Transcription
Ambassador Bolton, last time you were on the show, you were talking about how you had advocated for this at your time at NSC. You wish they would have done it then. You were glad they did it now. But in that intervening time, you've voiced some concerns both in writing and on some of the other networks about how this is proceeding. I'm wondering, I mean, we wanted to get your take on these seemingly failed talks in Pakistan, but now I want to ask you what your thoughts on on this blockade that's being announced by President Trump just minutes ago.
Right? Well, I come from the perspective that the only way to get true peace and security in the Middle East is to have regime change in Iran. You can negotiate all you want with these people. It's not going to change anything. And I think the failure of the Islamabad negotiations just makes the point as clearly as as one can. I think the cease fire was a mistake. But. But just dealing with where we are right now. Part of the problem here was caused by Donald Trump a few weeks ago lifting American sanctions on the shipment of Iranian oil. And I think he was motivated by fear of rising international oil prices. And he thought a few tankers might get the price down. I don't think that's correct. I think it was insignificant. But but what he was doing was allowing Iran to ship oil, not the Gulf Arabs, but Iran presumably to get paid to gain resources to use in their military to kill Americans, financing the war against us. That never made any sense. And he should he should reimpose the sanctions. I think that maybe I haven't seen these tweets, but I think that maybe what he's doing and a blockade makes sense. You don't have to attack Carr Island. I don't I don't think that was ever realistic. The point is, no Iran. If no Gulf Arab oil gets out, no Iranian oil gets out. Let's see how they feel about that in Tehran.
We're going to get back to the blockade in a second. But you mentioned regime change. So I've got to ask you, though, this administration, the US administration seems to think that that what has happened in Iran over the last six weeks constitutes as a regime regime change. Do you agree?
That's ridiculous. Look, what we're dealing with is a group of religious fanatics pursuing a radical ideology, and it permeates the core of Ayatollah is at the top and certainly permeates the Revolutionary Guard and the leadership of both the civilian side of the government and the Revolutionary Guard has been severely harmed by the last six weeks. Not enough, obviously, but it's beginning to fracture the regime at the top. There are signs of that inside Iran. And I think the devastation that's been unleashed against the instruments of Iranian state power, the Revolutionary Guard, the Quds Force, the besieged militia, are having a real effect inside Iran. I think the cease fire was a mistake. The last thing you want to do is let up before you really do crack the regime and it collapses internally. That gives internal opponents and people who defect from the regime a chance to take over. Not guaranteed, but a chance.
Well, I think the challenge with that, ambassador, some would point out, is there's not a clear group of those people. There's not clear opposition, there's not clear defectors who are the names who would be an acceptable leader of this country to you. And are those moderates left? Because we've seen reports that many of them were potentially killed during some of these strikes?
Yeah. There were no moderates in the regime. If you judge by the most important criteria who favors getting Iranian nuclear weapons, they all favor. The opposition is really quite ride spread across the country. It is disorganized. That's a fact. But it's not like Iran had a two party system saying, well, we want this party out. And the other party. And I do think there will be a lot of turmoil. I think that's what happens after a 47 year long dictatorship begins to collapse. And I don't think you can dictate who the leaders are going to be from the outside. But what we can say is if this regime begins to come apart, there are plenty of people inside who are seeing the ship going down will decide they don't want to go down with it.
But, Mr. Ambassador, what is the end goal here? Because, you know, we have your op ed from earlier this week where you say the US cannot leave without finishing the job. And we've been talking this morning. That was a fear of a lot of allies that the Trump administration, America would leave with the strait not fully reopen. It looks like they are taking action on that front. But even if they do, this regime has proven, I think, more durable than a lot of people in this current administration thought. I'm wondering if you thought they would last this long and if they do start to crumble. To your point, there are no moderates in the country. What replaces them?
The people are the moderates. The regime itself is not. This is not a happy house for moderates. The Revolutionary Guard and the ayatollahs have to be replaced. I don't think anybody can say with confidence that the regime has survived. You know, they've been building it for 47 years. We've attacked it for six weeks. A little patience is required here. The Gulf Arabs will tell you, I think, that they don't look forward to living as vassals to the ayatollahs in Tehran. They want the strait opened. And I think now is the time to do it militarily, because if we cannot show today that we can open the strait, what happens three years from now when the ayatollahs decide to close it again, If you want to live under that kind of regime, that is a guarantee of higher oil prices for a long time and the Gulf Arabs being subordinate.
