John Bolton Bashes Brits and Won't Settle For Less than War with Iran

by Steve Clemons

John Bolton has another zinger oped today in the Financial Times offering withering criticism of Tony Blair and the British government for actions in the recent soldier detention case that Bolton argues only embolden Iran's hard-liners.

Ambassador Bolton is brimming lately with hard criticism of the Brits, the Europeans, and even the American government. I've been looking but I haven't found anything "complimentary" the guy has said about his former employers or any of America's key allies since he resigned his unconfirmed perch as US Ambassador to the United Nations.

Ambassador Bolton has lost little time in grilling the presidency of George W. Bush, pretty much all parts of it except the Vice President's office. Not too long ago, White House spokesman Tony Snow publicly spanked Bolton for his criticism of President Bush after American progress in managing the North Korea nuclear challenge. Snow specifically addressed Bolton and said:

I would like to remind Ambassador Bolton that the President he served believes the North Korea deal is a good deal and is in America's interests.
Snow made the comment with some vigor -- emphasing the words "he served" to make the implied point of "disloyalty."
...(snip)...

But three quick points about John Bolton's rant against the Brits today for all that may have been done to get the 15 British soldiers released.

First, Bolton keeps referring to Iran's nuclear efforts as a "nuclear weapons program" as if this is fact. Iran presently has no such nuclear weapons capacity and has a nuclear 'energy' program still in early stages (including today's announcement). Bolton's framing seriously distorts the empirical reality. This program may eventually evolve into a nuclear weapons program -- and I believe that there are key parts of the Iranian political world that want such weapons capacity -- but it is not a nuclear weapons program today. Without qualifying it, Bolton is fear-mongering and committing serious overstatement.

This style is reminiscent of Bolton's claims about bioweapons production in Cuba and his bullying State Department and CIA intelligence analysts to generate intel reports that conformed to his diagnosis of Iraq WMD activities.

Second, Bolton does not mention at all -- not one word -- about the unanimous UN Security Council resolution that UnderSecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns and Acting US Ambassador to the United Nations Alejandro Wolff successfully secured because of Iran's failure to suspend enrichment activities. Where is this action in Bolton's formulation that Iran's hardliners have been "rewarded."

Third, Bolton does not offer his own alternative on what the content of engagement with Iran should be, although I believe if asked, the Ambassador would offer something that sounded like hard-edged, military brinksmanship that moved a notch closer to delivering forced regime change and thorough bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities (which must include killing Iran's American and European trained nuclear engineering talent). ...[Open in new window]