John Bolton: Former Trump National Security Advisor on the handling of the situation in the Middle East, the ceasefire negotiations

A former advisor to Donald Trump says he's under more pressure than Iran. 

The US and Iran will sit down for talks in less than 48 hours in Pakistan, as the ceasefire between the two nations continues to look shaky. 

The Strait of Hormuz is reportedly back open, but Iran says any ships that pass through will need to communicate with its army.  

Iran's claimed victory, saying its regime will seek compensation for every single loss inflicted. 

Former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton told Mike Hosking the US President needs to open the strait with military force if ships can't pass through.  

He says if the US isn't able to prove it can open the strait, then who knows what will happen if Iran closes it again. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
So some insights into how epic furity plays out. John Bolton,
He's seen it all for the United States. Investador to
the United Nations of Cool Security, advisor to every Republican
administration since Reagan, including Donald Trump. John Bolton is with us.
Good morning, glad to be with you, Thanks for having me.
Let's start with the what nixt does the ceasefile lead
anywhere permanent?

Speaker 2 (00:21):
Well, it certainly doesn't look like it's off to a
very solid beginning, and I'm not sure what its prospects
really are. I mean, as early as this morning, the
head of the United Arab Emirates, biggest state owned oil company,
said there's no opening of the Strait of Hormuz, which

(00:41):
Trump said was a fundamental precondition to the ceasefire. We
do have these talks us Aaron talks now scheduled for
Saturday in Pakistan with the Vice President leading the American delegation.
So you know, we're forty eight hours or less away
from those talks beginning. It may not make all that
much difference, because what happens that in Islamabad may really

(01:07):
set the direction for the next weeks and months after that,
or maybe not. But I don't think there's any immediate
prospect of hostilities recommencing before those talks on Saturday, whatever
is happening in the Gulf.

Speaker 1 (01:21):
What's your suggestion of the level of desperation from both
sides not to fight again.

Speaker 2 (01:28):
Well, I don't think there's really much desperation on the
Iranian side. Their rather primitive view of the world is
they win if they survive, and what they're interested in
is preserving the regime. They think they've been able to
take a lot of pounding so far and they're still there.
I think their position is much weaker, but I don't

(01:48):
think they feel the pressure. I think Trump's the one
who feels the pressure. I think he looks at oil
prices going up and equity markets going down and he
wants out. And I think the Iranians the regimes senses that,
and I think it leaves Trump and the US therefore
in a more vulnerable position.

Speaker 1 (02:06):
What does Trump need to do well out of this
regime change hasn't happened, with no proof that the nuclear
weaponry has been the ability to make nuclear weapons as
being destroyed. What does he need to say I won
beyond what he's saying already.

Speaker 2 (02:21):
Well, I think there is substantial damage to their nuclear
program and to the institutions of state power like the
Revolutionary Guard, the Kods Force, the besieged militia that threatened
their neighbors, threatened the US, and others threaten their own citizens.
But it's not finished, that's for sure. I think what
Trump really needs to do, if he's not willing to

(02:42):
pursue regime change at a minimum, he's got to open
the Strait of Hormuz with military force. The US military
always knew that closure of the strait was a possibility
that Iran would try. I know they're ready to do
what they need to open it. I think some activities
are already pretty well underway. I don't understand why they

(03:02):
aren't farther along, why they weren't begun earlier in the war,
But I do think that would be an important answer,
because if you don't prove that we can open the
straight through military force, now, what's going to happen the
next time Iran tries to close it.

Speaker 1 (03:19):
This is what the critics assigned, particularly in America, before this,
the strike was fine. Now it isn't. That's on Trump,
Isn't it no?

Speaker 2 (03:28):
Because the Iranian side was building up the capacity to
close the Strait. They have fortified a number of islands
at the southern end of the Gulf and in the
Strait really use tunnel systems like hamas uses in Gaza,
building up their drone and fast boat capabilities. And then
I think what they were really looking for was when

(03:51):
they had all that in place and then they get
nuclear weapons, then their threat is really hard to stand
because is their behavior going to be better or worse
when they get nuclear weapons.