I also want to ask you, you know, I watched the Trump administration pull out of the JCPOA the first time. The situation going into negotiations in Pakistan overnight. The elements on the ground were not that different than the agreement that the U.S. pulled out of. Do you think that was a smart decision to even go to those negotiations? Do you think it gave Iran a card it wouldn't have had if J.D. Vance hadn't touched down in Islamabad?
Well, I don't think that negotiations gave them the card. I think the ceasefire gave them a card. They'd been subjected to six weeks of constant bombardment. Now they've had at least some time to be able to regroup to see if they can reconnect, re establish communications. I think you need to put the pressure back on. The immediate point is to open the strait. If we open the Strait to Gulf Arab oil, but not to Iranian oil. That would be the ideal interim fix, I think, on opening the strait and back to this idea of the blockade which you you have pushed for in your New York Times op ed, you write, If American combat forces entering the region can help open the strait by controlling territory on Iran's side, acknowledging the inevitable, inevitable risks that would be more sensible strategically. Does this mean U.S. forces actually on the ground in Iran?
Yes, I say more strategic, more strategic. Been taking Cargill. And look, while we've watched for the past ten or 15 years, Iran has been fortifying a number of islands in the Gulf. That's how they've set up this tolling system. Now, at least three of those islands are actually claimed by the United Arab Emirates, but most to a greater tender and less certain. They're filled with tunnels that probably have missiles and other equipment. I think those are the kinds of targets that we need to to neutralize so that we can make the strait safer for maritime transit. The military will have much more detailed knowledge of this, and I'm sure that's what they're thinking about now. It's not just clearing the mines from the strait, although that's obviously important, but protecting convoys of tankers from anti-ship missiles, swarms of Iranian fast boats, of which we've sunk a great number, and Iranian drones dropping weapons from the sky.
You said we need to be patient with regime change, with with change in Iran. But I'm wondering what that means. How long do you think this could take? How long do you think America should stay in this, considering this is a president who campaigned on no more forever wars? And do you think the president and the American public have the attention span for how long this could potentially take in order to see real durable change?
Well, it's certainly the case. The president promised no more wars. That's his problem. I mean, he apparently doesn't doesn't think too much of the pledge because that's what he's doing now. And it is important to get the American public to understand why we're doing this, which is another problem of President Trump. He did not make what I think is a very compelling case for regime change before the war. He didn't try to persuade the American people. He didn't work with Congress. He didn't brief our allies. He didn't work with the Iranian opposition. It's still not too late. But but a lot of the problems could have been alleviated. And you ask how long? I don't think you can put a time frame on it. I just want to introduce one radical concept victory that we actually defeat the regime. Remove the threat of Iran's nuclear weapons program. Remove the threat of international terrorism. Remove the threat that's really almost as grave as those two, and that's Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz.
Ambassador, I understand that. But also, you live in the real world. You've lived in Washington. We've got midterms coming up. We've been talking all morning about what this is doing for prices for the American public and how voters vote on kitchen table issues, and that's affordability. The longer this persists, the more we're going to see uncertainty in markets. Even if the strait is open, it's not going to be open at the tempo that it was before, certainly not for some time. Aren't those two going to hit the road potentially before this job is accomplished? And do you think this administration giving what's coming in November will wait it out or do you think they will cut and run before the job is done?
Well, consider the cost of not succeeding. That has cost, too. I think the president could make a very effective case that if you could get Gulf oil, a Gulf Arab oil coming out of the region again, given that before this started, the world was awash with petroleum. People were talking about the surplus and what to do about it. I think prices would come down very quickly, especially when it looks like it is safe to bring maritime traffic through the Gulf. Simply, the fact that the Gulf is open will cause prices to drop dramatically. So I think it's look, we should have done this six weeks ago. He should have seen this at the beginning. He said, I was surprised that they tried to close the strait. I was surprised they attacked the Gulf Arab states. I can't imagine the Pentagon didn't warn him of these dangers beforehand. Maybe he just didn't pay attention.
The president, in that true social post at the top of the hour, just before the hour, said that nuclear was not among the points agreed to. We know that's certainly a sticking point for both parties when it comes to these discussions. It has been for years at this point. Ambassador, you're all too familiar with that. Is there a way for the US to get this country to dismantle its nuclear enrichment program without changing the regime at the top?
No, I think that's that's the clear point. If you cannot change the regime's behavior and you don't want to live under an unacceptable threat like disappearing in a mushroom cloud, then the answer is change the regime. George W Bush put it very, very well when he was president. He said we cannot allow the world's most dangerous weapons to fall into the hands of the world's most dangerous people. And a lot of those most dangerous people are running the regime in Tehran.