Quotes of the week:
“We have only two very unpleasant choices: either Iran gets nuclear weapons in the very near future, or pre-emptive military force, fully justified by well-established principles of self-defense, must break Iran’s control over the nuclear fuel cycle and prevent (or, at least, substantially delay) weaponization.” – John Bolton
“It is perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current “necessity” posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons by striking first.” — John Bolton
What does John Bolton bring to the table as Donald Trump’s third National Security Adviser? Bad judgment calls that can have tragic consequences, for starters.
Bolton personifies the demise of the Republican Party’s national security establishment. Just 25 years ago, George Herbert Walker Bush sat in the White House and Brent Scowcroft sat in the West Wing corner office that now awaits Bolton. They were masters in the art of diplomacy, dealing expertly with the demise of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, negotiating two strategic arms reduction treaties with Moscow, and engineering the mutual withdrawal of the least safe and secure nuclear weapons from Russian and U.S. deployments.
These diplomatic accomplishments belong to another era. The Republican Party no longer has a national security establishment. Instead it has naysayers and media personalities who oppose less than impossibly idealized diplomatic outcomes. The essence of Conservatism is to keep that which serves useful purposes until one can replace something useful with something better. Bolton and his ilk have turned traditional Conservatism upside down: they want to get rid of what they don’t like without having alternatives. They don’t like the Iran nuclear deal or the INF Treaty, but they have nothing better to take their place.
This isn’t Conservatism; it’s deconstructionism. Bolton & Co. oppose what real-world diplomacy can accomplish, so they turn to putting U.S. forces into harm’s way. The U.S. military is already paying a heavy price for Bolton’s preferences, and may well be called upon to do more.
Bolton and those of like mind were cheerleaders for a war to separate Saddam Hussein from nuclear weapon capabilities he did not possess. (Twisting the intelligence to suit policy preferences is another hallmark of Boltonism.) The Republican national security dis-establishment, which includes Trump’s new designee to be Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has militarized nonproliferation diplomacy, replacing it with heavier sanctions and confrontational postures based on threats to use force and the ultimate sanction — the use of force. The timidity of allies is not welcomed, and international law be damned when it conflicts with U.S. freedom of action.
Team Trump is now on the path toward confrontations with both Iran and North Korea. The likelihood of diplomatic success continues to recede, while the likelihood of war is increasing.
Michael Krepon is Co-Founder of the Stimson Center. This piece originally ran in Arms Control Wonk on March 23, 2018.
South Asia
Share:
Quotes of the week:
What does John Bolton bring to the table as Donald Trump’s third National Security Adviser? Bad judgment calls that can have tragic consequences, for starters.
Bolton personifies the demise of the Republican Party’s national security establishment. Just 25 years ago, George Herbert Walker Bush sat in the White House and Brent Scowcroft sat in the West Wing corner office that now awaits Bolton. They were masters in the art of diplomacy, dealing expertly with the demise of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, negotiating two strategic arms reduction treaties with Moscow, and engineering the mutual withdrawal of the least safe and secure nuclear weapons from Russian and U.S. deployments.
These diplomatic accomplishments belong to another era. The Republican Party no longer has a national security establishment. Instead it has naysayers and media personalities who oppose less than impossibly idealized diplomatic outcomes. The essence of Conservatism is to keep that which serves useful purposes until one can replace something useful with something better. Bolton and his ilk have turned traditional Conservatism upside down: they want to get rid of what they don’t like without having alternatives. They don’t like the Iran nuclear deal or the INF Treaty, but they have nothing better to take their place.
This isn’t Conservatism; it’s deconstructionism. Bolton & Co. oppose what real-world diplomacy can accomplish, so they turn to putting U.S. forces into harm’s way. The U.S. military is already paying a heavy price for Bolton’s preferences, and may well be called upon to do more.
Bolton and those of like mind were cheerleaders for a war to separate Saddam Hussein from nuclear weapon capabilities he did not possess. (Twisting the intelligence to suit policy preferences is another hallmark of Boltonism.) The Republican national security dis-establishment, which includes Trump’s new designee to be Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has militarized nonproliferation diplomacy, replacing it with heavier sanctions and confrontational postures based on threats to use force and the ultimate sanction — the use of force. The timidity of allies is not welcomed, and international law be damned when it conflicts with U.S. freedom of action.
Team Trump is now on the path toward confrontations with both Iran and North Korea. The likelihood of diplomatic success continues to recede, while the likelihood of war is increasing.
Michael Krepon is Co-Founder of the Stimson Center. This piece originally ran in Arms Control Wonk on March 23, 2018.
Recent & Related
Building a Hornet’s Nest: The Promises and Challenges of US-Taiwan Drone Coproduction
Beyond Hormuz: The Sanaa Airport Strike and the Architecture of Iranian Proxy Power
Lebanon-Israel Security Annex Adds New Problems Without Solving Old Ones
NATO Summit Assessment: Partial Reversion to the Mean
Iran Uses Diplomacy and Coercion to Perpetuate Control of the Strait of Hormuz
From ‘Three Amigos’ to Distrustful Neighbors
Community Adaptation for a Water Festival Without Clean Water
Tripoli’s New Leverage: How the American Initiative Changed the Rules of Negotiation
America’s Chip Future Still Runs Through Taiwan
Postwar, Iran Is at a Crossroads
When Formal Alliances Stop Doing Political Work: The Canada-US Alliance in Crisis
Post-War Street Rallies in Iran: The Ascendance of Religious over National Identity
What Demographic Trends Mean for US Policy
Community Adaptation for a Water Festival Without Clean Water
การทำเหมืองแร่โดยไม่ได้รับการควบคุมตามแนวแม่น้ำในแผ่นดินใหญ่ของเอเชียตะวันออกเฉียงใต้
Navigating Seabed Mining in the Cook Islands: A Conversation with John Parianos
การทำเหมืองแร่โดยไม่ได้รับการควบคุมตามแนวแม่น้ำในแผ่นดินใหญ่ของเอเชียตะวันออกเฉียงใต้
Mining in Mainland Southeast Asia – River Basins Dashboard
Unregulated Mining Along Rivers in Mainland Southeast Asia
Trump’s Critical Minerals Search in Africa Won’t Tip the Scales Against China
Trump–Xi Summit: Expert Perspectives on the Stakes and Strategic Outlook
Breaking Silos to Beat Scams: Why Holistic Law Enforcement Matters
Find an Expert
Home to more than 100 scholars and global affiliates, the Stimson Center is proud to be a magnet for the world’s leading experts on the most pressing foreign policy and national security issues of our time. Explore our experts and their work.