Given the major departures of pro-Israel figures like the now former national security adviser and the upcoming resignation of US special envoy Jason Greenblatt, questions remain as to the direction of the Trump administration.
by Jackson Richman, ISRAEL HAYOM JNS , Israel Hayom Staff
In this Sunday, June 23, 2019 file photo, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US National Security Adviser John Bolton visit an old army outpost overlooking the Jordan Valley between Beit Shean and Jericho | Photo: AP/Abir Sultan, FileWith John Bolton ousted as national security adviser on Tuesday, questions remain regarding the Trump administration’s posture on both the US-Israel relationship and the Iranian threat.
“[US] President [Donald] Trump and John Bolton share a strategic vision of leveraging American economic and military power, especially maximum sanctions pressure and targeted power projection to achieve international security objectives,” Washington-based geopolitical strategist John Sitilides told JNS. “John Bolton possesses superb situational awareness skills and a first-rate analytical intellect on national-security priorities.”
However, he continued, Bolton’s “policy options and recommendations were frequently misaligned with President Trump’s agenda to end protracted wars, diminish the risk of launching new wars and emphasize diplomatic incentives, as well as deterrents in persuading US adversaries such as China, Iran, North Korea and the Taliban to change their hostile behaviors and policies.”
Bolton’s exit comes at a time of when the administration is preparing to release its long-awaited Middle East peace plan to respond to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as possible negotiations with Iran.
Trump said on Monday that he was open to meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, which wasn’t the first time he has invited talks with Tehran.
“It could happen,” he told reporters outside the White House. “No problem with meeting. Iran should straighten out because frankly, they’re in a very bad position,” he added.
Ilan Berman, senior vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council, said that Trump’s neo-isolationist views and purported desire to strike diplomatic deals with long-time foes such as North Korea and Iran are at odds with the maximalist positions of Bolton, a veteran of the George W. Bush administration.
“Bolton’s ouster as national security adviser shouldn’t come as a complete surprise. After all, it has been clear for some time that his long-held attitudes on issues like North Korea and Iran are at odds with the president’s preferred approach to these same matters,” Berman told JNS.
“This is particularly true in the case of Iran – the Trump administration has steadily gravitated toward the idea of re-engaging Tehran in negotiations [though ostensibly more harshly than was done under Obama],” he continued. “Bolton has long been an advocate of isolating the Iranian regime, and it’s reasonable to assume that he was not a proponent of renewed talks with Tehran. His departure, in turn, eliminates at least one institutional roadblock to such dialogue on the US side.”
Despite Trump repeatedly saying of late that he would meet with the Iranians, Rouhani has rejected his overtures, insisting that he would only meet with the United States if it lifts sanctions, which the Trump administration reimposed after withdrawing from the 2015 nuclear deal, in addition to enacting new financial penalties against the regime.
‘Not the time to take foot off the gas’
Bolton’s exit also comes a week after special US envoy to the Middle East Jason Greenblatt announced his upcoming resignation. Greenblatt had been heavily involved in formulating the administration’s peace plan, along with the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner. Bolton is a well-known figure in pro-Israel circles and seemed to enjoy a strong relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who shared his hardline views on Iran. Netanyahu hosted Bolton, as well as his Russian national security counterpart, at a major trilateral summit in Jerusalem last June, and Bolton toured the region personally with Netanyahu.
Given the two major departures of pro-Israel figures, questions remain as to the direction of the administration.
As Bolton’s departure pertains to the US-Israel relationship, Security Studies Group senior fellow Matt Brodsky told JNS that “there are obviously many aspects” to the alliance and “how it will be impacted by Bolton’s exit depends on the specific area of policy we’re discussing.”
Brodsky mentioned that he reached out to the White House team dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process following Bolton’s forced resignation. An administration official told him, “There is no change in United States policy at this time. We will release our ‘Vision for Peace’ after the Israeli election and work to determine the best path forward to bring long-sought security, opportunity and stability to the region.”
The peace team, explained Brodsky, has been more insulated from the daily machinations of the wider National Security Council, which the national security adviser leads.
Regarding Iran, Brodsky said that “it is too early to gauge the impact. I thought Bolton was a terrific choice for national security adviser because he saw the world for how it was – not how he wished it would be. He helped lead the effort to apply more pressure on Iran, and frankly, his policies were working. He recognized that now was not the time for the administration to take its foot off of the gas. To the extent anyone takes his place and removes pressure from Iran, it will be bad for Israel.”
