What could possibly go wrong?
19
John Bolton has a long history of being wrong about everything.
222
Neo-con nut job trying the madness all over again? They didn't learn the lessons the first time around and we're still paying the price. $1 trillion+ failed war, ISIS insurgency, splintered Iraq... Need I go on?
152
The Israelis started this arms race. If you want to deal with the problem, start there.
91
And this is the man George Bush appointed as the US Representative to the United Nations!
127
Finally the NYT publishes a view with some sense. I hope it's not too late for us to take strong action when we finally have a President who is half-way competent.
23
Of course John Bolton would say this! It's the only script they gave him fifty ago and he's sticking with it! How can we possibly sell more weapons if people refuse to jump to war?!
81
Iran is a resourceful nation that is absolutely certain to build an atomic device.
12
Doesn't the US have laws against inciting terrorism?
87
"Ironically perhaps, Israel’s nuclear weapons have not triggered an arms race. Other states in the region understood — even if they couldn’t admit it publicly — that Israel’s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure.
Iran is a different story..."
What a ridiculous baseless set of statements. If you're ready to go to the front lines, should an armed conflict arise, then by all means continue the fear mongering. Otherwise, please stop.
Iran is a different story..."
What a ridiculous baseless set of statements. If you're ready to go to the front lines, should an armed conflict arise, then by all means continue the fear mongering. Otherwise, please stop.
66
It is frightening to think that Mr. Bolton is the man chosen by G.W. Bush to be the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.. It's a wonder we didn't end up in more trouble than we did in the Mideast. The fact that there are people in positions of power and influence who still think this way in 2015, despite the proof in history of it's wrongheadedness, is depressing to me. And it's certainly not just American conservatives who are ruining the world for the rest of us.
Kind of makes one wonder if bombs are to be used where they would be most effectively deployed. Just kidding ...unlike them.
Kind of makes one wonder if bombs are to be used where they would be most effectively deployed. Just kidding ...unlike them.
62
Surely traditional air strikes are a trap set by the Iranian regime.
Iran has had decades to harden and disperse targets from eminently predictable air strikes from Israel or any other force. Ineffective bombing will be a popular support windfall across the region for the regime.
What reasonable expectation does anyone have the regime will leave anything of value vulnerable?
The facilities Mr. Bolton identifies are nothing more than a matador's cape.
Obama's tack sows the seeds for democratic rule in Iran better than any military operation. The regime is not nearly as able to weather free criticism from a young population integrated with the West as say Beijing.
Iran has had decades to harden and disperse targets from eminently predictable air strikes from Israel or any other force. Ineffective bombing will be a popular support windfall across the region for the regime.
What reasonable expectation does anyone have the regime will leave anything of value vulnerable?
The facilities Mr. Bolton identifies are nothing more than a matador's cape.
Obama's tack sows the seeds for democratic rule in Iran better than any military operation. The regime is not nearly as able to weather free criticism from a young population integrated with the West as say Beijing.
55
Does John R. Bolton know the definition of the word "consequences?"
We cannot shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, as it would cause a panic. I think opinion pieces like this should be treated the same way. This piece is dangerous and, in my opinion, should not have been published.
We cannot shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, as it would cause a panic. I think opinion pieces like this should be treated the same way. This piece is dangerous and, in my opinion, should not have been published.
78
This guy's like McCain....he'd like to bomb everyone.
83
I look forward to John Bolton's next op-ed where he will undoubtedly explain the consequences of bombing Iran, including Iran racing to build a bomb no matter what, potentially launching attacks against American (and other) targets throughout the Middle East, shutting down the Straits of Hormuz, etc... Because I'm sure he's thought things through very carefully, just like he did with Iraq.
90
Mr Bolton, the man of war, who along with Gen. LeMay, Nixon and Kissinger, advocated bombing anyone and every one as the final solution.
58
by bolton's "logic," to prevent a nuclear arms race in the region, we better bomb israel since they already have nukes.
makes sense, right?
makes sense, right?
65
There is no more evidence that Iran is planning to use nuclear weapons than there is evidence that the US or Israel is planning to do so, but if Iran is thinking about using nuclear weapons, the easiest way to provoke them to do so is to bomb them.
45
WWIII has probably already started, but Mr. Bolton's suggestion will bring it into full bloom. At least we won't have to worry about Social Security running out or the Affordable Health Care Act falling apart.
24
FINALLY!!!!! An opinion that supports the idea that a nuclear Iran is dangerous. Glad to see the author was an ambassador to the UN and has an intimate understanding of the geopolitics of the Middle East.
18
Iran has learned the hard lesson from Saddam Hussein. Don't confront the US until AFTER you get nuclear weapons.
18
We need to recall that neocons were dead wrong about Iraq. There were no WMD's and deposing Saddam Hussein did not bring peace, stability, and democracy to the entire region as they had predicted. The neocon solution to everything is war. And it must be waged now before it's too late. Americans will have to learn to sacrifice more blood and treasure to support a war that will finally settle everything. Excuse me for being skeptical. No, skeptical doesn't begin to describe it.
75
Who will be invited to write about Iranian nuclear policy next? Dick Cheney perhaps? Do these men have any shame, after all their lies and malfeasance? The mid-East is in chaos because of us. Pre-emptive wars, the arrogance and misguided adventures of energy profiteers has wrought unbelievable suffering to millions, led to the deaths of thousands of Americans, and caused a new band of hoodlums who call themselves ISIL to form and flourish, all because of the aggressive posturing of men like Bolton, Cheney, Bush and their ilk. Enough. Enough with the behind the scene machinations of greedy old men who proved themselves cowards when their call to serve came.
99
This Op-Ed makes me furious!!!!
Did he mention what would happen after US bombs Iran's nuclear facilities. Did he mention that Veterans of Iraq and Afghan war have to wait on average 44 days to get the care they absolutely need. Because Congress would approve only $10 Billion of the $30 Billion that VA needs to provide the care that veterans need. But you would not read a thing about that from these right wing war hawks or this lunatic GOP congressional majority.
Did he mention what would happen after US bombs Iran's nuclear facilities. Did he mention that Veterans of Iraq and Afghan war have to wait on average 44 days to get the care they absolutely need. Because Congress would approve only $10 Billion of the $30 Billion that VA needs to provide the care that veterans need. But you would not read a thing about that from these right wing war hawks or this lunatic GOP congressional majority.
89
It is absolutely amazing that the Times would even give a guy like this space for these kook views. I suppose one could justify it on the basis of airing all views, not matter how idiotic, or because sensationalism sells papers.
On a substantive note, the statement that "America and the West were guilty of inattention" is based on the assumption that five powers were ENTITLED to have nukes and no else was. That never was going to work with India given that China had nukes and once India got them, Pakistan's acquisition was a foregone conclusion.
The Iranians remain signatories to the NPT so in a sense, the negotiations shouldn't be taking place at all, i.e., there shouldn't be a violation and there shouldn't be concessions.
We have often heard that the one year trajectory to an Iranian nuclear weapon is the best deal we can get. But I though the point of the talks was to end the possibility of such a trajectory ab initio.
Meanwhile, Israel understandably feels a palpable threat but Iran's Supreme Leader has said that defeating Israel with an attack is not what he advocates. It's understandable that the Israelis don't believe him.
More importantly, Iran's progress on building weapons capability will likely lead to a ramp up by the Saudis, etc. On this Bolton is right.
But how does this translate to attacking Iran with bombs? That cannot be in America's interest assuming that we even have the capability to do serious enough damage and not face unacceptable repercussions.
On a substantive note, the statement that "America and the West were guilty of inattention" is based on the assumption that five powers were ENTITLED to have nukes and no else was. That never was going to work with India given that China had nukes and once India got them, Pakistan's acquisition was a foregone conclusion.
The Iranians remain signatories to the NPT so in a sense, the negotiations shouldn't be taking place at all, i.e., there shouldn't be a violation and there shouldn't be concessions.
We have often heard that the one year trajectory to an Iranian nuclear weapon is the best deal we can get. But I though the point of the talks was to end the possibility of such a trajectory ab initio.
Meanwhile, Israel understandably feels a palpable threat but Iran's Supreme Leader has said that defeating Israel with an attack is not what he advocates. It's understandable that the Israelis don't believe him.
More importantly, Iran's progress on building weapons capability will likely lead to a ramp up by the Saudis, etc. On this Bolton is right.
But how does this translate to attacking Iran with bombs? That cannot be in America's interest assuming that we even have the capability to do serious enough damage and not face unacceptable repercussions.
34
Simply incomprehensible the opinion of Mr Bolton. Have these guys learned the lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan? Over 10 years of warfare, thousands killed and maimed from those 2 wars and look at the situation now in the middle east, with ISIS as the new terrorist group occupying vast swaths of land in Syria and Iraq. This may sound harsh but If the iranians develop nuclear weapons so be it and then let the saudis develop their own. To me common sense will prevail at the end of the day.
46
Nuts to you Mr Bolton, after cheers from Bibi, Mccain, Graham and people like you have been drowned by world wide condemnation and more unrest in the Middle east what then? Don't add any more fuel to the fires of the Middle east created by Republicans like you.
38
It appears Mr. Bolton thinks "negotiation" is a dirty word. We have been bombarded with anti-Iran propaganda ever since we and England deposed Iran's elected President in the 1950's and installed the notorious Shah which facilitated the rise of extremism necessary to rid their country of the Shah. (We took him back and has been fodder for the Doonesbury cartoons). Hostilities got hot when we supplied Iraq with poison gas used to attack Iran. Considering our acts weighed against their hostage taking, it's plain to see why both nations don't trust each other.
I have my problems with President Obama, but his intelligence and willingness to negotiate rather than drag out the nuclear bomb threat again after it's use in our double-cross of Saddam Hussein, is not pone of them. Our President's joining Europe in negotiation is a radical departure from our usual "Cowboy" foreign policies of the past. But many see his willingness and ability to negotiate as a sign of maturity that people like Mr. Bolton fail to understand. If we could make beneficial alliances with Germany and Japan after WWII, it should be far easier to do the same with Iran - providing we don't allow Israel and the war hawks to destroy this chance for peace and understanding between the Middle East and West.
I have my problems with President Obama, but his intelligence and willingness to negotiate rather than drag out the nuclear bomb threat again after it's use in our double-cross of Saddam Hussein, is not pone of them. Our President's joining Europe in negotiation is a radical departure from our usual "Cowboy" foreign policies of the past. But many see his willingness and ability to negotiate as a sign of maturity that people like Mr. Bolton fail to understand. If we could make beneficial alliances with Germany and Japan after WWII, it should be far easier to do the same with Iran - providing we don't allow Israel and the war hawks to destroy this chance for peace and understanding between the Middle East and West.
60
Just think, in two years, John Bolton may be a National Security adviser to the newly elected President Cruz.
If true, human civilization will be wiped out by the actions of these right wing zealots.
Vote Democrat in 2016. The fate of humanity depends on it.
If true, human civilization will be wiped out by the actions of these right wing zealots.
Vote Democrat in 2016. The fate of humanity depends on it.
66
There is so much talk from the right about how President Obama has repeatedly thrown U.S allies under the bus. Three U.S. allies, France, Britan and Germany are involved in the Nuclear negotiations with Iran and want a diplomatic solution to the Iranian situation. All three of these countries have contributed to our recent military efforts in the mideast by joining forces and directly supplying troops, or logistical assistance through hosting U.S. bases.
Are we to ignore the wishes of three allied countries representing 210+ million souls, and attack a country of 80 million people. A U.S. bombing of Iran will likely lead to an end of allied support for sanctions against the Iranian regime, and an acceleration of any Iranian nuclear program.
We will have satisfied Israel's desire for military intervention, but Israel will be no safer. Iran would likely accelerate support to Hamas and other factions in retaliation. The international coalition of economic sanctions would fall apart, putting more resources into the strengthened hands of, a freshly emboldened and stronger Iranian regime.
Mr. Bolton cares as little for the majority of our allies as he did for the institution of the United Nations. He believes that the U.S. should make the rules for the rest of the world, occasionally in consultation with our only ally that matters, Israel, and the rest of the world's leaders should fall in line or shut up. Remember.."if you're not with us, then you are against us."
Are we to ignore the wishes of three allied countries representing 210+ million souls, and attack a country of 80 million people. A U.S. bombing of Iran will likely lead to an end of allied support for sanctions against the Iranian regime, and an acceleration of any Iranian nuclear program.
We will have satisfied Israel's desire for military intervention, but Israel will be no safer. Iran would likely accelerate support to Hamas and other factions in retaliation. The international coalition of economic sanctions would fall apart, putting more resources into the strengthened hands of, a freshly emboldened and stronger Iranian regime.
Mr. Bolton cares as little for the majority of our allies as he did for the institution of the United Nations. He believes that the U.S. should make the rules for the rest of the world, occasionally in consultation with our only ally that matters, Israel, and the rest of the world's leaders should fall in line or shut up. Remember.."if you're not with us, then you are against us."
51
This is good, if any Iranian official reads this -- they'll have a clear understanding of how fear and mistrust engenders itself in American foreign policy. It will give them a yard stick for how much trust needs to be developed during negotiations. The same could be said of the American delegation reading the "Bolton of Iran" -- whoever that may be.
5
This is what dysfunctional thinking sounds like. Remember it. The last time such people were allowed at the helm of America, they dragged us all into a false war.
52
I would trust this guy with a scissors.
