Stafford Clarry, the Next Century Foundation’s senior member in Iraq, seems to think that John Bolton’s days as the US government’s National Security Advisor are coming to an end. He writes that:
There is a good chance, as with so many other top staff in the White House administration who have come and gone.
National Security Advisor (NSA) Bolton’s historically hawkish approach to US foreign policy has been long known, which is affirmed by his behavior during his short stint in the White House.
On Iran Stafford adds:
US-Iran relations that impact the Iraqi Kurdistan Region (IKR) are currently under control. Knowledgeable and experienced observers, however, fear “miscalculation, misjudgment, or human error”. See Speigel Online interview with former US CIA Director and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta below.
US-Iran military conflict is less likely largely because of potential adverse impact the 2020 US presidential election for the current White House. This is compounded by White House (Trump) well-known hesitancy in involving the US in another war.
North Korea attracts wanted/needed attention from the highest levels because they have nuclear weapons and missile capabilities for leverage.
In observing the North Korea situation, Iran is making moves toward increasing its nuclear and missile capabilities in order to gain leverage to attract unwanted/unneeded attention.
NBC News 2 July 2019
Bolton the hawk struggles to retain his influence with Trump
Analysis: John Bolton remains the chief skeptic of diplomacy with North Korea and Iran, but is he losing influence with the president?
By Dan DeLuce, Carol E. Lee, and Andrea Mitchell
WASHINGTON — John Bolton, President Donald Trump’s famously hawkish national security adviser, could not have been enthusiastic when his boss crossed into North Korean territory last weekend to make a bit of history with the leader of the Pyongyang regime, Kim Jong Un.For years, Bolton has warned against conciliatory gestures or negotiations with North Korea. Two months before he took his current job, Bolton argued in an op-ed for a preemptive strike on North Korea based on what he called an “imminent” threat.Now Trump’s latest diplomatic gambit with North Korea has raised fresh questions about the influence of his national security adviser, who has appeared out of sync with the president in recent weeks, particularly when it comes to how to handle Pyongyang.When the president stepped into North Korean territory briefly alongside Kim Jong Un over the weekend, Bolton was conspicuously absent, holding talks 1,200 miles away in the capital of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar.While Bolton was on his previously scheduled trip to Mongolia, a fierce critic who has painted him as a warmonger — Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson — was on hand for the president’s rendezvous with the North Korean leader.A day after Trump’s unprecedented walk across the demilitarized zone into North Korean territory, Bolton pushed back against a report in the New York Times that said the administration was considering scaling back its demands on Pyongyang and accepting a freeze on North Korea’s production of nuclear material instead of a full dismantling of its arsenal.“Neither the NSC staff nor I have discussed or heard of any desire to ‘settle for a nuclear freeze by NK,'” Bolton tweeted. He called the report “a reprehensible attempt by someone to box in the President.”
Trump, who as a candidate promised to extract America from wars overseas, has openly acknowledged that he and Bolton do not see eye to eye at times, but he has insisted he retains confidence in his national security adviser.“John Bolton is doing a very good job but he takes a generally tough posture,” Trump said last month. He called Bolton a “hawk,” and added, “I have other people that don’t take that posture, but the only one that matters is me.”Bolton’s trip to Mongolia had been planned a month before the impromptu meeting with Kim, a person familiar with the planning said, and he stopped in Jerusalem to meet with Israeli and Russian officials. Bolton chose to go to Mongolia instead of the DMZ because the country has “a critical bilateral relationship that the U.S. is looking to deepen across economic and military ties,” this person said.A senior official insisted Bolton’s view was not out of step with Trump’s on North Korea. The president remains committed to an agreement that would require Pyongyang to give up its entire nuclear weapons program in return for a lifting of economic sanctions, instead of an incremental, step-by-step negotiation, the official told NBC News. “The policy on North Korea is what it has been and continues to be, the big deal. Hand over all of it,” said the official, who was not authorized to speak on the record.It was the State Department and Stephen Biegun, the U.S. envoy to North Korea, who have sometimes moved beyond the president’s position, the official said, citing the February summit in Hanoi that ended abruptly without an agreement. “The last time the State Department got ahead of the President he walked from Hanoi.”In May, hours after Bolton told reporters North Korea had violated United Nations resolutions with a short-range missile test, Trump played down the episode.“North Korea fired off some small weapons, which disturbed some of my people, and others, but not me,” Trump tweeted. “I have confidence that Chairman Kim will keep his promise to me.”It’s not the first time the president has publicly contradicted senior members of his administration. Trump blindsided former Defense Secretary James Mattis, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and others with tweets and remarks that ran counter to previously stated policies.“It’s kind of a way of publicly putting Bolton in his place,” one source close to the White House said. “He kind of takes glee in doing it publicly.”According to three sources with close ties to the administration, friction between Trump and Bolton worsened in late May over Iran.Outside advisers and supporters told Trump he was being dragged into a confrontation with Iran and alleged his aides were moving ahead without fully consulting him, the sources said. The president came away angry and ready to question Bolton.