Speaker 1 (04:05):
So that takes us back to the very beginning. The
very reason for this in the first place is broadly speaking,
Trump right to have done what he did.

Speaker 2 (04:15):
Well. I don't know what his objective is to this day.
If his objective were regime changed, there were a lot
of things he should have done differently, it's not too late,
but a lot insider ron helping the regimes opponents, giving
them assistance, money, telecommunications, weapons, whatever they need to help
stand up against the regime. I do think that substantial

(04:38):
damage has been done. But the reason we look at
regime change is that after forty seven years of trying
to change the behavior of this religious autocracy, it has
not succeeded. If anything, people in charge now are as
bad or worse than their predecessors. So if you can't
change their behavior, the only other alternative is regime change.

Speaker 1 (04:59):
Explain to me from old years of experience, when Trump
told us he was surprised about the size of the
Iranian navy, whenie City had complete superiority before the planes
got shut down, when he city was surprised at the
Gulf Stites being hit, how do you explain that?

Speaker 2 (05:15):
Well, I can't because I can tell you both during
the first term when we talked about potential policy with
respect to the regime in Iran, and I'm sure in
the second term, although I wasn't there to hear it,
the military and intelligence representatives could tell him in great
detail what these possible threads were. That's what the purpose

(05:36):
of the whole National Security Council process is. To put
the president in possession of all the necessary information, giving
the potential contingencies, giving the options, the pros and cons,
and let him make a decision. So it's impossible for
me to believe, even if he didn't remember anything from
the first term, that he wasn't told all that before

(05:58):
his decision to launch hostilities.

Speaker 1 (06:00):
I note Mark Ruther this morning has said that NIGHTO
were a bit slow. Is Trump right on NATO need
to do more?

Speaker 2 (06:07):
And is that.

Speaker 1 (06:07):
Relationship in serious trouble or is this just talk?

Speaker 2 (06:11):
Well, I think it's been in serious trouble since its
first term. I think Trump made a mistake by not
consulting NATO or any other ally frankly in the Middle
East and the Pacific before the operations began. But I
also think the Europeans have made a mistake to say, oh,
this is not Europe's war is just wrong. They've suffered

(06:32):
in Europe more terrorist attacks that you can trace back
to Iran than we have in the United States and Canada.
And just a little hint on geography for the Europeans,
they're closer to Iran than we are, so Iran's intermediate
range ballistic missiles can range almost all of Europe. They
can hit the United States. Everybody's affected economically when the

(06:54):
Gulf has closed. Europe should recognize that Europe needs to
think a little bit beyond the urope continent.

Speaker 1 (07:00):
And speaking of which, these comments from Trump in the
last twenty four hours on Greenland again, is that real
or devisionary?

Speaker 2 (07:08):
Well, I think that's Trump just blustering. I think once
you press the button on his feelings about NATO, a
whole long string of things come out. And now we
know that Greenland is part of the repertoire. I don't
think it indicates any uptick in that. I do think
that his lack of feeling for the NATO Alliance, his

(07:29):
lack of understanding really how it works and how it
benefits the United States, unfortunately hasn't changed since the first term,
and it's a problem for the alliance, no doubt about
it. It would be a huge mistake if he were to
withdraw the United States, in my view, and that possibility
remains as long as he's president.

Speaker 1 (07:48):
The wash up your view on the wash up for
the midterms? Has he damaged himself and his party badly?

Speaker 2 (07:55):
Well? I think his popularity has taken a hit because
of this war. That's one reason he's desperate to get
out of it. I think it has more to do
with the rise and the price of the pump of
gasoline and economic insecurity than the war itself, and his
view is probably correct. If he could get out of
the war tomorrow, oil went back down roughly to where

(08:17):
it was before it started. Markets stock markets went up
to where they were before, Probably not much effect by November.

Speaker 1 (08:24):
We'll get you back on again soon, John Bolton for
now appreciate a form of United States National Security Advisor
John Bolton for more from the Mic Hosking Breakfast Listen
live to news talks. It'd be from six am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.