10
I am trying to come up with a hierarchy of “scariness” here; they are:
• That such a dangerous proposition is actually proclaimed publicly, and given some degree of credibility. (Could the Kim Jong-un op-ed not be far behind?)
• That this less than rational idea (being nice here), is not “fringe”; rather it is in fact the central operating principle of the Republican Party and its supporters on the Iranian issue.
• That these same “Bomb Only Theorist” seem willing to go to any extent (including engaging in treasonous acts of spying and sabotage with another country who is also advocating the “bomb only option”) to undermine any hopes for a negotiated settlement to the issue of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. The good news (and one must be on an endless search for good news in this world) is that this desperate proposal is driven by fear that the talks may in fact succeed.
And further, what is conspicuously missing from Mr. Bolton’s missive is the: “Then what?” Are we to understand that Iran (a very ancient and proud civilization) is going to just say “thanks for the bombing” and then move on? And how will our sanction-allies, and the international community respond to our (with Israel) unilateral bombing action? And finally, what impact would the “bombing only option” have on the war against Islamic extremist; a war in which, say it not, or like it not, Iran is our ally?
• That such a dangerous proposition is actually proclaimed publicly, and given some degree of credibility. (Could the Kim Jong-un op-ed not be far behind?)
• That this less than rational idea (being nice here), is not “fringe”; rather it is in fact the central operating principle of the Republican Party and its supporters on the Iranian issue.
• That these same “Bomb Only Theorist” seem willing to go to any extent (including engaging in treasonous acts of spying and sabotage with another country who is also advocating the “bomb only option”) to undermine any hopes for a negotiated settlement to the issue of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. The good news (and one must be on an endless search for good news in this world) is that this desperate proposal is driven by fear that the talks may in fact succeed.
And further, what is conspicuously missing from Mr. Bolton’s missive is the: “Then what?” Are we to understand that Iran (a very ancient and proud civilization) is going to just say “thanks for the bombing” and then move on? And how will our sanction-allies, and the international community respond to our (with Israel) unilateral bombing action? And finally, what impact would the “bombing only option” have on the war against Islamic extremist; a war in which, say it not, or like it not, Iran is our ally?
28
I suspect the threat of Iran's bomb is about the same has the threat of Dr. Mossadegh favoring the Tudeh party in 1953.
14
If bombing Iran can solve the problem, Mr Bolton should have asked Mr Bush to complete the mission. Israel stopped Iraq and Syria by bombing their nuclear site, they should have completed their mission in Iran too! If it's that easy, why complicate the matter?
Does Mr Bolton understand why so many people commenting on his op-ed? He should have choose Fox instead!
By the way, where are all those dreamers who wanted to start a New American Century, Pax Americana? Enough of these rhetoric, Mr Bolton!
Does Mr Bolton understand why so many people commenting on his op-ed? He should have choose Fox instead!
By the way, where are all those dreamers who wanted to start a New American Century, Pax Americana? Enough of these rhetoric, Mr Bolton!
17
John Bolton is a Chicken Hawk. He is breathlessly eager to go to war, and it will be war, as long as he doesn't have to go and fight. Bolton enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard to avoid being sent to fight in Vietnam. He wrote in his Yale 25th reunion book "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered the war in Vietnam already lost."Bolton clearly has no such reservations about sending others to a foreign country to do what he was unwilling to do when his time came.
60
Bombing Iran - Are You Nuts? That would be World War III, or at least the first major battle of WWIII.
Iran will have the bomb later this year. They have everything invested financially and in their national pride. They have endured years of sanctions and have not waivered.
These negotiations with the west are just stalling tactics - they are masters at it. And John Kerry is a big dope.
Iran will have the bomb later this year. They have everything invested financially and in their national pride. They have endured years of sanctions and have not waivered.
These negotiations with the west are just stalling tactics - they are masters at it. And John Kerry is a big dope.
7
Mr. Bolton, when you say "President Obama’s approach on Iran has brought a bad situation to the brink of catastrophe" you choose partisanship over making your point. Clearly trying to score points against Democrats is more important to you than rallying broad support for the military operation you advocate. GOP obsession with trying to denigrate the opposition party is poisoning its ability to think clearly and come to a consensus about the options. It makes me doubt the sincerity of your argument.
20
March of the Neo-Cons...
Is this a P.R. prelude to an Israeli offensive? I'm sure Mr. Bolton has received the latest from Bibi and his current marching orders.
Billions lost, millions killed. And we'll set back Iran 3-5 years- according to Mr. Bolton, himself. Whereas, the current treaty would hold them off for 10 years at a minimum.
Is this a P.R. prelude to an Israeli offensive? I'm sure Mr. Bolton has received the latest from Bibi and his current marching orders.
Billions lost, millions killed. And we'll set back Iran 3-5 years- according to Mr. Bolton, himself. Whereas, the current treaty would hold them off for 10 years at a minimum.
28
The absurd recommendation of Mr. Bolton is consistent with his other comments as a part of the Bush/Cheney crowd that announced "Mission Accomplished" in the early years of the Iraq fiasco demonstrating that they hadn't the slightest idea of the mess they had gotten us into and that we are still in as Obama has continued their policies and even some of their office holders.
Mr. Bolton and his confreres Bush/Cheney/Powell/Rumsfeld should all be tried as war criminals for the torture and havoc they have brought on our nation.
Mr. Bolton and his confreres Bush/Cheney/Powell/Rumsfeld should all be tried as war criminals for the torture and havoc they have brought on our nation.
45
Thank God....John Bolton is not the president.
24
This column explains so much about everything that went wrong the last time the columnist had any sort of influence in government affairs. It is childish in its presentation, naïve in its worldview, internally inconsistent in its logic, and willfully blind to any consequences of the actions it proposes.
One glaring example: "Or, for the right price, North Korea might sell behind the backs of its Iranian friends"
Putting aside the insultingly simplistic view of an incredibly complex nation ("for the right price...") or the sophomoric simplification of international relations ("its Iranian friends"), this brilliant observation begs the question: if Iran actually wanted a nuclear weapon, and North Korea actually were willing to sell one, why wouldn't Iran have bought a nuke from North Korea years ago?
The fact that they haven't means at least some of the major premises, as well as the logical conclusions, from this column are facially wrong. A fifth grader could have pointed out this flaw in Bolton's logic. There's a reason he never got senate confirmation....
One glaring example: "Or, for the right price, North Korea might sell behind the backs of its Iranian friends"
Putting aside the insultingly simplistic view of an incredibly complex nation ("for the right price...") or the sophomoric simplification of international relations ("its Iranian friends"), this brilliant observation begs the question: if Iran actually wanted a nuclear weapon, and North Korea actually were willing to sell one, why wouldn't Iran have bought a nuke from North Korea years ago?
The fact that they haven't means at least some of the major premises, as well as the logical conclusions, from this column are facially wrong. A fifth grader could have pointed out this flaw in Bolton's logic. There's a reason he never got senate confirmation....
27
Republicans just love to start wars, however demonstrably ridiculous. And Israel's nuclear capabilities are virtually never discussed by the Republicans or the NYT. The first question is what benefit is Israel to the US? Why should they be treated more favorably than the Palestinians? Shouldn't the US join with Europe and make Israel behave in a civilized manner and not bomb women, children and other noncombatants because of what terrorists not under control do.
29
Mr. Bolton, Ex US Ambassador to UN, asking for bombing Iran? Wake up America, how can you put such incompetent people to represent USA in UN.
Diplomacy is about preventing wars and destruction not initiating. By the way, Iranian don’t have Nuclear Weapon’s as of now, bombing them will ensure they would make a few. The last thing anybody wants is Nuclear Iran or Saudi Arabia lets say. Diplomacy is the only option, another war and jingoism in Middle East and Persian Gulf, will bring not only US and world economy to its knees but would change the parameters for Israeli security forever. People of Israel want peace and need peace, Mr. Bolton could have played a role in bring in justice and implement just US policies in Middle East when he was ambassador in UN, he failed at that time and he has failed again in his analysis today.
Diplomacy is about preventing wars and destruction not initiating. By the way, Iranian don’t have Nuclear Weapon’s as of now, bombing them will ensure they would make a few. The last thing anybody wants is Nuclear Iran or Saudi Arabia lets say. Diplomacy is the only option, another war and jingoism in Middle East and Persian Gulf, will bring not only US and world economy to its knees but would change the parameters for Israeli security forever. People of Israel want peace and need peace, Mr. Bolton could have played a role in bring in justice and implement just US policies in Middle East when he was ambassador in UN, he failed at that time and he has failed again in his analysis today.
22
Finding ways to ensure that some suicidal young copilot does not get control of an airplane cockpit seems to me infinitely less urgent than ensuring that someone as extremist and analytically-challenged as John Bolton never again gets close to the corridors of power in our country. With revolting self-righteousness he, and others like him, will doom hundreds of thousands of people to death and our country to another decades-long long war, paid of course by the middle class.
39
John Bolton is a war hawk. If one goes back to read a listen to his earlier efforts to make the case for invading Iraq and other American led catastrophes in the middle east, it is a wonder that he still gets a platform to continue to make the case for yet more war. We in the west are blinded by people like Bolton.
Sanctioning, bombing, invading and destroying nations which end up displacing, injuring, killing millions of people does not make America safe. Civil wars & ISIS are a results of this type of thinking.
Sanctioning, bombing, invading and destroying nations which end up displacing, injuring, killing millions of people does not make America safe. Civil wars & ISIS are a results of this type of thinking.
32
So we should have bombed India, Pakistan, and NK but we didn't and that was a mistake so now bomb Iran? So we bomb Iran with what? WMD or conventional? My understanding is conventional won't do the trick and then what? WMD on Iran? Seriously a nation of 88MM people? You want to bomb someone and do your eno-con happy dance, bomb the ISIS, Taliban OBL, 19 high jacking terrorists funding House of Saud. Bomb Pakistan. Wipe them off the face of the planet.
The rationale for going to war is to protect Israel and Saudi Arabia. Why? Can neither of these countries defend themselves? The US has no permanent enemies (UK, Germany, Japan, Vietnam, etc) and peace between the US and Iran does not preempt Israel or the Saudis from going to war with Iran until their hearts are content. In fact I'd love to see these nations try. Why is it my sons problem? I don't want to outsource their was casualties to the US.
The rationale for going to war is to protect Israel and Saudi Arabia. Why? Can neither of these countries defend themselves? The US has no permanent enemies (UK, Germany, Japan, Vietnam, etc) and peace between the US and Iran does not preempt Israel or the Saudis from going to war with Iran until their hearts are content. In fact I'd love to see these nations try. Why is it my sons problem? I don't want to outsource their was casualties to the US.
26
There is not a word about the consequences and how to deal with them? Sounds a lot like 2003. The ME is chaotic now, imagine what it would be like after bombing Iran. The Iraq war empowered Iran. Bombing Iran would empower ISIS. Where does it end?
33
Three words....
And then what?
And then what?
27
Thank you for sharing, Mr. Bolton. And thank you, New York Times, for adhering to the principles of a free press. One of America's great newspapers must always set a standard for balanced reporting.
But this is where I become confused: When it comes a 'muscular foreign policy,' the Republican ideologues always step up to the plate. Bolton, Graham, McCain, Cheney, the list goes on.
They were completely wrong about Iraq, and basically lied to the the American people about the rationale for an invasion. Then, it is as if it never happened. No acknowledgement of errors and mistakes that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Nothing
.
And then, with this accumulated 'wisdom,' they are once again rattling their sabers. Insisting that we grant them credibility. And people listen?
But this is where I become confused: When it comes a 'muscular foreign policy,' the Republican ideologues always step up to the plate. Bolton, Graham, McCain, Cheney, the list goes on.
They were completely wrong about Iraq, and basically lied to the the American people about the rationale for an invasion. Then, it is as if it never happened. No acknowledgement of errors and mistakes that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Nothing
.
And then, with this accumulated 'wisdom,' they are once again rattling their sabers. Insisting that we grant them credibility. And people listen?
51
Appeasement, even when clothed in sophomoric arguments made with multi-syllable words, is still appeasement. When Obama's policy of appeasement is fully implemented we will be left friendless and without influence in a more chaotic and hostile world than we live in today and deservedly so. I'm also amazed that none your readers seem to be aware of Iran calling for our destruction as recently as last week. Do the Iranian's not deserve the respect of taking their threats seriously?
And it is almost a foregone conclusion that Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other countries in the Mid-East will not respond to a bad deal with Iran in ways that are both foreseeable and unexpected but unlikely to be good for us.
And it is almost a foregone conclusion that Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other countries in the Mid-East will not respond to a bad deal with Iran in ways that are both foreseeable and unexpected but unlikely to be good for us.
4
I suspect that this piece has a political purpose: tell to Iranian leadership that if they don't reach an agreement with this administration, it will be much tougher with the next one, possibly republican. Smart move.
6
I've decided that legitimate news organizations like the NYT have pulled off a neat trick in reducing the likes of John Bolton and Dick Cheney to nothing more than click bait. There's no other explanation for why either of these men's opinions should ever see the light of day in print.
27
How many countries must we bomb, how much money must we waste, how much misery must we cause before we stop listening to the neo-cons? Not only are their war mongering policies morally bankrupt they also invariably backfire on us. To borrow a phrase, "When will we ever learn?"
28
He's wasting no time putting in his bid to be on Jeb's team--if he hasn't been picked already.
24
The Times is willing to publish a former U.S. Ambassador’s opinion who has the chutzpah not to be politically correct on a matter of dire import; kudos.
4
Bomb Iran? But you've pointed out that nuclear weapons can be purchased by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt from Pakistan and North Korea: I guess we'd better bomb them too.