“There definitely are tensions,” one of the sources said of Trump’s and Bolton’s relationship.The dynamic between the two men ebbs and flows, with Bolton at times favored by Trump and at other times a source of irritation, the sources said. Bolton’s status is not helped by the fact that he has made few allies inside the administration.Nevertheless, the president did not appear to be ready to sack Bolton, the sources said.While Bolton is at odds with some other members of the administration over North Korea, he and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are mostly in agreement on pursuing a tough line with Iran, current and former officials said. But Pompeo enjoys a closer rapport with the president, and is more adept at adjusting to Trump’s view and pulling back on a course of action that makes the president uncomfortable, current and former officials said.The White House National Security Council did not respond to requests for comment.James Stavridis, former NATO supreme allied commander, said that under previous administrations, it would have been “unthinkable” for a president and a national security adviser to air their disagreements in public.“Publicly it sends a very bad signal, both to our allies and also it encourages our opponents,” the retired admiral told NBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “Kim is thinking, ‘Wow, this is terrific.'”Despite Trump’s wariness of military confrontation, Bolton has had a substantial impact on the administration’s policies, helping to push through harsh economic sanctions on Iran and the Maduro regime in Venezuela, former officials and experts say.But Trump is reportedly disappointed that the sanctions have not spelled the end of the Maduro regime as quickly as Bolton and his team expected.Last week, Bolton played a role in Trump’s decision to impose yet more sanctions on Iran, targeting Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior Iranian officials days after Tehran downed a U.S. drone.People close to the national security adviser downplayed the significance of any differences between Bolton and the president, saying Bolton’s not worried. Trump “likes people who have different opinions,” one of them said.In an interview with the New Yorker magazine published in April, Bolton said he accepts that his view does not always prevail in the White House.“You have to know in advance the president’s views are not always yours. When you enter government, you know that you aren’t going to win everything.”Stavridis said the president’s treatment of Bolton could force the national security adviser to question his future in the administration.“He’s got to start seeing that self-respect light flickering a little bit, flashing yellow,” Stavridis said.“I think he has to figure out a way to close the gap with his boss or look for other opportunities to serve,” he said.
Spiegel Online 2 July 2019
Former Secretary of Defense Panetta on Iran ‘You Can Create Chaos, but You’d Better Have a Plan’
By Roland Niles
DER SPIEGEL: Secretary Panetta, late last month, U.S. President Donald Trump called off a military strike against Iran at the very last minute — according to him, just 10 minutes before the missiles were to be launched. Have you ever seen something like that before?Panetta: No, I haven’t. Generally, when you’re discussing that kind of military operation, there is a great deal of time spent in the National Security Council discussing the different options and the consequences of each option. There is normally a great deal of consideration about the pros and cons of conducting such a military strike. If it is done according to that process, the president early on reaches a decision as to whether he will proceed with a mission or not. In my experience, once a president has made the decision to proceed with a mission, he goes forward with it.DER SPIEGEL: Trump claimed that he learned just 10 minutes before the strike was to take place that 150 people would likely lose their lives. Do you think this account is accurate?Panetta: If that’s what happened, then it’s a dysfunctional process. I cannot imagine that the Defense Department would have plans for going after certain targets that did not include what the casualties would be if you struck those targets. That should have taken place early on in the discussion. If that discussion was bypassed and it was only 10 minutes before the strike that the president was made aware of the number of casualties, then something is terribly wrong with the decisionmaking process in the White House.DER SPIEGEL: Meanwhile, since the resignation of Jim Mattis at the end of last year, the Defense Department has only been led by an acting secretary without Senate confirmation. How much does this affect the president’s ability to react to crises or make important decisions involving the military?Panetta: It further weakens the process that should take place in determining whether or not military action should occur. If you’re only dealing with an acting secretary, by the very nature of that title, that secretary is in a weakened position — not only in dealing with the military, but also in dealing with the White House. The feeling is that he is just there temporarily rather than being there in a permanent position, having been confirmed by the Senate. It really does undermine the authority of Defense Department leadership.DER SPIEGEL: How dangerous is the situation in the Gulf right now? Is war a real possibility?Panetta: It is a dangerous situation. I think there’s no question that