The Belgravia Dispatch: Bolton on Iran

March 07, 2006

Bolton on Iran

Hard to imagine Adlai Stevenson, or Daniel Patrick Moynihan, or George Ball or Jeanne Kirkpatrick giving this kind of guffaw-inducing interview. More seriously however, did Bolton (whom I supported in the pages of this blog for the USUN job--albeit with some reticence) actually say as follows:

Back to Iran.............
Question: I think we've moved too slowly and they've gotten too far. It is frightening to me because Israel is such a small country, it would just take one, to get one off

JB: yeah

Question: One

JB: Well, the president has used this phrase enough times, I don't know if he ever used it in a speech, but he talks about his concern about a Nuclear Holocaust -- that's his phrase.

Question: He's right

JB: He's got Iran specifically in mind. That's why I am confident over time that whatever happens at the State Department, the President knows what he needs to do.

Question: You're clear on that.

JB: Yeah, he's got that, he's got North Korea which he calls a prison camp. He said to Kofi Annan last September - it's a disgrace that during our administrations this regime still keeps its entire population in a prison camp -- which Kofi didn't know what to say. There are things he's got in his mind that are very clearly fixed. [emphasis added]

One of the main hang-ups people had about Bolton was the so-called insubordination angle, ie. there had been rumblings he'd tried to circumvent policy objectives of the likes of Colin Powell and Richard Armitage (there was even at least one press account of similar machinations aimed at Condeleeza Rice, one that, funnily enough perhaps, reportedly also involved Iran policy). In this vein, it's hard not to read the language "whatever happens at the State Department" as a not insignificant dig at whatever Iran policy might emit from Condi Rice, Robert Zoellick, and Nicholas Burns. If I were advising John Bolton, I'd politely suggest he be a tad more circumspect, particularly in his public utterances. And yes, even in the odd ribald circumstances that can arise now and again on the purlieus of conferences, and especially on matters as sensitive as Iran policy.

Posted by Gregory at March 7, 2006 02:34 AM | TrackBack (0)

Comments

It's difficult to overstate how badly this plays in the rest of the world. For example, Channel 4 News in Britain is doing a series of special reports from Tehran this week. So it goes something like this: Kofi Annan is calling for the rhetoric to be cooled on all sides, but the US is ratcheting up the rhetoric. Cue John Bolton speaking at AIPAC, Sunday.

And wasn't it Bolton who came up with the 'Iran is floating on oil, so why does it need nuclear energy' line. Whereas the whole international effort is focused on saying, yes you can have peaceful nuclear energy, but not the capability to produce weapons.

http://channel4news.typepad.com/news_from_iran/2006/03/the_eye_of_the_.html#more

Posted by: DavidP at March 7, 2006 12:51 PM | Permalink to this comment

Channel 4 News also had a fairly extensive live interview with Ali Larijani during their broadcast.

A few hours later, Gavin Esler on Newsnight, BBC2, did another interview with him in the context of a good half hour segment on Iran and the US.

Are any of the networks or cable news outlets in the US filling the information vacuum by actually reporting the story in this multi-faceted way? Or is this being left up to Sean Penn and co?

From memory, Larijani stated explicitly that Iran would stay in the NPT, did not intend to develop nuclear weapons, and would not be deterred from pursuing its legal rights by "psychological warfare."

Whilst it's clear that the administration considers military action to be preferable to direct negotiation, I don't get any sense that they know what their endgame is - regime change is not going to happen any time soon, the military options are unpalatable, unpopular and unsupported internationally, and sanctions are liable to be inoperable given the current state of the energy markets - and the Iranians are capable of operating selective sanctions of their own as a retaliatory option.

Bolton is just dead wrong when he asserts that the US military can take out a couple of critical nodes and the game's up; if it were that easy then I suspect that the US would have done it during the 2003 Iraq war as a side-operation when oil prices were still reasonable, there were substantial military assets in theatre, and the US electorate was broadly behind the war policy.

Whilst both Rice and Bush have intimated that there is no problem with an Iranian civil power programme, Bolton seems to be asserting the opposite.

Perhaps I'm being ridiculously contrarian, but I suspect that the US, not Iran, is being led into a trap at the UNSC - the gap between what Iran wants and what the rest of the council will consider acceptable is relatively small, and any reasonable deal that resolves the "crisis" will be difficult for the US to veto. I just wonder whether the Bush administration has considered what it's prepared to "give up" for the sake of a deal.