Also, in case the regions fails at some point in its understanding that Israel's nukes are only intended as a deference, we should probably take out Israel's nukes as well.
In the same vein, certain nations may be uncomfortable with the US as a nuclear power, so we'd might as well bomb ourselves as well. Though to save taxes, we could probably just wait for retaliation to accomplish that.
Also, in case the regions fails at some point in its understanding that Israel's nukes are only intended as a deference, we should probably take out Israel's nukes as well.
In the same vein, certain nations may be uncomfortable with the US as a nuclear power, so we'd might as well bomb ourselves as well. Though to save taxes, we could probably just wait for retaliation to accomplish that.
22
I'm looking forward to reading Public Editor Margaret Sullivan's column this weekend to learn how this fanatic's piece saw its way into print.
25
What happens after Mr Bolton? If I had to guess, Iran would move even closer towards Russia. Iraq would close its doors to us. Iran would start throwing even more money at Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan and maybe even North Korea. Iran would close its doors to us for another 40 years. We make sure no political change would ever come from within the country. Iran would restart its program and we would be back where we started 3 years from now. Seems like a lot of political capital to give away without even considering a diplomatic solution.
15
To John Bolton, more war is always the answer. War will always succeed and there will be no consequences. And his is wrong. He claimed that we needed to invade Iraq because, with fissile material, they could fabricate a bomb within a year. He also claimed that our invasion of Iraq would bring democracy to the region. He was wrong on all counts. Our invasion brought was death, chaos and ISIS.
And now he demands that we bomb Iran because that will solve our problems. A common definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. We need to move away from Bolton's insanity.
And now he demands that we bomb Iran because that will solve our problems. A common definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. We need to move away from Bolton's insanity.
25
Here is what I consider a fair proposal: I will listen and respect the opinions of people like Bolton if they first show good faith and sincerity by: (1) apologizing for avoiding the draft during the Vietnam War they otherwise enthusiastically supported, and (2) apologize for their part in unnecessarily starting the horrific, unending trillion tax dollar mass murder going on in what used to be called “Iraq”, and in neighboring regions. If they do that up front, I’ll listen to whatever else they have to say (though not necessarily agree with it). Until then, I find the comics section of the paper more worthwhile reading. Perhaps Bolton’s editorial belongs there.
28
Laughable that the Times would give this guy a platform to air his thoughts.
"vigorous American support for Iran's opposition"? After the US or Israel bombs Iran, there will be no Iranian opposition. There could be no better way to ensure that hard-liners remain in power in Tehran with full popular support than to bomb Iran.
"vigorous American support for Iran's opposition"? After the US or Israel bombs Iran, there will be no Iranian opposition. There could be no better way to ensure that hard-liners remain in power in Tehran with full popular support than to bomb Iran.
18
Neocons have zero credibility in ME foreign policy. The American people remember what we got the last time we trusted them. John Bolton is a crank and a warmonger, and in a just world he would be in prison.
25
Please notice, buried at the article's end, what Mr. Bolton thinks we would get from this particular pre-emptive war:
"it could set back its program by three to five years."
Even without the qualifier of "could", what good is the three to five years? All I can think is Mr. Bolton believes that the US could somehow bring about a regime change and Iran would have new leadership that would NOT want to develop a bomb as a defense against countries that practice preemptive wars. It seems a little dishonest to predicate the entire success of a bombing mission on some plan that Mr. Bolton doesn't share with us.
"it could set back its program by three to five years."
Even without the qualifier of "could", what good is the three to five years? All I can think is Mr. Bolton believes that the US could somehow bring about a regime change and Iran would have new leadership that would NOT want to develop a bomb as a defense against countries that practice preemptive wars. It seems a little dishonest to predicate the entire success of a bombing mission on some plan that Mr. Bolton doesn't share with us.
11
For Pete's sake, Mr. Bolton, you aren't even trying to be serious and credible. Your arguments feel like " I think we should bomb Iran -- well -- BECAUSE I say so, that's why!"
We are unfortunately, acquainted with your and your fellow neocons' faulty logic and what has resulted in the past because of it. Its clear that bombing Iran would come with a host of very negative consequences that would not help Israel or the US. Knowing Israel's brashness, they would have bombed Iran long ago if they thought it would work - with or without this administration's support. Unfortunately, their own security agency (MOSAD) had already concluded that bombing would not work anymore in the hardened facilities that would shield such efforts in Iran. You're just spouting off for your homies but make no mistake, most of us see you as no expert and for sure no credible leader on this issue.
We are unfortunately, acquainted with your and your fellow neocons' faulty logic and what has resulted in the past because of it. Its clear that bombing Iran would come with a host of very negative consequences that would not help Israel or the US. Knowing Israel's brashness, they would have bombed Iran long ago if they thought it would work - with or without this administration's support. Unfortunately, their own security agency (MOSAD) had already concluded that bombing would not work anymore in the hardened facilities that would shield such efforts in Iran. You're just spouting off for your homies but make no mistake, most of us see you as no expert and for sure no credible leader on this issue.
22
One of the outcomes of Putin's recent visit to Egypt was Russia's commitment to either providing or assisting Egypt with nuclear capabilities or the development thereof. Mr. Bolton appears to overlooked this.
5
If Israel had real proof that Iran was ready to detonate a bomb as a trail it would immediately bomb Iran. So far that has not happened. Yet, Mr Bolton claims to know all about Iran quoting ideas from bought "think tank" analysts on the far right. This man's ideas are a danger to our country.
15
He criticizes the President for a policy that has "an air or unreality"? That's rich coming from this bellicose man who was one of the architects of the 2003 Iraq disaster. Next he will be writing of the need to bomb North Korea (or perhaps he already has?). One must be thankful that Mr. Bolton's voice carries no weight in any serious decision-making process.
22
That's right, John, let's just start another splendid little war, your last one having been such an outstanding success. You who let others do the dirty work of war in Vietnam because you had "no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy" and then blamed Teddy Kennedy for your cowardice, can send in others to face the bullets. Is there something about draft dodging (George Bush, Dick Cheney, John Bolton) that makes it an imperative later in life to start wars which others won't be able to dodge? You tell us, John, since you should know better than anyone.
34
To stop the Iranian bomb, just befriend Iran.
The friends don’t threaten each other with the bombs.
If Iran didn’t attack anybody over the last couple of centuries, it’s very easy to have a friendly relationship with that country. For God’s sake, didn’t Iran elect democratic and secular government without any foreign help in the early 50’s of the last century?
The truth is is that the American and British governments saddled the Iranian people with both dictatorial Shah Regime and the Ayatollahs.
Instead of focusing on what Tehran should do, let’s reexamine what Washington D.C., London, Paris, Berlin and Moscow should correct.
Who was responsible for the slavery, the colossal colonial empires, the World Wars, the Holocaust, the Gulags, the genocide over the Crimean Tatars, the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people from their homes, the support for the local dictators all over the Middle East, or for the training and ideological indoctrination of the Taliban in Afghanistan???
The friends don’t threaten each other with the bombs.
If Iran didn’t attack anybody over the last couple of centuries, it’s very easy to have a friendly relationship with that country. For God’s sake, didn’t Iran elect democratic and secular government without any foreign help in the early 50’s of the last century?
The truth is is that the American and British governments saddled the Iranian people with both dictatorial Shah Regime and the Ayatollahs.
Instead of focusing on what Tehran should do, let’s reexamine what Washington D.C., London, Paris, Berlin and Moscow should correct.
Who was responsible for the slavery, the colossal colonial empires, the World Wars, the Holocaust, the Gulags, the genocide over the Crimean Tatars, the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people from their homes, the support for the local dictators all over the Middle East, or for the training and ideological indoctrination of the Taliban in Afghanistan???
18
At first I thought this might be interesting and then I saw the name of the author. John Bolton, one of the neocons of the Bush Administration. If he is so interested in war he should move to the Middle East and see how long he lasts. This is an arrogant, despicable person who should be held accountable for the actions of the Bush fiasco.
19
There is a reason that Mr.Bolton was only a recess appointment, and it is on full display with this nonsense he pens for us today.
21
The credible threat of force is essential to these negotiations.
We have threatened to take action if they break out. WHAT ACTION? If Iran knows that military force is off the table, our threat is empty and Iran will achieve nuclear capability. And if military force is on the table in case of a breakout, why shouldn't it be on the table in the negotiations themselves?
A credible military threat is the only way that negotiations can succeed. And as Bolton says, if the U.S. is unwilling, Israel can do the job. The U.S. could play good cop to Israel's bad cop. But then Obama needs to coordinate with Netanyahu in order to save the world from Iran.
We have threatened to take action if they break out. WHAT ACTION? If Iran knows that military force is off the table, our threat is empty and Iran will achieve nuclear capability. And if military force is on the table in case of a breakout, why shouldn't it be on the table in the negotiations themselves?
A credible military threat is the only way that negotiations can succeed. And as Bolton says, if the U.S. is unwilling, Israel can do the job. The U.S. could play good cop to Israel's bad cop. But then Obama needs to coordinate with Netanyahu in order to save the world from Iran.
1
Thanks to John Bolton for presenting such an honest statement of the 'force solves all problems' faction of the American public. In their fantasy world, you bomb, then you dust off your palms and say 'Case closed, problem solved!' and ride off to the nearest bar for a shot. Mr. Bolton should have posted an accompanying video of himself singing 'Bomb, bomb, bomb ... bomb, bomb Iran!' with John McCain.
13
During the Cold War, there was the common perception of the USSR as the aggressor, except the USSR didn't see itself that way. It saw itself as defending itself against Western aggression. Its nuclear weapons didn't give the country an offensive role, they gave it deterrence - the sense of security based on the knowledge that no attack can cross a certain threshold or the attacker will be destroyed with equal assurance as well.
Israel has nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons gave Israel a deterrent. There is no Arab country right now that might want to / could drive its army to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, but when Israel got its nuclear weapons it gained deterrent capability - the insurance against a column of Arab tanks marching into Jerusalem.
People like John Bolton, who should know better because they are supposed to have studied strategic theory and absorbed the logic of deterrence, make the same fundamental mistakes vis a vis Iran. Bolton blithely assumes that Iran is pursuing nuclear capability to somehow dominate the Middle East. I'm sure they would like to dominate, and to a large degree they already do - ironically thanks to people like Bolton, Rumsfeld, Bremer, and the rest of the Sorry Bunch. But nuclear capability doesn't buy Iran offense. It buys it deterrence.
Bolton's fantay piece serves as another reminder what might be coming our way in another GOP administration - more wishful fantasy masquerading as "seriousness".
Israel has nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons gave Israel a deterrent. There is no Arab country right now that might want to / could drive its army to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, but when Israel got its nuclear weapons it gained deterrent capability - the insurance against a column of Arab tanks marching into Jerusalem.
People like John Bolton, who should know better because they are supposed to have studied strategic theory and absorbed the logic of deterrence, make the same fundamental mistakes vis a vis Iran. Bolton blithely assumes that Iran is pursuing nuclear capability to somehow dominate the Middle East. I'm sure they would like to dominate, and to a large degree they already do - ironically thanks to people like Bolton, Rumsfeld, Bremer, and the rest of the Sorry Bunch. But nuclear capability doesn't buy Iran offense. It buys it deterrence.
Bolton's fantay piece serves as another reminder what might be coming our way in another GOP administration - more wishful fantasy masquerading as "seriousness".
17
what a great way to establish a peaceful planet - bomb the oldest civilization on earth.
13
It's always favorable for your argument if you don't go back too far in history. Churchill once said: "The further back you look the further forward you can see." Let's start with Robert J Oppenheimer who refused to assist in the construction of an H bomb because he thought the world was now doomed to an eternal arms race. Once they split the atom and invented the internet any hope of securing the Genie was lost. The current president is connected to either discovery.
1
Revisionist jingoism at it's worst (or finest depending on one's Lockheed holdings)
I was nearly staggered by the muddled thinking presented in this article. In fact, I couldn't tell if I was reading the NYT or Fox News.
I wonder if Mr. Bolton would bother to pen a few more paragraphs detailing the aftermath of such an attack on the specified Iranian nuclear sites.
When the Israelis bomb reactors in nearby countries, at least they're committing acts of war against long-standing rivals with whom they're still technically at war.
I suppose it's up to the US to preempt all the relatively peaceful sovereign nations of the world...
I was nearly staggered by the muddled thinking presented in this article. In fact, I couldn't tell if I was reading the NYT or Fox News.
I wonder if Mr. Bolton would bother to pen a few more paragraphs detailing the aftermath of such an attack on the specified Iranian nuclear sites.
When the Israelis bomb reactors in nearby countries, at least they're committing acts of war against long-standing rivals with whom they're still technically at war.
I suppose it's up to the US to preempt all the relatively peaceful sovereign nations of the world...
9
Suppose France didn't like what Texas was doing, and bombed Texas to teach them to submit and obey. What would be the response of Texans, Mr. Bolton?
Then why do you think Iranians would react any differently?
Then why do you think Iranians would react any differently?
11
I am quite sure that peace loving people outnumber the warmongers. Saying this, the results of the upcoming election should be a walk in the park. By the way Mr. Bolton, no mention of your friends W. and Cheney. Also, who will you advise on foreign policy in the coming months?
