not a discredited ideology. Confronted with U.S. strength, Putin knows when to pull back, and he is, when it suits him, even capable of making and keeping deals. But there is no point in romanticizing the Moscow-Washington dynamic. It must be based not on personal relationships but on realpolitik.”
— “Expect America’s Tension with China and Russia to Rise in 2018,” The Hill, Dec. 19, 2017.
“Almost unnoticed in the coverage of President Trump’s Asia trip, Lebanon is slipping under Iran’s control. On Nov. 3, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, a Sunni, resigned, citing fears of assassination by Hezbollah, the Shia terrorist group funded and controlled by Iran. No one can say Hariri’s fears are unjustified since his father, former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, was murdered in 2005 — almost certainly at Syrian or Iranian direction.”
— “Lebanon’s Fall Would be Iran’s Gain,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Nov. 11,2017.
Visit Bolton’s page at AEI for more of his articles, opinions, and compositions. Click here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here to explore the cacophony of opinions about Bolton’s recent appointment from around the media.
© Homeland411
Click here to subscribe to our weekly newsletter.