“Israel’s security establishment has been concerned about what talks would like look between President Trump and Iranian President Rouhani,” he added. “Would it turn into something resembling the relationship between the president and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un? Would it be based on substance or optics? If Israel had to act on its own, I’d imagine they would feel better having a clear-eyed hawk like Bolton at the president’s side.”
Moreover, he said, “it would be a very problematic to have an isolationist serve in the role of national security adviser. There are often times when America’s adversaries don’t care about what the US wants; they care about what they want, and they’ll wage war whether we want it or not. We need someone clear-eyed about the threats facing the US, and there are many.”
Brodsky emphasized that “President Trump’s love for Israel appears to be a kishka [gut] issue that he feels deeply inside. So I don’t imagine his love for Israel and its people will diminish with Bolton’s departure. But how that love is demonstrated on a strategic and tactical, day-to-day basis may shift with new ideas from a new national security adviser.”
Middle East Forum President Daniel Pipes echoed Brodsky: “I doubt that Bolton’s leaving has major implications for the US-Israel relationship, which seems to be primarily under the influence of Jared Kushner. A more isolationist national security adviser seems likely, someone more in keeping with Trump’s views.”
“A national security adviser whose advice is followed would lead to a less assertive policy vis-à-vis both Iran and Israel,” added Pipes. “We’d become a bit more like the Europeans or [former US President Barack] Obama: the default policy.”
Trump, in his announcement on Twitter of Bolton’s exit, said that he would soon name what will be his fourth national security adviser as early as next week.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
I thought tht I posted few days go Adam, that between Bolton and Pompeo there was a great discord, and it ran through the whole department making it unstable. So of the two, it’s obvious that Pompeo has a more exalted position, moreover he and Trump are on the same page,…. so it was no choice really.
@ Edgar G.:
I will address you because Bear Klein does not speak to me…how childish is that? Not a matter of me by the way…that is not my point, I mean an attitude, like Linda and Terry.
I see you havd your issues with “the lady who must not be crossed”. But that lady supported the overthrow of Saddama nd she has never been able to distinguish between Saddam and the Mullahs.
People can sound off but they are pompous only. This is Bear above.
So I ask how on earth can the people of Iran overthrow this horrible dictatorship.
What is the nature of this Mullah regime? Does Bear think they will simply give up and hand over.
Do the Iranians have nukes? Could the N Koreans have stolen the mini nukes in? Why not they have them.
And the Iran Regime is filled with an antisemitic hatred for Israel.
As is the Dem Party in America today and as is the Labour Party in Britain.
It must be remembered that Sharon in 2005 was a dying man I think…but in 2003 he was lucid and clear, and he visited Washington to argue with Bush NOT TO invade Iraq, and indeed Sharon though not a friend of Saddam did fear the replacing of this relatively secular leader.
Bear floats these ideas around, such as the possible replacement of the Mullahs by a democracy. But does not go into it. He remains aloof from that.
How exactly can the Mullahs be overthrown. HOW EXACTLY?
Does he think it will be done by words? We are once again in the Alice in Wonderland idiocy of Ted Belman re Jordan, and listen Ted, this is not personal, this is political. There is not one ounce of the personal in this Irishman. Do not even think of slandering me on this again.
And the question remains. What to do about the Iranian Fascists? In the concrete what to do? Surely Iran is threatening Israel and all Jews there with wipe-out. Please please answer that in the concrete not throwing these off the cuff ideas about as bear did above.
@ Wooly Mammoth: I agree, Wooley. For whatever reason, there have been an unusually high number of personnel changes in the Tump administration, and noone seems to know exactly why Trump has appointed so many people to office and then let the go. Perhaps it is that he is used to working with fellow businessmen, and feels uncomfortable with political people, military people, civil servants, etc., whose work style is different from his own. Thus my initial reaction was that Bolton’s resignation/dismissal was not especially unusual for Trump, and did not necessarily signal any policy changes. However, it now appears that it did signal a significant policy change. Certainly Iran has interpreted it that way.
Trump can find other “tough guys” to carry out the tough military and economic sanctions on Iran that Bolton recommends, if for whatever reason he has become uncomfortable working with Bolton himself . The important thing is that he continue to follow the Bolton plan.