7
The sad thing about Bolton's analysis is that it's essentially the same as his weapons of mass destruction basis for immediately starting the Iraq War before any WMDs were found. Of course, none were ever found. A light weight like Bolton doesn't understand that the current negotiation strategy is based on slowing Iran's development of a bomb with inspections and gradually easing the sanctions in the hope that the economic benefits would cause Iran to back away from a bomb making program. Until the moolahs took over, the US and Iran had good relations, and, while Bolton wouldn't admit it, Iranians in general like Americans. If Iran cheat too much, we still have the option to bomb their nuclear facilities, but isn't it worth trying a peaceful solution after the debacle of the Iraq War?
16
Is there anyone outside of the American Enterprise Institute who considers John Bolton to be a scholar? If he's a scholar, I'm a scholar, you're a scholar, we're all scholars. Enjoy your newfound status.
20
I was shocked to see John Bolton's column in you august newspaper. How wrong and how often does a person have to be before the media stops giving him a platform?
No one wants to see Iran get the bomb, but the same argument that kept the cold war cold still holds. Those crude old Russian dictators weren't crazy enough to use the bomb and face annihilation and neither are the Ayatollahs.
No one wants to see Iran get the bomb, but the same argument that kept the cold war cold still holds. Those crude old Russian dictators weren't crazy enough to use the bomb and face annihilation and neither are the Ayatollahs.
10
Bolton tries to excuse the mess that the Bush administration left Obama with the line "All presidents enter office facing the cumulative effects of their predecessors’ decisions." But, not many Presidents left the mess that Bush did, which is especially egregious considering what good shape the US was in when Bush took over.
Part of the reason for Iran's rise in the middle east is that the Bush administration overthrew Saddam Hussein, even though Iraq was the counterweight that helped keep Iran in check. Bolton was a key participant in the disastrous Bush policy in the Middle East, so why would anyone listen to him now?
Part of the reason for Iran's rise in the middle east is that the Bush administration overthrew Saddam Hussein, even though Iraq was the counterweight that helped keep Iran in check. Bolton was a key participant in the disastrous Bush policy in the Middle East, so why would anyone listen to him now?
17
For insanity like this, one word alone can destroy this entire neocon argument: Iraq. Neocons like Bolton (or should I say chickenhawks like Bolton, as he shirked all military service himself) were wrong on every single, solitary part of their argument for invading Iraq. As we all now know, but who some are seemingly blind to, the dramatic long term outcome of that neocon escapade was to dramatically increase and expand the power and reach of IRAN. Who knows what dystopia awaits us, if the neocons scuttle diplomacy and usurp power in Washington.
15
Only a fool, in both the English & Biblical meanings of the word, would bomb another nation without provocation. Their obtaining weapons is not provocation.
14
I suppose it is just fine with Bolton that Israel can steal enriched uranium from the US to build their bombs, with no consequences whatsoever. But if anyone else works to enrich their own uranium, they must be bombed, not simply persuaded to stop. And this guy was posing as a diplomat? Shame on all of us!
11
Wonder why it's the people who were never! and will never! be at the fighting front who are always the biggest warmongers? Who rattle their sheathed sabers the loudest. Maybe it's because right behind their shiny, never been used saber is their overstuffed wallet. Guaranteed. Bush jr- check. Cheney-check. Romney-check. Rumsfeld-check.
15
Go John Go! Let's give John the briefcase, the key and the codes. Let's party!
2
this is a really dumb idea because bombing Iran would result in their intensifying their nuclear program at a rapid rate.... the author's estimate that it would 'set them back 3-5 years' ... what if it turns out to be only 18 months? Bombing does not solve the proliferation problem since in the end, you can't bomb knowledge. Iran's voluntary cooperation is required. The Manhattan project achieved its goal seventy years ago this July, developing technologies that are well within the reach of any developing country today.
7
Please explain to me why the USA has to lead military aggressions against Iran. Let Israel handle this one, if they want to, thank you very much.
7
Regime change? Sure, why not? It worked so well in Iraq, didn't it?
11
So the solution is preemptive (nuclear?) strike against Iran? Israel backed by the US? Who backed by whom will retaliate? While at it, why not similar preemptive attacks on Korea, Pakistan, and India? Maybe we can team with Russia to coordinate the preemptive attacks in order to limit proliferation in favor of a two-nation monopoly on nuclear weapons. How I detest side-line coaches playing to the force majeure bias of politicians! In their hands, the only question is how long do we have to survive as a planet.
7
How can Mr. Bolton expect Iran to trust the United States after the CIA sponsored the overthrow of their Democratically elected government in 1953 to install the oil friendly Shah? It took a religious sponsored uprising to overthrow the Shah in 1979 and distrust of Mr. Bolton and his fellow conservatives ever since,
9
When Bolton finished dictating this piece, did he drop the mic onto the wrestling mat and tear his shirt off, or did he smack an innocent bystander with a folding chair? Because I'm not sure the wrestling approach wouldn't add dignity to his mortifyingly predictable demagoguery. And that mustache is totally Hulked-out. An ad hominem attack, to be sure, but the guy himself is already neck deep in that territory
12
During the Bush administration, when Mr. Bolton was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, North Korea advanced their nuclear weapons program to ultimately acquire and test nuclear weapons. Now they are an even more dangerous state. Did Mr. Bolton advocate bombing North Korea?
Secondly, the middle east arms race began years ago when Israel acquired nuclear weapons. Iran is simply trying to play catch up.
Secondly, the middle east arms race began years ago when Israel acquired nuclear weapons. Iran is simply trying to play catch up.
13
Bolton is demanding that the US start World War Three.
I say: Absolutely not! We all have had ENOUGH of Bolton and his neocon pals' insanity.
I say: Absolutely not! We all have had ENOUGH of Bolton and his neocon pals' insanity.
16
One of the many, many reasons why Mr. Bolton no longer serves as our UN Ambassador, or in any other capacity in our Government. But wait; elections are around the corner, and Ted (I'm-really-George-W.-with-a-stupider-grin) Cruz is running for president, so maybe Bolton and the other fools will get their opportunity to bomb, bomb, bomb everyone and anyone we don't like. President Eisenhower was the last Republican with sense, and he was right about the "military-industrial complex".
17
Among the many ad hominem attacks on the author come very few factual refutations, nor workable alternatives. Such are the lasting effects of ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome”. Iranian designs on the bomb predate and postdate Bush, and would have continued apace, faster perhaps had Saddam remained in power.
To attack Iran is madness, but the regime itself is madness. We had our chance with enforcing stronger sanctions and with supporting the uprising a couple years ago. We blew it, and that time has passed. The best Obama’s plan can do now is buy some time and delay the inevitable as everyone gears up for the fight that will come. The only other hope is the regime will fall, and do so without triggering a death spasm of massive proportions.
To attack Iran is madness, but the regime itself is madness. We had our chance with enforcing stronger sanctions and with supporting the uprising a couple years ago. We blew it, and that time has passed. The best Obama’s plan can do now is buy some time and delay the inevitable as everyone gears up for the fight that will come. The only other hope is the regime will fall, and do so without triggering a death spasm of massive proportions.
3
What ever happened to MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction! That is what we have to notify Iran. You use a nuclear weapon and we will rain down 100 on your civilization. That will maintain the balance. Iran will make a nuclear weapon because they can and they fear a nuclear Pakistan. we must be realistic. Bring iran into the world and tie them up economically. We did it with China, Russia, Japan, Germany. What makes Iran different?
6
This is entirely wrong on so many levels. It did not work in Iraq, and this is not a solution that has any better chance. Mr Bolton loves war and thinks brute force is the way to manage all conflicts.
8
The only points that Mr. Bolton left out are "We will be greeted as liberators" and "It will pay for itself."
19
And John Bolton was the US ambassador to the UN -- whose mission is to maintain peace. How sad!
14
Sec. Bolton, like Sen. McCain, never met a Mid East war he didn't like.
His call for a yet another ill-conceived adventure in that part of the world is as arrogant as it is absurd--especially in light of how well things have gone in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
His call for a yet another ill-conceived adventure in that part of the world is as arrogant as it is absurd--especially in light of how well things have gone in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
13
This from the guy who assured us that we'd be welcomed into Baghdad as liberators. Because the "regime change" strategy worked so well in Iraq. Discredited neocon foreign policy arguments like this are akin to the discredited "trickledown" economic theories espoused by many conservative fundamentalists. Why does the media still give credibility to arguments that have been disproved by real-world events?
15
While Mr. Bolton is very cavalier in his "bombing" proposal, he omits any discussion of Iran's likely retaliatory action and the likely repercussions throughout the Middle East if his proposal were put into action. This is surprising for a person who holds himself out as a foreign affairs expert. Presumably, if Mr. Bolton were advising a President on this issue, he would be expected to offer likely responsive scenarios. Given that its John Bolton who is opining, however, these glaring omissions are not terribly surprising.
9
The Republican answer to everything is to bomb it, kill it, destroy it or wage war on it using other peoples kids. When are we going to learn that there are better ways of spending our limited resources than by waging continuous war til the end of time?
17
How insane.
Have we learned nothing from the past 12 years? Do you remember Bolton's champion President HW Bush saying on Oct 7, 2002 "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof"? Or what about Dick Cheney saying "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use ... against us". Or what about Condoleezza Rice "We do know that [Hussein] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon"?
How insane that John Bolton wants to continue this foreign policy of fear mongering and "let's hit them before they can hit us".
In 2002 we didn't know what the results of this foreign policy would be. Now we do. End the insanity, continue the negotiations, work with our partners in the United Nations to find a result that is good for everyone including the country that John Bolton and Netanyahu can't wait to want to blow up, Iran.
Have we learned nothing from the past 12 years? Do you remember Bolton's champion President HW Bush saying on Oct 7, 2002 "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof"? Or what about Dick Cheney saying "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use ... against us". Or what about Condoleezza Rice "We do know that [Hussein] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon"?
How insane that John Bolton wants to continue this foreign policy of fear mongering and "let's hit them before they can hit us".
In 2002 we didn't know what the results of this foreign policy would be. Now we do. End the insanity, continue the negotiations, work with our partners in the United Nations to find a result that is good for everyone including the country that John Bolton and Netanyahu can't wait to want to blow up, Iran.
16
Why is anyone listening to one of the chief architects of the Iraq debacle?
17
Why is anyone (let alone the New York Times) giving John Bolton a national platform to spew his nonsense? Let no one forget Bolton was one of the gung-ho group who expected Americans to be greeted in Iraq as "liberators".
It also might be good to ask Bolton (but offstage, where nobody has to hear the exchange) how he proposes to bomb Iran's underground nuclear facilities that have been fortified to withstand even nuclear attack.
John Bolton--the Sarah Palin of the George W. Bush Administration.
It also might be good to ask Bolton (but offstage, where nobody has to hear the exchange) how he proposes to bomb Iran's underground nuclear facilities that have been fortified to withstand even nuclear attack.
John Bolton--the Sarah Palin of the George W. Bush Administration.
15
For a diplomat of the Ron Dermer school, Bolton seems unaware that the Iran negotiations involve the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.
10
I'm ashamed anybody overseas gets to read this horrendous warlike opinion in this media source without a disclaimer.
14
Hasn't John Bolton been thoroughly discredited, due to his being 180 degrees wrong about everything?
18
John R. Bolton could not have chosen a worse day to advocating a bombing Iran into submission than the day following March 25, on which the United States abandoned to try to bomb the state of Yemen into submission. Mr. Bolton suggests the same technique be applied to Iran by the United States or, as an alternative that the land of the Bible should become the standard bearer using force against Iran, before the last attempts to using diplomacy and sanctions have been exhausted.
8
I'd like to submit a piece to The Opinion Pages.
It would be titled, Let's Stop Supporting the Military-Industrial Complex.
The bulk of the essay would be about saving lives, making peace, and just generally using common sense and humanity. I'd also de-emphasize the size of the defense budget - almost 60% of US spending - and the profits of corporations such as Halliburton.
Oh, sorry - does that sound too "liberal"? Or does it just make good sense?
It would be titled, Let's Stop Supporting the Military-Industrial Complex.
The bulk of the essay would be about saving lives, making peace, and just generally using common sense and humanity. I'd also de-emphasize the size of the defense budget - almost 60% of US spending - and the profits of corporations such as Halliburton.
Oh, sorry - does that sound too "liberal"? Or does it just make good sense?
16
What Mr. Bolton and the neocons always fail to recognize and acknowledge are the repercussions of such an action. Remember when these same individuals were confident that the people of Iraq would welcome us with open arms? Even a so-called strategic bombing of Iran's facilities would have long-term deleterious effects on world stability.
9
Bolton is literally wanting the US to declare an unprovoked war on Iran. He can try to reduce it to isolated actions such as bombing, but it is war. It is obscene. Just bombing won't stop the work on nuclear technology. The US would have to subjugate Iran to its will to accomplish that, which is at best a fools errand. Russia, China, and other nations will not sit idly by has the US establishes a hegemony in the Middle East. Bolton beckons for the path of madness of the self-rightous.
9
I just want to understand one thing. If the Obama administration drops bombs it is an ineffective waste of time, but if a Republican conservative says we should start dropping bombs that is the solution to all our problems. What did I miss?
7
This guy - along with all the neo-cons - have not just been wrong in their prognostications in matters of war and peace since late 1990's but their actions ironically usually bring about the very threat they warn will materialize less we heed their advice. The ugly truth about nukes is the genie's long been out of the bottle - North Korea, Pakistan, India, China, etc. It's fantasy to believe limited military action on our part will stop the Iranians from developing nukes without further destabilizing the region. And if Bolton's predictive history is indeed prologue in this case than we can expect an arms race in the Mideast the likes of which we could never have imagined before Bolton's surgical strike.