Posted by: dan at March 7, 2006 03:37 PM | Permalink to this comment

Bolton? Circumspect? Can I get a pony too?

Posted by: Doug at March 7, 2006 03:38 PM | Permalink to this comment

sorry to go offtopic, but this past Sunday the WaPo published along editorial on democratization, replying to recent criticisms by "realists" (their scare quotes, IIRC) Im sure youve seen it, and it seemed quite relevant to discussions here. I was wondering if youre going to blog on it. (Note - i do not at all think youre under any obligation to - but I think it would be most illuminating to see how you respond)

Posted by: liberalhawk at March 7, 2006 10:49 PM | Permalink to this comment

told you so

Posted by: sigh at March 8, 2006 05:15 AM | Permalink to this comment

Forgot to mention - I have not seen the details of what Rumsfeld is alleging. To claim that Iran is supplying Al Qaeda / the Sunni insurgency would be stretching credibility.

Posted by: DavidP at March 8, 2006 02:43 PM | Permalink to this comment

liberalhawk, I haven't seen the editorial you refer to, but I've posted quite a bit recently in that general area, for example, this.

Posted by: DavidP at March 8, 2006 02:47 PM | Permalink to this comment

liberalhawk, I haven't seen the editorial you refer to, but I've posted quite a bit recently in that general area, for example, this.

Posted by: DavidP at March 8, 2006 02:49 PM | Permalink to this comment

I cant find a link dave, it seems without registering you can only get todays paper online. I read the deadtree WaPo.

Posted by: liberalhawk at March 8, 2006 06:30 PM | Permalink to this comment

Before the post starting 'Forgot to mention' at 02:43 PM GMT there was another which was 'held', while the next 2 got through. Confusing...

Posted by: DavidP at March 8, 2006 06:54 PM | Permalink to this comment

Before the post starting 'Forgot to mention' at 02:43 PM GMT there was another which was 'held', while the next 2 got through. Confusing...

Here's the missing post.
---
Dan, I am sorry if I unintentionally misled you. Bolton's 'floating on oil' remark was from 2 or 3 years ago. I have not seen him quoted as saying the same more recently.

The main point is about emphasis and rhetoric. It's the same with the allegations about Iran providing weapons to Iraq. C4 News (Tuesday), reporting on Donald Rumsfeld's comments, rightly mentioned that the British had made similar allegations in October (regarding attacks in the South), but then claimed that Britain have since been 'back-pedalling', for diplomatic reasons.

By the way, if you're interested in what's going on in the South, I posted a couple of links at the following:

http://davidp1.blogspot.com/2006/03/white-ducks-of-basra.html

Posted by: DavidP at March 8, 2006 06:57 PM | Permalink to this comment

liberalhawk, I couldn't find any actual editorials, but there is this:

Rice's Blind Spot
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/22/AR2006012200949.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

Posted by: DavidP at March 9, 2006 11:58 AM | Permalink to this comment

Here's the missing post...

Dan, I am sorry if I unintentionally misled you. Bolton's 'floating on oil' remark was from 2 or 3 years ago. I have not seen him quoted as saying the same more recently.

Posted by: DavidP at March 9, 2006 02:08 PM | Permalink to this comment

Dan, I am sorry if I unintentionally misled you. Bolton's 'floating on oil' remark was from 2 or 3 years ago. I have not seen him quoted as saying the same more recently.

Posted by: DavidP at March 9, 2006 04:40 PM | Permalink to this comment

By the way, if you're interested in what's going on in the South, I posted a couple of links at the following:

http://davidp1.blogspot.com/2006/03/white-ducks-of-basra.html

Posted by: DavidP at March 9, 2006 06:29 PM | Permalink to this comment

zyban side affect zyban on line http://www.debiandominicana.org/zyban/short_term_side_effect_of_zyban.html zyban and wellbutrin same ingredients johns st wort zyban http://www.debiandominicana.org/zyban/prozac_taking_zyban.html and .... zyban rash bupropion hci zyban http://www.debiandominicana.org/zyban/zyban_side_effects.html zyban social stigma zyban without a prescription http://www.debiandominicana.org/zyban/zyban_comment_fonctionne.html pregnancy zyban zyban indicaciones http://www.debiandominicana.org/zyban/nicotine-free_pill_zyban_smoking_prescription_quit.html .Thanks.

Posted by: buy zyban online at April 28, 2006 09:33 PM | Permalink to this comment