@ Bear Klein:
BEAR- Surely you don’t mean Shas (Deri’s son), (only kidding) I see you mean the Shah, I heard and saw him a few years ago, somewhere in Europe, and he seems like a normal, modest sort of guy. Believes in democracy, secularism, and womens’ rights. There was more, but I don’t recall them all. Sounded pretty decent,
But, with the crazies, (and others) we have to accept that there are people who have been given an indifferent allotment of intelligence…..and allow for that (the ones with the mouth wide open and the eyes tightly shut–emitting only hot air.)……..
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
Never meant to suggest you were inept. On the contrary.
I value your posts, Adam.
I think that John Bolton warned Trump emphatically that he Trump was playing with fire, literally, it turns out, messing with the Iran Relations polemic in a willy nilly fashion at a most critical juncture. The fires in S.A. would appear to support the contention.
Bolton was probably extremely upset and felt as though he needed to get his point across to POTUS that these moves were not something he could be a part of. He resigned, but Trump possibly realized this would make him appear weak to his base, since Bolton was viewed; as I suggested at the start of this thread in response to Laura, as “the canary in the coal mine”.
So Trump fooled Bolton into believing that he Trump would be thinking seriously about what Bolton was warning him about.
Trump needs to bring Bolton back on board with no delay whatsoever.
I think Trump is staying the course on Iran which means continued sanctions whether he talks to them or not. The trouble is what is needed is the destruction of the IRGC, destruction of the nukes facilities and regime change.
There are many normal non Islamist crazies in Iran. There is a movement of Iranian opposition that would temporary put the Shas son in an interim government while they organize a true democracy. He is for a democracy. This I know after hearing him in an interview.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/13/trumps-anti-iran-push-boosts-a-royal-outcast-1063441
@ Wooly Mammoth:
I have never heard that Paul Revere raised his voice to senior American officials. I have trouble imagining him shouting at George Washington, for example. But perhaps you can provide us with more historical background about this comment.
You may well be right that, Wooly, that Tfrump should not have fired Bolton if it only was a matter of a momentary lapse of good manners.The point I was trying to make in my somewhat inept way was that it was wrong policy choice to ease sanctions on Iran, and to forego any military option, if indeed that is what Trump is planning as some reports say, that was what was most wrong about the Bolton dismissal/resignation, not the fact of Bolton’s departure itself (I have a feeling he was telling the truth when he said his departure was voluntary, and he might have left the government soon in any case), but the wrong signal that it sent Iran. That wrong signal has resulted in this extremely damaging attack on the Saudis’ oil-producing facility.
As I suggested, Trump threw Bolton under the bus. So what if Bolton raised his voice, Adam. Paul Revere was abrasive too.
Put this in your pipe and smoke it, Bear Market:
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/461337-bolton-exit-provokes-questions-about-trump-shift-on-iran
I like Bolton also. Trump signaled months ago that Bolton was on shaky ground when said something to the effect if John had his way we would bomb everyone.
When Trump criticizes his staff publicly they eventually quit or get canned. Trump is a firing machine.
I still believe he is not changed policy on Israel and is very pro Israel.
Now that Saudi Arabia has been getting hard from Iranian surrogates will the USA consider helping them?
Saudia Arabia has a huge air force but do not seem very effective at using it.
Someone needs to blow up Iranian oil facilities plus the IRGC and nuke facilities.
I believe Trump will keep the sanctions on tight, just like he has with NOrth Korea in-spite of talking to Kim.
I doubt the USA will militarily involved with Iran unless they are stupid enough to attack the USA directly.
By the say Israeli intelligence has predicted all these attacks on the Saudis.
@ Bear Klein: They are wrong some of the time. Sometimes their reports have been confirmed much later by the MSM. This particular report sounds plausible. It is allegedly based on a tweet by Bolton, which I assume can be checked. It is possible that Trump raised the possibility of easing sanctions on Iran as a negotiation starter in an internal discussion with his advisors. If Bolton had argued angrily with Trump about this suggestion on on Monday, as this report claims, it would explain why Trump felt he had no choice but to accept his resignation on Tuesday. No President can tolerate an aid who speaks in a disrespectful tone to him.
This doesn’t change my view that Trump made a big mistake when he decided to be open to negotiations with Iran. The Iranians clearly took the firing of Bolton as a signal to make a devastating attack on Saudi Oil production facilities. Now the United States will appear impotent or irrelevant unless it reacts strongly.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:The Daily Mail is a very iffy Tabloid. They are not even considered reliable for soccer news they print which tend to be made up stories.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
Adam’s reprinted article is quite representative of my position that Trump showed profound weakness with Iran.