9
This essay is filled with statements like, "There is now widespread acknowledgment that the rosy 2007 National Intelligence Estimate . . . was an embarrassment, little more than wishful thinking," with no reference to documentation or supporting evidence. "Widespread acknowledgement" might refer to widespread ignorance, for all the reader knows. The Iran problem is complex and full of risk; our opinions should derive from a meticulous look at all the factual evidence, not emotional reactions to vague conjecture.
5
The fact is that now, after the Iraq invasion wanted by a president who is now enjoying fishing with some friends, is much more difficult to take a decision. Mr. Bolton forgets that his plan to attack Iran must include also a plan to contain the consequences that may escalate and spin in the wrong direction. I am eager to read Mr.Bolton soon about it.
5
I agree with Bolton. The US should take actions now that ensure its security for many years to come while it has the capability and huge % of success, instead of relying on the decisions of a dictator to use an eventual nuke. Obama has no long term vision beyond his 1.5 years left in office and we're all going to have to live with his inability to make tough decisions. Yes war is horrible but history shows it's needed at the right times in history. Make no mistake were in a proxy war with Iran and have been for years. Iran is an enemy and I'm amazed at the lack of future vision of what could come. I know people will draw on the experiences of the Iraq war, but the Iraq case study has nothing to do with Iran
2
Every year or two, bomb someone: An effective way to guarantee two things that are critical elements of Republican dogma:
1. Rally our country around the military. Spur young people to join the military. Maintain the military-industrial complex. Maintain a war footing. Cut social welfare spending and increase military spending. Perhaps most important: pad your friends' coffers with our tax dollars thanks to all that military spending.
2. Sow hatred of the United States around the world. Why? See item 1 above.
1. Rally our country around the military. Spur young people to join the military. Maintain the military-industrial complex. Maintain a war footing. Cut social welfare spending and increase military spending. Perhaps most important: pad your friends' coffers with our tax dollars thanks to all that military spending.
2. Sow hatred of the United States around the world. Why? See item 1 above.
14
John Bolton uses euphemistic words like "strike" and "force." He carefully does not say, "We must start a war with Iran," presumably because he does not consider airstrikes to be war. But that is what he means: "Let's start another major war in the Middle East." What a great idea! After all, what could go wrong? As he and his friends did not before the Iraq war, he does not mention, and apparently does worry about, what happens afterward. He also does not consider what our European allies want, and he does not care about whether the American people want another war. He represents the faction that believes that diplomacy, negotiation, and (perish the thought) compromise are for wimps. Foreign policy by the world's superpower must be based on only one thing: force or the threat of force. To that end, we must (at least) threaten our adversaries and alienate our friends. Some people are ineducable.
11
In the same article Bolton argues that we should support Iran's opposition and also bomb Iran, which would be a major blow to the opposition and a major propaganda victory for the regime, who justify many of their policies using fear-mongering about US influence. Bombing would only further entrench the existing regime and push it in a more radical direction, dashing any hope of positive change for decades to come.
8
Nowhere in Bolton's letter does he mention the US as part of a group of nations negotiating a treaty. Just the old neocon reductive "us against them" with a heaping helping of bombing "before it's too late." This ridiculous fear-mongering and saber-rattling accomplishes nothing of substance to cultivate peace in the region. We were sold story as a flimsy justification to invade Iraq, and look what happened. The US needs to maintain and explore every diplomatic solution possible, and ignore the neocon mantra of bomb first and hope for the best.
7
Whatever the nation, the only real deterrent is the obvious, that whichever country sets off the first bomb will cease to exist shortly thereafter.
We live in an extremely complex world, while bombing Iran may reduce their nuclear threat, would the result be that Iran will meekly surrender to our demands and give up? More likely they would seek revenge through increased support for terrorism, biological weaponry and other means.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the agreement being sought, at the end of the day we have to figure out how nations can peacefully co-exist. Bombing their nuclear facilities as the writer suggests is not a good first step in this process.
We live in an extremely complex world, while bombing Iran may reduce their nuclear threat, would the result be that Iran will meekly surrender to our demands and give up? More likely they would seek revenge through increased support for terrorism, biological weaponry and other means.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the agreement being sought, at the end of the day we have to figure out how nations can peacefully co-exist. Bombing their nuclear facilities as the writer suggests is not a good first step in this process.
6
The same logic could lead to the conclusion that we should bomb Israel. The current regime can not be trusted to follow international rules and stop settlement building. It is scaring its neighbors with its nuclear weapons. The hardliners in power have disavowed any possibility of a peaceful resolution which is creating a destabilizing force in the region. All attempts at international sanctions have failed to produce behavior change. It is oppressing a large portion of the population under control. A small bombing campaign would weaken it enough to force regime change and a more pliable leadership.
What do you mean it is a bad idea!
What do you mean it is a bad idea!
8
John Bolton, One more neocon advocating more war in the Middle East. Adding to the several already in progress. Brilliant and well thought through - similar to the Iraq incursion.
It's abundantly clear to anyone with eyes that all the warmongering perpetuates the unrestricted transfer of monies from the "peoples treasury" to military contractor's coffers. In a low interest rate environment, where can one get a return on investment? Military contracting, that's where.
It's abundantly clear to anyone with eyes that all the warmongering perpetuates the unrestricted transfer of monies from the "peoples treasury" to military contractor's coffers. In a low interest rate environment, where can one get a return on investment? Military contracting, that's where.
9
Bolton is pandering to his own and others action bias, not seeing that such preemptive action now closes off many options we have within the middle east for the next generation, whereas nnegotiation and a verification process maintains options, including peace.
3
So, are we to trust everything Mr. Bolton alleges, without any proof? His opinion piece is just theory and conjecture (In Search Of...), and he also excludes any potential consequences to his proposal. What if we were to bomb Iran? Could we make the situation worse? I think so! This is all based on a fear that they are building weapons (that we can have, but no one else can...), and fear that others will do the same. Let's just bomb everyone who might be building these weapons cos that always works out best. How do we know we can even effectively take out the areas that are so far underground? Fear, just fear. And all from a guy with a track record that instills a lot less confidence than the current President. I am not convinced, Mr. Bolton.
5
Asking Bolton's opinion on the Middle East is a bit like asking a doctor who killed his last patient while removing his tonsils to perform brain surgery. Bolton was one of the cadre of neocons who believed that removing Sadam Hussein from power would cause a thousand flowers to bloom in the Middle East. The naive and simplistic analysis by people who didn't even know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia has caused an untold torrent of violence and is one of the reasons Iran has managed to extend its sphere of influence. Bolton's solution the the problem he helped to create is to double down.
8
The world will be a much better place when this generation of egocentric individuals pass on. Their inability to experience transcendence is sad. They are John Wayne on steroids. Their fear is obvious but they won't acknowledge it. They unconsciously project it onto the scary "other" and then imagine the danger coming at them. These unowned projections are putting all at risk. So sad and yet so dangerous. If only they would go in to nature, take their clothes off, dance, and make love more often they might not be so frightened, uptight, and dangerous.
7
While a massive strike on Iran would have its costs, the alternative is far worse. Iran has been increasingly bold in its military adventures and will only continue to do so if left with the capability to produce nuclear weapons. Yes, they would be inclined to commit terrorist acts if they were attacked, but our policy should be to hold the Iranian leadership responsible for its actions. The time for decisive and massive strike is now, before it is too late.
1
Many have already commented taking advice from one of the brilliant neo-cons who conceived the Iraq disaster - but his rantings do raise important issues. The US and other nuclear nations still retain many of the nuclear weapons that they invented, manufactured or obtained from others. Unless we are willing to support a total ban on these monstrous instruments of mass annihilation - as we did for chemical and biological weapons - we have no moral basis for attacking Iran militarily or otherwise. Moreover the current international regulatory framework is unfair in that it is driven by the US and other major nuclear powers in order to solidify their nuclear positions and thereby (according to cold war logic) to make us/them "safe" from destruction.
1
Ten years ago I was working with a lovely, well-educated concert pianist who was passionate about Schumann. He was also a resident in obstetrics here in Connecticut, and the nurses and patients loved him (a truer endorsement of character is probably not possible). We call him "Al," and he was a self-described "Persian," (not "Irani") from Iran.
Iran is full of well-educated, pro-democracy younger people who will transform the country in time. Have we already forgotten the student uprising after the 2009 election? Rest assured - the students haven't, and bombing them is exactly the wrong thing to do.
Iran needs what the rest of the world, especially the Middle East, needs - jobs, and a fairer-balanced economy. If we bomb their infrastructure, we set them back even further and turn the next generation against us. That may be great for Halliburton, but it is bad for everyone who does not profit from war and imprisonment. Let the accord proceed.
Iran is full of well-educated, pro-democracy younger people who will transform the country in time. Have we already forgotten the student uprising after the 2009 election? Rest assured - the students haven't, and bombing them is exactly the wrong thing to do.
Iran needs what the rest of the world, especially the Middle East, needs - jobs, and a fairer-balanced economy. If we bomb their infrastructure, we set them back even further and turn the next generation against us. That may be great for Halliburton, but it is bad for everyone who does not profit from war and imprisonment. Let the accord proceed.
13
With luminaries such as John Bolton, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mark Kirk, Ted Cruz, et al in the Republican Party just imagine what would have happened if Mitt Romney had won the last presidential election and what can still happen if one of those peace-loving, astute politicians wins the next presidential election. One really has to pray for the survivability of human civilization. To these people peace and diplomacy are anathema and bombing and shedding blood are the norm.
They seem to have lost any trace of humility, humanity, mercy, compassion and wisdom and can only communicate through the language of fear, hatred and violence. The problem is that not only have the cheerleaders of the disastrous war on Iraq such as John Bolton not been prosecuted for their crimes of aggression, they are even allowed to spew venom and blood on the pages of one of the most respected newspapers in the world.
It is time to mobilize peace-loving Americans against such a possibility that would endanger the peace and security of the entire world. There is a great deal of work that needs to be done to save America from the spectre of the military industrial complex that seems to be on the ascendant, but this is a campaign that should not fail for the sake of America, the Middle East and the world. Thank you Mr. Bolton for reminding us of the danger that lurks in the shadows and of the urgent task that is ahead of us.
They seem to have lost any trace of humility, humanity, mercy, compassion and wisdom and can only communicate through the language of fear, hatred and violence. The problem is that not only have the cheerleaders of the disastrous war on Iraq such as John Bolton not been prosecuted for their crimes of aggression, they are even allowed to spew venom and blood on the pages of one of the most respected newspapers in the world.
It is time to mobilize peace-loving Americans against such a possibility that would endanger the peace and security of the entire world. There is a great deal of work that needs to be done to save America from the spectre of the military industrial complex that seems to be on the ascendant, but this is a campaign that should not fail for the sake of America, the Middle East and the world. Thank you Mr. Bolton for reminding us of the danger that lurks in the shadows and of the urgent task that is ahead of us.
10
No longer can proposals be taken seriously when they revolve around Obama-bashing. Such a long and boring litany of complaint, such tiresome and harmful conservative twisting of facts and history to make everything his fault. Having listened to them cry wolf nonstop since 2008, we no longer have any assurance that the conservative pundit is actually telling us something real and urgent. When conservatives offer solutions or approaches that do not name Obama as the villain, then maybe we can take an objective look. Until then, we run the risk of missing something of great consequence.
3
Alternative: Make the next sanction the mining of Iran's oil export and refined product import terminals. No destruction, no violence, no bloodshed, no war, but it would shut down its economy in weeks. Then Iran would agree to a reasonable deal, including stopping all uranium enrichment and plutonium production activities.
We embargoed (equivalent to mining the harbors) Soviet shipments of weapons to Cuba in 1962, when the Soviet Union had megaton bombs. What are we afraid of now?
We embargoed (equivalent to mining the harbors) Soviet shipments of weapons to Cuba in 1962, when the Soviet Union had megaton bombs. What are we afraid of now?
Bolton argues that sanctions, which in theory should work, have not worked in the case of Iran based on testimony that comes from Obama. However the problem is not at all in the idea of sanctions. The idea of the sanction was that Iran will find they are not sustainable and be forced to beg us to remove them.
The reason they are not working is for the sole reason that Obama has been insisting that in reality Iran is not at all fazed by sanctions, even if they are strengthened and are ready to walk away and build a bomb if we say that the current terms are not going to work for us. That we must accept that Iran can build a bomb in 10 years, despite the fact that the promise was they never will, because we have no leverage over Iran at all.
A basic question is that If Iran is ready to go off and build a bomb now because there is nothing that we can do to demand they accept a change in the terms, what in the world will we do if they break the agreement and build a bomb. And there isn't a reason why they shouldn't do it after Obama made his position clear to all.
The obvious truth is that the leverage of sanctions didn't suddenly disappear. Obama cares only about one thing. And that is that time is running out to sign a deal, and any delay will prevent him from adding this deal for his legacy. And his legacy of reaching an agreement is clearly more important to him than taking the time to achieve the whole objective of the agreement itself.
The reason they are not working is for the sole reason that Obama has been insisting that in reality Iran is not at all fazed by sanctions, even if they are strengthened and are ready to walk away and build a bomb if we say that the current terms are not going to work for us. That we must accept that Iran can build a bomb in 10 years, despite the fact that the promise was they never will, because we have no leverage over Iran at all.
A basic question is that If Iran is ready to go off and build a bomb now because there is nothing that we can do to demand they accept a change in the terms, what in the world will we do if they break the agreement and build a bomb. And there isn't a reason why they shouldn't do it after Obama made his position clear to all.
