White House strongman’s first test will be to live up to his anti-Tehran words
When asked in 2007 to defend his combative and abrasive approach while serving three US presidents, John Bolton pointed to his first job, rather than anything in government. “I am a lawyer,” he told The New York Times.
Tomorrow he will start work in the White House of Donald Trump.
His appointment as the president’s National Security Adviser has been dominated by questions about past judgements as much as curiosity over decisions to come.
To his allies, Mr Bolton is a zealous, principled lightning rod for championing a US-centric, at times military-driven, agenda abroad.
As undersecretary for arms control from 2001 to 2005, he was important in the Proliferation Security Initiative, a global effort aimed at banning the traffic in weapons of mass destruction.
Mr Bolton also helped in his short and controversial term as ambassador to the UN, in 2005 to 2006, to bring to the floor non-proliferation resolutions to put pressure on North Korea and Iran to rein in their nuclear programmes.
But at the UN he also showed disregard for diplomacy at a time when the Iraq war was spiralling towards a sectarian bloodbath.
To his critics, Mr Bolton epitomises unilateralism and a bullying character in pursuing policy.
Mr Bolton’s new position, in which he replaces H R McMaster, will be “arguably the most influential in US national security and foreign policy”, Phil Gordon, a former White House and State Department official in the Obama government told The National.
The job gives him access to the Oval Office that is “closer than the secretaries of state and defence”, Mr Gordon said. That could lead to unparalleled influence.
“Normally, the primary responsibility for the NSA is to be an honest broker within the national security staff but John Bolton is not known to be a fair broker,” Mr Gordon said, anticipating that the new chief will use the job to push his own views and agenda.
To say that Mr Bolton has strong views on foreign policy would be an understatement. He famously said “there is no United Nations” and that “we are confident that Saddam Hussein has hidden weapons of mass destruction”.
He wanted regime change in Iran and North Korea, was accused of spinning US intelligence on Cuba, was a big backer of the Iraq war, proposed a three-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians, and called for a Sunni state in Syria.
“Mr Bolton is someone who is prepared to go to war, and has shown an absolute hostility to diplomacy, a disdain for co-operation with partners and for international organisations,” Mr Gordon said.
In 2002 Mr Bolton described America’s withdrawal from the International Criminal Court as “the happiest moment” of his career and he led negotiations to withdraw from the anti-ballistic missile treaty.
Elliott Abrams, a former White House official who worked with Mr Bolton in the George W Bush presidency, described him as one of the “strongest” picks for the job.
Mr Bolton also served presidents Ronald Reagan and George H W Bush. Mr Trump was close to nominating him in November 2016. The recent change of heart is not surprising to Mr Abrams.
“He has been on the president’s mind and they have been meeting regularly,” he said. “John’s strongest attribute is making sure the president’s policy is implemented through the vast federal US bureaucracy.” White House Chief of Staff John Kelly reportedly tried to block the meetings, but was sidelined before the exit of Mr McMaster last month.
Two conservative political figures in Washington described Mr Bolton as relentless, stubborn and argumentative.
“You don’t want to get on his bad side,” one said. A Republican who works on foreign policy in Washington told The
National that Mr Bolton was “very bright and a principled adherent to a set of ideas but he is neither flexible nor a team player”.
While at the State Department, Mr Bolton often clashed with his boss Colin Powell and used the tools of bureaucracy to undermine anyone who opposed him. This could put him at odds with Secretary of Defence James Mattis, who
The Washington Post said had refused in the past year to hand the White House military options to strike Iranian missile factories.
In the Middle East, Mr Bolton’s biggest impact could be on Iran. He has often lambasted Tehran, and a May 12 deadline looms on US negotiations to amend the Iran nuclear deal. Mr Bolton’s allies and critics agree that his appointment makes it more likely that Washington will abandon the agreement.
His credibility could be coloured by his connections to the Mujahedin-e Khalq, a group formally designated as terrorists by the State Department in 1997 having ran a bombing campaign inside Iran, including against American companies, during the US-backed reign of the Shah in the 1970s.
Opponents often call him a neo-conservative but his foreign policy views appear to be closer to former vice president Dick Cheney than to neo-cons such as Paul Wolfowitz.
Mr Bolton is not an advocate for democracy abroad but “sees policy through the lens of power”, said Adam Ereli, a former US ambassador to Bahrain who worked with him at the State Department.
Other controversies include Mr Bolton reportedly threatening Jose Boustani, a retired Brazilian diplomat and former head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, in 2002.
But Mr Bolton’s Achilles heel could be Mr Trump. While both men are known for their combative approaches and fondness for media attention, the adviser’s fixed views could clash with the president’s unpredictable approach to government, and apparent willingness to pursue an isolationist foreign policy.