The Tangwall Campagin. You have been saying for decades that Iranian power is irreformable. Why do you think a regime change is necessary today ?
John Bolton. The threats posed by Iran are multiple and well known: its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and its support for terrorism that it finances and organizes. To this is now added a third element, due in part to the way in which Donald Trump is conducting current operations: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which endangers the entire world economy.
This illustrates how we have neglected the strategic geography of the Gulf for too long, something we can no longer afford to do. And demonstrates, even more than before, that this regime constitutes a threat on a regional and global scale. Under these conditions, it is unacceptable to have to continue with him.
What do you think could be the realistic outcome of this war? What would Iran look like after 47 years of Islamic dictatorship?
I think Trump is above all looking for a way out. This is not the right solution but I know him well: general strategic considerations are not his main concern. What obsesses him is the price of gasoline at the pump, its impact on his political future and on the midterm elections next November. I have the feeling that Trump is above all looking to be able to declare himself the winner and get out of this situation. But we must look at the strategic consequences. If this regime all the threats it represented before, despite the current upheavals. And above all, it will strengthen the influence of Russia and China in the Middle East. Iran has already played a pioneering role in this Sino-Russian axis which is being established and which will become even more important in this expanding whole.
What lessons should the United States learn from the 2003 Iraq War to avoid a drawn-out, life-and-financially costly conflict?
The first lesson is to distinguish the war itself from what followed the conflict. I say it: this war was not a failure. The failure was nation building, for which we should have immediately entrusted responsibility to the Iraqi people. We had to say: “Take control of the country. We will maintain a military presence to contain external threats, including Syria and Iran, but management of the government falls to you. »
To say that this is not a European war is, in my eyes, a major strategic error
Instead, we established a Coalition Provisional Authority, which extended our commitment. If we had done otherwise, the story would have been very different. In Iran, regime change will have to rely largely on the Iranian opponents themselves. And we must say things clearly: this is also Europe’s war. Trump clearly made a serious mistake by not consulting NATO, the Arab Gulf countries, or the Pacific allies. Person ! Nor has he prepared the American people or Congress.
In France, many fear getting stuck. And Europe chose not to get involved. Is this an error?
Europe has already been the target of attacks linked to Iran or targeting Iranian opponents. You suffered from it in France, like us, in the United States and also in Canada. The terrorist threat is therefore very real. Furthermore, Europe is geographically closer to Iran than the United States. Iran’s intermediate-range ballistic missiles can strike not only Eastern and Central Europe, but your entire continent. To say that this is not a European war is, in my eyes, a major strategic error.
What should we have done to stand with you and Israel? Send our Navy?
France reacted, like Europe as a whole, with a certain collective firmness to Donald Trump’s statements. I know that President Emmanuel Macron doesn’t appreciate his outings. He thus joins a long list of leaders who disapprove of them. But we must not let Trump’s childish actions dictate Europe’s strategic response. Fundamental interests must be taken into account. They need to stop reacting only to Donald Trump’s statements, no matter how confusing or provocative they may be. We must look at long-term strategic interests. After 47 years in power, there is no evidence that this regime will change its behavior. If it does not change, we must draw the consequences. Continuing to hope for internal evolution without external pressure leads to a dead end.
What do you think of Donald Trump’s threats to withdraw from NATO at such a critical time for the West?
This would be a catastrophic mistake for the United States! But I also understand, in part, the American reaction to the European attitude. When Europeans say they can fend for themselves and don’t want to get involved, they give Trump arguments to disengage. In this logic, he could very easily say: “Alright, figure it out on your own!” » And this could go so far as to call into question the American nuclear umbrella. Even if he says today that he wants to maintain it, his logic could lead him to change his position. It’s a dangerous slope.
On this point, France would tell you that it already has its own nuclear umbrella! In these conditions should Europe take more direct responsibility for its own defense?
Yes, you have a few hundred heads. But the issue is not limited to the number of nuclear bombs or the relationship with Washington. In a world where the main threat to the West in the 21st century is the coordinated action of Russia and China – what Vladimir Putin himself calls a “partnership without limits” – and where countries like Belarus, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and North Korea play a pioneering role in this area, Europe cannot afford to look elsewhere. If you want a stronger Russia and China in the Middle East, then continue to act as if this war does not concern you.
Can the American strategy lead to a decisive result in the coming weeks as Trump suggests?
It is very difficult to interpret what the president really thinks. Every day brings a new direction. I am concerned that he is simply seeking to declare victory, even if the fundamental problems are not resolved. The risk is then to leave the Iranian opposition isolated. In this case, she could be crushed by the regime, as has happened elsewhere.
The current strikes are weakening the regime, destroying some of the Revolutionary Guards’ capabilities and creating internal divisions. There is a real opportunity, particularly with defectors within the regime. But without a clear strategy and support for the opposition, this opportunity could be lost.