The obvious truth is that the leverage of sanctions didn't suddenly disappear. Obama cares only about one thing. And that is that time is running out to sign a deal, and any delay will prevent him from adding this deal for his legacy. And his legacy of reaching an agreement is clearly more important to him than taking the time to achieve the whole objective of the agreement itself.
2
Typical necon ramblings. Just drop a few bombs and problem solved. But what comes afterwards? Bombing Iran will have the opposite effect. Iranians, many of whom are not happy with their government, will rally to the regime and the demand for a nuclear weapon will be nycg greater. The leadership will realize, if they haven't already, that a weapon will be their only deterrent from future attacks. Iraq, with no atomic weapons, was attacked while nuclear armed North Korea has not been. It is not hard to put together.
If Iran really wanted a bomb, it would have one now. Why build one anyway? The chaos in the Middle East allows them to expand their influence without such weapons. What Iran wants is acknowledgement that they are an important power with the right and ability to build a weapon.
Nuclear weapons are deterrents, not offensive weapons. No regime is so suicidal that it would want to get into a war with them. Tensions between Pakistan and India have decreased since they both acquired nuclear weapons since the consequences of war is so much greater.
There is a time for war and a time for diplomacy. This is a time for diplomacy.
If Iran really wanted a bomb, it would have one now. Why build one anyway? The chaos in the Middle East allows them to expand their influence without such weapons. What Iran wants is acknowledgement that they are an important power with the right and ability to build a weapon.
Nuclear weapons are deterrents, not offensive weapons. No regime is so suicidal that it would want to get into a war with them. Tensions between Pakistan and India have decreased since they both acquired nuclear weapons since the consequences of war is so much greater.
There is a time for war and a time for diplomacy. This is a time for diplomacy.
3
When we invaded Iraq in 2003 al Qaida realized they had to come out of hiding around the region and engage us in Iraq. We kicked their butts badly at great cost and left ourselves in a very strong position to keep the Middle East stable for awhile.
Then in 2010 along comes liberal Democrats and they decide to throw all that advantage away because they hated Bush so much and they wanted to erase his legacy, even the useful results. It's the same mentality as the wholesale emptying of Gitmo's terrorists (who were collected at great cost) back into the world again to do what they will.
When George W. Bush was in power he was feeling his way in wildly dangerous times and he made some mistakes. Still, during his presidency we were winning.
Since January of 2009 we have been slowly but steadily losing, losing, losing. Obama made Libya a real mess, bumbled with Syria, and the Saudis had to step in and clean up Egypt after Obama's blunders.
A lot of the left wingers posting here are from deep blue states and particularly from deep blue cosmopolitan areas on the East Coast. When the barbarian be-headers of the Middle East finally get their hands on primitive nukes or other WMD's, I suspect that the East Coast will be the first to find out that the chant "Death to America" was not just a quaint local pop phenomenon.
Dems being Dems, even as they vaporize into the mushroom cloud they will still be blaming Bush for it all.
Then in 2010 along comes liberal Democrats and they decide to throw all that advantage away because they hated Bush so much and they wanted to erase his legacy, even the useful results. It's the same mentality as the wholesale emptying of Gitmo's terrorists (who were collected at great cost) back into the world again to do what they will.
When George W. Bush was in power he was feeling his way in wildly dangerous times and he made some mistakes. Still, during his presidency we were winning.
Since January of 2009 we have been slowly but steadily losing, losing, losing. Obama made Libya a real mess, bumbled with Syria, and the Saudis had to step in and clean up Egypt after Obama's blunders.
A lot of the left wingers posting here are from deep blue states and particularly from deep blue cosmopolitan areas on the East Coast. When the barbarian be-headers of the Middle East finally get their hands on primitive nukes or other WMD's, I suspect that the East Coast will be the first to find out that the chant "Death to America" was not just a quaint local pop phenomenon.
Dems being Dems, even as they vaporize into the mushroom cloud they will still be blaming Bush for it all.
3
I find the question that must first be answered before reacting to Mr. Bolton's suggestions is this: is it acceptable for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. I also find that when I ask this question, my progressive friends become very uncomfortable, and for good reason. Most, in their hearts, believe that while it is not desirable, it is ultimately not worth conflict to stop the Iranian regime from building a bomb. So their honest answer would be, "yes, it is undesirable, but acceptable."
The reason for the discomfort is that this conflicts completely with the statements of our Commander in Chief, who argued as recently as 2012 that it is "unacceptable" for Iran to get a nuke and that we are prepared "to do what we must" to prevent it (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/25/14088489-obama-us-will-do-...
Even more uncomfortable, for liberals, is that I don't think they believe him. And, while I am not a liberal, I don't either.
If the issue becomes whether Iran should be allowed to get a bomb, and if the answer to that is no, then there is little reason to doubt the wisdom of Bolton's arguments. Because no sane person can look at Iranian conduct during these negotiations (or American, for that matter) and think they will be dissuaded by negotiations from their aim. Further, if Iran is allowed to build one, what regime is next? And when everyone has these weapons, what world will be left?
The reason for the discomfort is that this conflicts completely with the statements of our Commander in Chief, who argued as recently as 2012 that it is "unacceptable" for Iran to get a nuke and that we are prepared "to do what we must" to prevent it (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/25/14088489-obama-us-will-do-...
Even more uncomfortable, for liberals, is that I don't think they believe him. And, while I am not a liberal, I don't either.
If the issue becomes whether Iran should be allowed to get a bomb, and if the answer to that is no, then there is little reason to doubt the wisdom of Bolton's arguments. Because no sane person can look at Iranian conduct during these negotiations (or American, for that matter) and think they will be dissuaded by negotiations from their aim. Further, if Iran is allowed to build one, what regime is next? And when everyone has these weapons, what world will be left?
2
Then Mr. Bolton, would you give up your child if Iran counter attacks and bombs us? Would the sacrifice been worth it? Or Iranian people don't matter?
4
My father used to say the only way to put an end to war is to start drafting all the old men. I wonder where Mr Bolton will be when the killing starts? Not anywhere is harms way, I'm sure.
9
Bombing would be fitting if only Iran's wild leadership got killed, but Iran also has moderate, sort-of democrats. Those are firmly suppressed and not bomb-proof. .
Bombing can aim at the known leaders' likely location, but bombing is not selective solely of them.
Then, there is the image-, PR-thing. No unilaterally bombing another can look good. Has Bolton no sensitivity for such matters? Admittedly, such considerations DO make decisive bombing very costly to the US.
As the world's No 1 nation still, for the next decades, the US would get bad-mouthed by conscience-stricken people like Jimmy Carter, by ill-wishers in really democratic nations (eg leftist parties in France & UK), by howling mobs in backwaters (Pakistan) and by master news manipulators like Putin.
If Putin can make innocence seem evil and evil seem innocent within Russia, what would he do with a move that was just what it was? Turn in your chainsaw solutions, Mr Bolton, and devise a solution the US could live with.
Bombing can aim at the known leaders' likely location, but bombing is not selective solely of them.
Then, there is the image-, PR-thing. No unilaterally bombing another can look good. Has Bolton no sensitivity for such matters? Admittedly, such considerations DO make decisive bombing very costly to the US.
As the world's No 1 nation still, for the next decades, the US would get bad-mouthed by conscience-stricken people like Jimmy Carter, by ill-wishers in really democratic nations (eg leftist parties in France & UK), by howling mobs in backwaters (Pakistan) and by master news manipulators like Putin.
If Putin can make innocence seem evil and evil seem innocent within Russia, what would he do with a move that was just what it was? Turn in your chainsaw solutions, Mr Bolton, and devise a solution the US could live with.
1
When you mix insanity with stupidity you get a John Bolton.
13
A commentary calling for another US preemptive war coming from a Republican think tank should discourage ANY person from voting for a Republican in the 2016 presidential election. But sadly, it won't.
12
James Fallowes of The Atlantic had an article some time ago on war games which concluded bombing Iran's nuclear installations would be a costly failure.
9
NICE SUGGESTION, i do not believe this administration has the courage to do the correct thing. we will continue to see cowardness when it comes to dealing with iran
1
While we're at it let's bomb North Korea, Syria, Russia, and hey how about Australia (if you hate all those kangaroos)
7
To a nitwit whose only foreign policy tool is military intervention, every problem looks like a target.
11
John Bolton is more of a danger to the world than Iran. He belongs in a mental hospital!
14
"Ironically perhaps, Israel’s nuclear weapons have not triggered an arms race. Other states in the region understood — even if they couldn’t admit it publicly — that Israel’s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure."
This statement is even more valid when you substitute the name "Iran" for "Israel", and change the tense from past to future. But in truth, Mr. Bolton is a connoisseur of fallacy, NOT irony. He primarily represents the interests of America's bomb makers, and by that way, is also waving a "save a position for me" flag at Jeb Bush. This editorial ranks right up there with Dick Cheney's 2002 VFW speech, where he declared: "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction". The real irony is we just got through January and February without any casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan.
This statement is even more valid when you substitute the name "Iran" for "Israel", and change the tense from past to future. But in truth, Mr. Bolton is a connoisseur of fallacy, NOT irony. He primarily represents the interests of America's bomb makers, and by that way, is also waving a "save a position for me" flag at Jeb Bush. This editorial ranks right up there with Dick Cheney's 2002 VFW speech, where he declared: "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction". The real irony is we just got through January and February without any casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan.
3
A viable effective foreign policy - just do the opposite of what John "Bombs Away" Bolton advises.
5
Say, you don't suppose the Iranian Mullahs might misunderstand this article, and conclude that the U.S. is preparing to bomb their country back into the Stone Age? Time for another Gang of 47 letter, don't you think . . .Senator Cotton?
You can start by explaining that Americans enjoy a free press, and that it often carries fantasies camoflaged as expert analysis. Or would you offer another explanation, about the liberal NY Times supporting the war-mongering political faction in advocating pre-emptive nuclear attack. The world awaits your letter, Senator . . .
You can start by explaining that Americans enjoy a free press, and that it often carries fantasies camoflaged as expert analysis. Or would you offer another explanation, about the liberal NY Times supporting the war-mongering political faction in advocating pre-emptive nuclear attack. The world awaits your letter, Senator . . .
2
What a sad and difficult time it must be for those who have for years been working so diligently at negotiating treaties with Iran to control nuclear proliferation! The Iranian delegates simply have to put a copy of Mr. Bolton's recommendation in front of every American negotiator, and then leave the negotiations. Permanently.
Iran is not some backwater, uneducated, and remote corner of the world, to be attacked with bombs...without us having any fear of retaliation. Perhaps it is time for the NRA to suggest foxholes, along with the guns, in all backyards. Bad times are coming......
Iran is not some backwater, uneducated, and remote corner of the world, to be attacked with bombs...without us having any fear of retaliation. Perhaps it is time for the NRA to suggest foxholes, along with the guns, in all backyards. Bad times are coming......
5
Is Bolton going to send his children to fight in another war we can't win? If he doesn't believe in it that much, then shut your mouth.
7
Will bombing Iran add to the terrorist threats in the world? Nah. I'm sure a good bombing will make them realize the error of their ways and they would never attack us. No I can't imagine Iranians using terroist tactics against amuricans in Europe, Asia, South America, Chicago, Washington, New York; I can't imagine them blowing up school children or crashing airplanes and buses in some sort of all out terrorist campaign-- they wouldn't have it in them after a good bombing. What a hollow man you are Mr. Bolton, an empty, souless, being.
6
Bolton never learns....the consequences of his proposal is disastrous...unleashed violence in retaliation ...and irreparable magnified hostility
for years into the future...
I regret the Times offering him a forum.
for years into the future...
I regret the Times offering him a forum.
8
Haven't the words and plans of this man caused enough death and destruction throughout the Middle East? His calls for violent action in the past were proven to be disastrous not only for the Iraqis, but also for Americans. Why should Americans trust him on this issue?
We can only ope that our leaders have learned lessons since the invasion of Iraq that John Bolton obviously has not learned.
We can only ope that our leaders have learned lessons since the invasion of Iraq that John Bolton obviously has not learned.
7
No surprise that the United States' former arch-antidiplomat is pushing for more war, this time against Iran.
The horror.
The horror.
9
When I see someone wanting to go to war, I am always interested in their background. Mr. Bolton joined the National Guard to avoid service in Vietnam and admits to that fact. As a Vietnam Veteran, I want to give a great deal of thought to the use of force. Iraq was a stupid decision. The Middle East is a complex area with Sunni and Shia issues. Iran is involved in fighting ISIS.
8
Always the voice of reason. Now, to the tune of Barbara Ann, everyone . . .
2
"Even absent palpable proof, like a nuclear test, Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear weapons has long been evident."
We already know Mr. Bolton's standard of proof are low. He was completely suckered in by claims on Iraq's WMD programs in 2002. Or he was lying about believing Iraq had active WMD programs.) But here he is back again, acknowledging that there is no "palpable proof" but ready to launch another war. What a guy!
We already know Mr. Bolton's standard of proof are low. He was completely suckered in by claims on Iraq's WMD programs in 2002. Or he was lying about believing Iraq had active WMD programs.) But here he is back again, acknowledging that there is no "palpable proof" but ready to launch another war. What a guy!
3
Interesting how well ignorance and stupidity can sell. There can be no military solution to the 'Iranian nuclear problem' without regime change in Iran. And unlike Iraq the US ,and whatever others it can scrape into the shape of an alliance ,will find Russia(Iran's neighbor) actively engaged on the Iranian side.