Of course Iran will never give Trump anything negotiable except for 50 cents and a fight. They think Trump is a wimp now, with Bolton The Man out and will turn up the terrorism.
You can see Iran’s bold opening break yesterday at burned Saudi Arabian oil installations. Trump is also burned.
The idiot Trump will have to find some way to bring Bolton back. Trump has no standards of conduct, he can do that.
That is why I believe Netanyahu made his sudden press conference to make his intention to annex. It was a message to Trump, The Mental Midget to smell the coffee.
I hope Bolton challenges Trump for the presidency.
All too often Americans have to wait for the foreign press, especially the Daily Mail, to get some idea of what is going on in their own country. Thisr eport in the Daily Mail gives a more complete picture of the reasons for John Bolton’s departure from the White House than in the American press.
Naturally I am well acquainted with the La Brea Tar Pits. The tar is not at all confined to The Pits, by the way. It oozes up from the manicured lawns of The LA County Museum of Art. Never lived in the pits. I was always on the periphery of that. That is what the actor Anthony Franciosa once told me about the Italian actors who comprised a certain clique. One of them was Cassavetes. One of them also on the periphery was Peter Falk.(Falk was Jewish, both parents. Falk would say, “…one eye, two Jewish parents.”
Falk once planned to travel to Israel to help out in war time)
Interestingly to me, after our conversation, Falk brought in Franciosa for a guest star role on Columbo. Anthony did a good job in this role. He was an honest and good friend. I was saddened when he passed. He drove an old beat up Mercedes Benz Station Wagon.
There was a music ensemble called The Oily Scarf Wino Band, featuring Rainbow Bill, which regularly performed there at the Tar Pits. One tune was ‘Flat Foot Floosie’. That was before you time, Bear.
There is a new train line going in under the Tar Pits, right now at this moment, a subway line.
Trump should not have fired Bolton. It was an error. The terrorists in general and the Iranians in particular are breathing a sigh of relief. The Saudis are nervous, and for good reason.
It could cost him re-election. Especially if there are casualties from the show of weakness. Trump’s dumbest moment yet.
@ Wooly Mammoth: You do not need to agree with Glick’s views it is okay. I am also okay if you do not see eye to eye with me. I believe in free thought.
One question however it is on a personal level so I hope you do not mind. Do you still live in the La Brea Tar Pits (Gateway to Ice Age)?
@ Bear Klein:
I would not suggest placing great confidence in a Glick editorial. Especially one in which Glick has a track record of being conflicted, in a multitude of ways. I understand her neuroses, as do many of us who have expressed support for Glick, whether truly deserved or not.
Instead, I would look at unfiltered facts subsequent to the political assassination of one John Bolton:
Today The Houthi Rebels are being credited with a major drone attack on Saudi Oil installations. Debkafile’s analysis points to Iran’s “Supreme Leader” as making his veto of a proposed Trump Rouhani meeting known.
I rest my case, unless you need me to spell it all out. Which I am happy to do for you Mar Bear.
I believe Caroline Glick has good insight in the comments below extracted from her recent article:
.
Full Article by Caroline Glick can be read at https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/israel-and-john-boltons-departure/
@ Wooly Mammoth:Yes that is what they all say. Yet he is still on the job and his family said stay as long as you need. Sometimes some things are true even if some do not know the facts but just react.
….”wanting to spend more time with his family….”
So says The local Jesting Bear….
That is what they all say when asked to resign. It signals a cold front.
Come on Bear, it does not make sense that he would bolt just as his plan is about to be unveiled. Try a different explanation, if you know of one.
It sure appears as though Trump is about to fold like a $2 suitcase.
Trump is a toothless tiger in a stuffed shirt without Bolton.
Still Trump could pull a rabbit out of his toupee or whatever it is.
Jason Greenblatt has NOT left yet and might stay longer if needed for the role out of the Trump peace plan. His pending departure is based on wanting to spend more time with his family and not policy arguments with Trump about Israel and related.
I do not believe Trump is changing course on Israel.
@ Laura:
Laura, I take no solace.
Bolton was the canary in the coal mine and that cat……is out of the bag.
This is all very troubling.
We’ll have to take solace in this.