tensions are increasing on both sides. The United States is ratcheting up sanctions while Iran is obviously willing to not only take down drones, but also to conduct attacks on tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. And the danger, of course, is that the more these tensions increase, the greater is the possibility of a miscalculation, misjudgment or human error on one side or the other that could result in military confrontation.DER SPIEGEL: What would happen if the U.S. were to strike targets in Iran? Even if such strikes were limited, would a larger conflict become inevitable?Panetta: That was always our estimation when I was at the Department of Defense — that if you struck targets in Iran, missile sites or installations or other targets, that Iran would literally respond, either by firing missiles at our military bases in the Gulf or having missiles fired towards Israel. They have a pretty effective missile system.DER SPIEGEL: Many people believe that militias allied with Iran would attack U.S. facilities or American allies in other countries as well. Is that a realistic scenario?Panetta: I think Iran would use several approaches. They have the capability of directing proxies like Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen and others to conduct attacks in other parts of the region. So they really have a number of options for retaliation. It isn’t going to be a situation where the United States could simply bomb targets and walk away without paying a price.DER SPIEGEL: With his strategy of “maximum pressure,” Trump is still trying to force Iran to the negotiating table. Do you think it will work?Panetta: I have concerns about the president’s maximum pressure tactics on a number of fronts. He’s used maximum pressure on North Korea and we still don’t have any plan for denuclearization. He’s used maximum pressure on trade with these tariffs, and we still have not resolved those trade issues. He’s used maximum pressure with Iran, but I don’t know that he has ever determined what the longterm strategy is going to be with regard to these kinds of tactics. You can use maximum pressure, you can create chaos, but you’d damned well better have a plan to resolve the issue. And I don’t think he thinks that far ahead.DER SPIEGEL: What is the Iranian approach at the moment?Panetta: I think they are thinking that they’re dealing with a very unpredictable and uncertain president who is not quite sure what path to take to try to resolve these issues. The fact that the president says the main objective is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and yet, at the same time, is the same person who tore up the Iran agreement, which was the only viable plan for trying to restrain Iran from proceeding with a nuclear weapon, creates enough distress on the part of Iran that they’re not sure — even if they sat down and negotiated with the president — that he would keep his word.DER SPIEGEL: What about advisers close to the president like National Security Advisor Bolton or Secretary of State Mike Pompeo? Do you think they have a plan for resolving this situation?Panetta: I would hope so, because they’re in the position to be thinking about that. At the same time, I think they’re trying to feel their way with the president, in terms of just exactly what he wants to do. I assume they supported a military strike and it probably took them by surprise that the president decided not to go through with it.International Newsletter: Sign up for our newsletter — and get the very best of SPIEGEL in English sent to your email inbox twice weekly.
DER SPIEGEL: What is the best path to get out of this mess?Panetta: I think the best approach for the United States would obviously be to make sure that we have sufficient military strength in the region in the event we are called upon to defend our forces there. Secondly, it is absolutely essential that we keep the Strait of Hormuz open, with a third of the oil in the world passing through the straight. Not only our national security, but the economy of the world is dependent on that. Thirdly, because there is so little trust between the United States and Iran, the better approach to try to open up a diplomatic channel would be to use our allies Germany, Great Britain, France and, yes, Russia and China, all of which are partners to the Iran agreement.DER SPIEGEL: There has been plenty of criticism of Trump’s Iran policy. But he did get a lot of positive feedback for his decision to call off the strike, including from Democrats.Panetta: In two-and-a-half years, it’s probably the one thing he has got right.DER SPIEGEL: Trump’s decision reflects widespread public opinion in the U.S.: Many Americans seem to be opposed to any kind of overseas military involvement. Is that an accurate description of the general mood in the U.S.?Panetta: I think the general notion is to try to avoid becoming involved in a Middle East war that is not justified in terms of our national security. I think the Iraq experience still is something that impacts American public opinion — there is a feeling that that war was not necessary. If it’s a war created more by the parties, by their inability to resolve issues, I think there would be a lot of concern about that kind of conflict. If, on the other hand, our national security was truly called into question and Iran suddenly started attacking our military bases in the region and killing Americans, I don’t think there’s any question that this country would be unified in fighting back.
Next Century Foundation blog 