5
Presented by one of the architects of the Iraq invasion. Never saw a war he didn't like. Bolton undermines his own argument by pointing out how easy it would be for Saudi Arabia, Turkey etc. to get nukes.
5
Iran has been wreaking havoc in the region for decades. We've never attacked them and we never will. It's like Russia. We put up with it, and fight conventionally and by proxy to avoid WWIII. Iran getting the bomb changes nothing. It's just their insurance policy that they can keep up their shenanigans and not end up like Saddam Hussain. Let's keep up the pressure and containment but try not to get hysterical about the inevitable.
2
it would be far more instructive if Mr. Bolton had included in his memo the fact that the effort to contain nuclear weapons proliferation in the Middle East is an International effort; i.e., there are several nations involved in these discussions...this is not a singular US-Iran negotiation...
4
"Ironically perhaps, Israel’s nuclear weapons have not triggered an arms race. Other states in the region understood — even if they couldn’t admit it publicly — that Israel’s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure." --- Bolton
Who is Bolton kidding? One of the main reasons that Iran might want a nuclear capability is that they need a deterrent to make sure Israel doesn't bomb them. Also, Iran was identified by G.W. Bush as part of the "axis of evil," along with Iraq and North Korea. The Iranians can see what happened to Iraq, and they can also see that we treat North Korea with kid gloves because they do have the bomb.
It's in everyone's interest to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons, but bombing Iran would only push their nuclear program underground and speed it up. The more threatening our attitude toward Iran, the more they are going to want to have a nuclear deterrent. But if we can defuse the situation through negotiations and get Israel to go along, everyone will feel safer, and we won't get into yet another Middle East war.
Who is Bolton kidding? One of the main reasons that Iran might want a nuclear capability is that they need a deterrent to make sure Israel doesn't bomb them. Also, Iran was identified by G.W. Bush as part of the "axis of evil," along with Iraq and North Korea. The Iranians can see what happened to Iraq, and they can also see that we treat North Korea with kid gloves because they do have the bomb.
It's in everyone's interest to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons, but bombing Iran would only push their nuclear program underground and speed it up. The more threatening our attitude toward Iran, the more they are going to want to have a nuclear deterrent. But if we can defuse the situation through negotiations and get Israel to go along, everyone will feel safer, and we won't get into yet another Middle East war.
4
I'm sure that after the bombs are dropped and when the troops have to go in to subdue 80 million Iranians that Mr. Bolton will be at the head of the line to join the infantry and head to Iran. Perhaps he would then like to invade North Korea and take away their nukes. Why is it those with no skin in the game are always calling for war???
6
To wait to retaliate is a fool's game. Let these barbaric numbskulls learn that threats are not to be taken lightly.
2
Bolton thinks we should bomb Iran because Iran intends to bomb us. But it is easy to imagine an op-ed in the Tehran Daily News saying that they needed a bomb because the US intends to bomb them. Their evidence would be the number of people in this country and Israel who openly call for war against Iran.
Why do we always condemn people for doing what we do? How would we react if Iran surrounded the US with the equivalent of the US military and engaged in almost continuous warfare in our region?
Why do we always condemn people for doing what we do? How would we react if Iran surrounded the US with the equivalent of the US military and engaged in almost continuous warfare in our region?
10
I had no idea that the NYT abridges its op-eds.
Missing is who's in the batter's box after Iran.
Missing is the call to reinstate the draft.
Missing is the call to raise taxes to pay for this action and its ad infinitum reactions.
Missing is who's in the batter's box after Iran.
Missing is the call to reinstate the draft.
Missing is the call to raise taxes to pay for this action and its ad infinitum reactions.
5
Here's some quotes from the current Supreme Leader...After reading these I defy any reader to logically describe why these people should possess nuclear arms:
[There is only one possible solution to unrest in the Middle East], "namely the annihilation and destruction of the Zionist state."
December 31, 1999 speech on Qods Day
Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon (Israel). We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region… No one will allow a bunch of thugs, lechers and outcasts from London, America and Moscow to rule over the Palestinians.
December 15, 2000 sermon to worshippers in Tehran
Today the world has far more potential than in the past to understand the message of the Holy Prophet (s.w.a). The more human knowledge increases, the more likely it becomes that the message of Islam will gain ground. The more powerful people in different parts of the world use brutal tools in order to suppress human feelings and to bring them under their yoke, the more the ground will be prepared for identifying the light of Islam and the more thirsty human beings will become for Islam. Today we see the signs of this thirst for the message of Islam, which is the message of monotheism, the message of spirituality, the message of justice, the message of human dignity. Human beings are enthusiastic about the message of Islam.
[There is only one possible solution to unrest in the Middle East], "namely the annihilation and destruction of the Zionist state."
December 31, 1999 speech on Qods Day
Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon (Israel). We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region… No one will allow a bunch of thugs, lechers and outcasts from London, America and Moscow to rule over the Palestinians.
December 15, 2000 sermon to worshippers in Tehran
Today the world has far more potential than in the past to understand the message of the Holy Prophet (s.w.a). The more human knowledge increases, the more likely it becomes that the message of Islam will gain ground. The more powerful people in different parts of the world use brutal tools in order to suppress human feelings and to bring them under their yoke, the more the ground will be prepared for identifying the light of Islam and the more thirsty human beings will become for Islam. Today we see the signs of this thirst for the message of Islam, which is the message of monotheism, the message of spirituality, the message of justice, the message of human dignity. Human beings are enthusiastic about the message of Islam.
1
It is sad to see that such a vile fool is given the opportunity to demand that we start yet another war when he and his buddies were major reasons that the last two were screwed up.
I will assume that anyone who takes Bolton's advice is insane unless they can find thoughtful, wise people who also support the advice that Bolton happens to give.
I will assume that anyone who takes Bolton's advice is insane unless they can find thoughtful, wise people who also support the advice that Bolton happens to give.
5
So sad our weird our angry parents won't let us be friends with Iran. They look and talk like us, they value education for their boys and girls alike--and the kids always seem so joyful and smiling and well behaved and smart. Yes, their parents have their hands in a few cookie jars but so do ours many times over--and they almost never threaten their neighbors and it's not their fault that every time they fight the whole world calls it terror and then something else when we do the same. They want to be friends and they seem kind of cool; remember their movie The Seperation? Come on! That was great! And we're supposed to be friends with The Sauds--where's their movie and girls in school? It makes no sense.
2
Dear John,
I'll sign on as soon as you and your children enlist in the 82 Airborn to be in the first invasion force to drop into Iran after the bombardment. For, as you certainly know, there will be a full scale land war. Oh, John do you remember the Iran-Iraq war that lasted 8 years and was a complete stalemate. Before you bomb, perhaps we better reinstitute the draft and create a 10 million man army. Or perhaps, when a lightening victory eludes us, we should just "go nuclear". Have you not thought through your testosterone fueled fantasy dream? What do you suppose Mr. Netanyahu is going to do with all those Israeli submarines if she is threatened with any sort of counter attack? Perhaps you might rewatch Dr. Strangelove tonight.
I'll sign on as soon as you and your children enlist in the 82 Airborn to be in the first invasion force to drop into Iran after the bombardment. For, as you certainly know, there will be a full scale land war. Oh, John do you remember the Iran-Iraq war that lasted 8 years and was a complete stalemate. Before you bomb, perhaps we better reinstitute the draft and create a 10 million man army. Or perhaps, when a lightening victory eludes us, we should just "go nuclear". Have you not thought through your testosterone fueled fantasy dream? What do you suppose Mr. Netanyahu is going to do with all those Israeli submarines if she is threatened with any sort of counter attack? Perhaps you might rewatch Dr. Strangelove tonight.
4
If one believes there is a moral equivalency between Iran and America, I suppose some of the emotional responses here could be correct. However, in the real world, sometimes you just have to pick a side instead of trying to appease those who call for the death of American or make excuses for their past. Any one is perfectly free to believe a nuclear Iran will not increase the likelihood of a horrendous nuclear exchange in the Middle East. They are free to demean the country you live in, and be intolerant of other opinions. But facts are facts. Iran was just recently removed from the list of countries sponsoring terrorism. This Iran has killed hundreds of Americans. This Iran refuses to open their records and facilities to neutral parties. And the fact is with a nuclear Israel, America, France and England, no nuclear weapons have ever been used in the M.E.. With those facts, and the oh-so-ugly choosing of which side to trust and support, many very intelligent and experienced people and leaders believe allowing Iran to go nuclear would be catastrophic.
2
A Dr Strangelove come lately. Probably dreams to ride the first of the
7
Where are the comments from our erstwhile congress? And further where are the comments from all the POTUS candidates? Senator Cruz would probably agree with this but where would the more "sensible" candidates be on the subject of war on Iran. I see a scenario of immediate retaliation from Iran in Iraq to say the least. They have the ground troops there already and a govt. in place that is mostly Shiite. What does Jeb think, and the others who aspire to the presidency? This century has proved to be a war of religious beliefs, and adding a direct attack on Iran would certainly inflame those as yet on the sidelines. Also Bolton is eager to have the bombing done by Israel with our tacit support and why not? War is good for the economy. Jobs once more for the military industrial complex. Maybe WW111? Bet on it.
2
Who is next on Netanyahu's list to tell us on his behalf why we must bomb Iran ... Dick Cheney?
5
Force, yes. With someone else's children. Turn up the volume of the Star Spangled Banner. And don't forget to 'thank them for their service', heh....heh.
6
Of course, a frightened, misguided warmonger like Bolton would definitely not have learned any of the lessons from Iraq - in particularly that aggression, violence and military action only lead to MORE distrust, anger, fanaticism - and terrorism.
4
This clown gets more press than a normal person with common sense. Why??? All I think when I hear or read about him is Nuns getting Murdered and raped in Nicaraqua. He is still on the wrong side of Good.
8
How the words "John", "Bolton" and "scholar" can be placed near each other is a story in itself.
Perhaps Mr. Bolton, bombing Iraq, and Syria nuclear reactors has led to the current state of animosity towards Israel and U.S. which has cost America thousands of lives. Protecting the bully in the school yard, does not make America a better or safer country.
Perhaps Mr. Bolton, bombing Iraq, and Syria nuclear reactors has led to the current state of animosity towards Israel and U.S. which has cost America thousands of lives. Protecting the bully in the school yard, does not make America a better or safer country.
4
Why does John Bolton's opinion matter? he's been wrong in the past is wrong now and will be in the future. Mr Bolton crawl back under the rock you came out of. Who's we listening to next Dick Cheney?
8
Mr. Bolton is a man who as US ambassador to the UN, despised the UN. He's cut from the 'shoot now and talk later' Bush administration cloth. Why would the NY Times even accept an editorial from someone so blatantly biased and perhaps unbalanced?
6
Before you take anything in this article seriously, note that Bolton appears regularly on Fox.
6
It seems most readers failed to analysis the logic of Bolton's criticism about the deal and attacked the conclusion (fair but the first parts logic is the key).
The logic is irrefutable. If Iran is allowed to progress with nuclear capabilities in any capacity, there will be an arms race in the Middle East; Egypt, Saudia Arabia, etc. What is the overriding concern in Pakistan about their nuclear weapons? Bueller, Bueller...that the military bases can be overrun and the weapons taken by terrorists (with or without the help of their military - another story).
Okay...for those needing A to B, B to C - the US (and Europe) are concerned that if an arms race begins in the Middle East, Pakistan's security will look like fort knox compared to the security around the Middle Easts. And, if this is the case, a nuclear weapon (if not more) will be taken by those nasty people and used in the US or other highly populated, western city (or to trigger a regional war)
So the issue: while Obama is negotiating with Iran he is in effect allowing an arms race to be created. Bolton's point is that each president has been presented with these same challenges over the past 50 years, but Obama has the potential to allow an arms race to explode. If a deal is done, an arms race will be created. Pretty simple stuff as long as you leave out the politics and the saber rattling. My neighbor has it, their allowed, I want it and I can get it...
The logic is irrefutable. If Iran is allowed to progress with nuclear capabilities in any capacity, there will be an arms race in the Middle East; Egypt, Saudia Arabia, etc. What is the overriding concern in Pakistan about their nuclear weapons? Bueller, Bueller...that the military bases can be overrun and the weapons taken by terrorists (with or without the help of their military - another story).
Okay...for those needing A to B, B to C - the US (and Europe) are concerned that if an arms race begins in the Middle East, Pakistan's security will look like fort knox compared to the security around the Middle Easts. And, if this is the case, a nuclear weapon (if not more) will be taken by those nasty people and used in the US or other highly populated, western city (or to trigger a regional war)
So the issue: while Obama is negotiating with Iran he is in effect allowing an arms race to be created. Bolton's point is that each president has been presented with these same challenges over the past 50 years, but Obama has the potential to allow an arms race to explode. If a deal is done, an arms race will be created. Pretty simple stuff as long as you leave out the politics and the saber rattling. My neighbor has it, their allowed, I want it and I can get it...
1
Irresponsible of the NYT to publish this dangerously hair-brained essay by a right-wing extremist like Bolton.
7
So Bolton thinks it is a good idea to kick off WW3 in order to set back Iran's nuclear program for 5 years. And just what happens in 5 years? Does he think that Iran will just give up? Or resume the same course of nuclear weapon development, knowing that the next bombing attack is scheduled four years later? Of course, if we follow Bolton's logic, we will not stop at just destroying a few nuclear sites, far, far more death and destruction will be necessary to stop their response, which will be to block exports of petroleum to the world that go through the straights of Hormuz. It will require their total defeat, and absent an attack on the US first like Pearl Harbor, this would mean the US acting as an empire, suppressing other countries from attaining the kinds of weapons that we and our allies have.
A preemptive attack will set off a conflagration that will have unknown, but huge consequences for the planet and its inhabitants.
Containment, as successfully done with the USSR and China is the best option. It will take decades to play out, and may not avoid a war in the end, but such a war should only be started as a truly last resort.
A preemptive attack will set off a conflagration that will have unknown, but huge consequences for the planet and its inhabitants.
Containment, as successfully done with the USSR and China is the best option. It will take decades to play out, and may not avoid a war in the end, but such a war should only be started as a truly last resort.
5
Yeah! I'm with Chicken Hawk! Let's bomb 'em. That always works. Maybe we should nuke 'em. They say they want a bomb so let's give one. Heh, heh, Johnny Boy! There is some big thinkin' going on behind that jurassic mustache. So what if we rile up some additional Great Satan hatin' and create yet another generation of alienated middle easterners yearning for revenge and thoroughly willing to die for it. I mean, what could go wrong?
4
As with the Republicans generally, Bolton has heard nothing, seen nothing, learned nothing that will shake his convictions, long since proved repeatedly to be have poor to terrible outcomes. As Krugman writes about Republican fantasy economics unmoved by facts or experience, so neo-con foreign policy is well insulated from reality or experience. The United States is a strong and wealthy country which, like Spain and Britain before it, risks pauperizing itself in the pursuit of empire and world order.
4
Oh these neo-Cons. They just can't get enough war, especially if it's under false pretenses as usually seems the case. They are angry, angry people who want to show the world just how angry they are. Don't listen to him.
6
I will support their point of view only ,and ONLY, if he, Bibi and the rest of the neocon world strap on a Kevlar helmet and grab a M-4 and be the FIRST ones personally on the ground leading the invasion.
Then and only then, would it be worth the cost.
Then and only then, would it be worth the cost.
6
Why is Mr. Bolton so casually dismissing the idea that Israel's nuclear arsenal might be the very reason why Iran wants the bomb as well?
160
Initially I was angered that the NYT's gave space to John Bolton's crazed call to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. On second thought perhaps it's a good idea that NYT's readers are informed of the sick, perverted logic of John Bolton, the neo-conservatives and Republican supporters in the Senate and House of Representatives who want to start another war, expanding the displacement, horror, suffering and slaughter of millions more men, women and children in the Middle East. At ease in his comfortable book-lined office, never having been in the active military, John Bolton is merely a little man seeking attention by proposing evil.
4
A recent news article in the Financial Times put the number of nuclear bombs in Pakistan at 120. Previously the FT reported that Pakistan was working on small tactical nuclear devices that could be fired by artillery. Other news articles indicate that Pakistan is on a path to becoming the largest of the failed states in the region.
When it comes to Iran and Pakistan, are we sure we're focusing on the right priority?
When it comes to Iran and Pakistan, are we sure we're focusing on the right priority?
3
As we gear down our activities militarily, the war profiteers are obviously feeling the pinch. Mr. Bolton and the other cheerleaders for the Hawks are banging their drums and advising us to throw our young into the fray. Our infrastructure is crumbling, VA hospitals can't keep up with the medical and psychological traumas suffered by veterans of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, et al., and we now have a completely Republican Congress that refuses to fund anything. Well, anything except war, of course.
1
The Bolton article apparently refers to an article by Borger in 'The Guardian' to support his thesis that nations in the area, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are ready to pursue nuclear capability if Iran does not eliminate her nuclear research. But the Borger article does not say that; It says that for various reasons those countries would be very unlikely to go nuclear. He also cites an unsubstantiated rumor that the Saudis and Pakistan have an agreement which would have Pakistan supply nuclear materials to Saudi Arabia if Iran is close to the bomb - a rumor which has been denied by both parties.
John Bolton's aggressive military interest goes back a long way; he even had the hubris to wear his ROTC uniform in his college yearbook picture, but of course he has never sniffed battle. John McCain has seen battle and has credibility on military matters. John Bolton has none.
John Bolton's aggressive military interest goes back a long way; he even had the hubris to wear his ROTC uniform in his college yearbook picture, but of course he has never sniffed battle. John McCain has seen battle and has credibility on military matters. John Bolton has none.
1
Bolton shares the same flaw with the president, which is believing that there is only one possible path of resolution to the Iranian nuclear dilemma. Obama apparently believes that only the carrot approach will work, the "catch more flies with honey" theory, and consequently he is making concessions that have even security minded Democrats deeply worried. For the President's plan to succeed, the Iranians need to interpret our actions as genuine goodwill and not weakness, and they need to respond in kind. In other words, there has to be a fundamental realignment of our relationship with the Islamic Republic. Given the unlikelihood of this, many analysts from both sides see Obama's as a path that delays a Iranian nuke for maybe a decade but does not prevent it.
Bolton likewise sees only one way to success. He believes that carrots are a losing game, and thinks that the stick is the conclusive tool at our disposal. The US can easily dismantle Iran's program kinetically, for now, but what are the consequences? An Iran even more determined to develop nuclear weapons? Another decade of war or at a minimum an ongoing battle for the Strait of Hormuz? Take the Bolton path and if there is not regime change in Tehran, it will lead to the same place eventually.
Isn't there a path we can take that doesn't end with Iran having nuclear weapons in 10 years (Obama) or in, say, 15-20 years (Bolton)?
Bolton likewise sees only one way to success. He believes that carrots are a losing game, and thinks that the stick is the conclusive tool at our disposal. The US can easily dismantle Iran's program kinetically, for now, but what are the consequences? An Iran even more determined to develop nuclear weapons? Another decade of war or at a minimum an ongoing battle for the Strait of Hormuz? Take the Bolton path and if there is not regime change in Tehran, it will lead to the same place eventually.
Isn't there a path we can take that doesn't end with Iran having nuclear weapons in 10 years (Obama) or in, say, 15-20 years (Bolton)?
2
By all means, go ahead and bomb Iran. Hop on a plane, cross into Iran and set off a bomb. See how it goes, I'm sure you're more than willing to deal with the consequences. But don't drag in Americans who want no part in this.
3
One thing about Bolton . . he's consistently wrong. Thank goodness he's not in any position of authority or we'd be at war with everyone who doesn't look, think and act just like him.
8
The NYT: giving the proven evil and incompetent and shameless a forum.
All the enabling that is unfit to print.
All the enabling that is unfit to print.
8
It's telling that Mr. Bolton cannot stop himself from extending the mission beyond nuclear deterrence to a call for "regime change," even if that is to take the form of support for the Iranian opposition. I guess since regime change worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan it's time to repeat the experiment.
3
With all due respect, Mr. Bolton has never acknowledged the legitimacy of the UN, once saying "If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." I don't think he's in any position to be criticizing the current talks, and his opinions on international diplomacy don't carry much weight.
10
This is insane. Exactly how, Mr. Bolton, would bombing them stop them from acquiring a nuclear weapon? Do you think they would say to themselves, "Oh, we got bombed, I guess we learned our lesson and we'll stop now?" Would we say that if someone bombed us? Suppose they just decide to buy one from North Korea to retaliate?
7
At first I thought, how could the NYTimes publish this? But now I think, yes, we should be warned about this kind of thinking among the GOP.
What I want to know now is......where does Hillary Clinton stand on bombing Iran? She has been called a female neocon, a Middle East warmonger. Will the American people be given any choice?
What I want to know now is......where does Hillary Clinton stand on bombing Iran? She has been called a female neocon, a Middle East warmonger. Will the American people be given any choice?
5
The Return of the Vulcans is now playing in a news source close to everyone. And if you liked the prequel, Vulcans Invade Iraq, your gonna love the sequel.
Bolton belongs to the same tribe of Vulcans that included Wolfowitz, Hadley, Cheney and the whole host of characters that instigated, orchestrated and executed the Iraq War. The fact this is the singular destabilizing event in the Middle East and the proximate cause of Iran's now dominating influence, requires either psychoanalysis or remedy for memory loss for Herr Bolton. It would be comedic, were it not tragic, that the very instigators of this disaster want more of the same. Sort of like the lady who swallowed the spider.
The best analogy for those of Bolton's ilk is that of pyromaniacs who start a forest fire, blame the fire fighters, and find another forest to burn. Bolton, one of the most bellicose and bullying of any UN ambassadors, has the war tick, beating the war drums, stoking fear, and promising everyone he's gonna be right this time. Warmongering and the politics of fear are the coda of Bolton and right wing fanatics, a mentality that can only promise utter disaster.
Bolton belongs to the same tribe of Vulcans that included Wolfowitz, Hadley, Cheney and the whole host of characters that instigated, orchestrated and executed the Iraq War. The fact this is the singular destabilizing event in the Middle East and the proximate cause of Iran's now dominating influence, requires either psychoanalysis or remedy for memory loss for Herr Bolton. It would be comedic, were it not tragic, that the very instigators of this disaster want more of the same. Sort of like the lady who swallowed the spider.
The best analogy for those of Bolton's ilk is that of pyromaniacs who start a forest fire, blame the fire fighters, and find another forest to burn. Bolton, one of the most bellicose and bullying of any UN ambassadors, has the war tick, beating the war drums, stoking fear, and promising everyone he's gonna be right this time. Warmongering and the politics of fear are the coda of Bolton and right wing fanatics, a mentality that can only promise utter disaster.
7
Agreed. Diplomacy will not prevent Iran from following their nuclear ambitions, only delay it. I wish with all my heart this was not the case.
1
He left out that Obama's doing this because he wants a third term or something like that... Anyway, if you spin around 3 times while repeating the phrase "Benghazi-Solyndra" it will all go away.
2
Columns like this are very useful, because they allow Americans to see and judge exactly what the alternatives are to the President's course of action, and what lies behind the ranting of his opponents here and in Israel. Much of Mr. Bolton's argument rests on the consequences (i.e., nuclear proliferation) of Iran acquiring a bomb, but he says not a word about the consequences (predictable, unpredictable, unforeseen, unintended...) of the bombing campaign he gleefully endorses. Given the range of unpleasant and unanticipated (or at least publicly unanticipated) consequences of the last adventure in Iraq that Mr. Bolton was a cheerleader for, you would think he'd devote a few lines to that, especially when he concedes that the bombing he advocates will only buy 3 or 5 years of time, nothing really. Odd that the president's bitter adversaries complain about a ten or fifteen year agreement with Iran, but they're ready for a far riskier and more costly adventure, with uncertain consequences, that will produce far less breathing room. Sad, but not surprising, that figures like John Bolton and Elliott Abrams are the best the warmongers can muster for dragging the US headlong into a disastrous new military adventure, largely to defend the short-sighted and misguided policies of Israeli governments mired in their own internal politics of appeasing radical fringes and a handful of nutty settlers, while maintaining an increasingly privileged Israeli political and business elite.
6
I fear that the Editorial Board of the NYT is advocating a war with Iran. The incendiary headline, "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran" appearing over an article by hardcore Neo-Con polemicist John R. Bolton, who calls for "vigorous American support for Iran's opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran", are the sources of my trepidation.
To be fair to them, perhaps the Board is just being fair and balanced - keeping friends close but enemies closer. However, their support of the Neo-Con efforts at regime change in Iraq is unsettling to me.
To be fair to them, perhaps the Board is just being fair and balanced - keeping friends close but enemies closer. However, their support of the Neo-Con efforts at regime change in Iraq is unsettling to me.
4
This guy should be tried for war crimes. He will make a good VP candidate for Ted Cruz.
6
The world is small. Does Mr. Bolton think that we will escape the consequences of bombing Iran in this way. And Israel will be in the line of return fire despite its weapons and eventually might be tempted to use its nuclear weapons. raising a nuclear cloud of hostility that will not end.
Our so called friends Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia would never trust us again though they might temporarily condone our actions. Yes the glee in some Republicans hawk's eyes I mentioned yesterday has been confirmed. War breeds more war. Is this what the hawks truly crave, constant destruction and suffering?
Our so called friends Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia would never trust us again though they might temporarily condone our actions. Yes the glee in some Republicans hawk's eyes I mentioned yesterday has been confirmed. War breeds more war. Is this what the hawks truly crave, constant destruction and suffering?
3
I don't buy this argument at all and am not worried about Iran developing a nuclear weapon. North Korea has one as does Pakistan. If Iran had a weapon, they would be crazy to use it because it would be suicide for them. If we had an agreement with other countries that have weapons to destroy Iran if they ever used a weapon, they never would because they would be annihilated. No one will use a weapon because of that fact. I think Iran is telling the truth that they don't want a weapon. Why would they want one if using it would mean their destruction. This whole fear by us and other middle eastern countries is paranoia. Using a nuclear weapon is suicide.
5
There is a reason he is the former ambassador to the United Nations.
3
Reading all the anti-Bolton posts here, I can only conclude most NYT readers would prefer for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons than to take the necessarily destructive steps needed to prevent it. No where in these posts has anyone cared to express any reservations about facilitating the regional nuclear arms race that will inevitably result, much less confess to any appetite for preventing it. There will be a big price to pay for allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, and there will be a big price to pay for preventing it. Given that reality, a pre-emptive military strike isn't necessarily the worst choice on a real-world list of options containg nothing but hard choices.
2
I know that I am simplifying here...but when has John Bolton said anything BUT we need to bomb them?
6
Why did the NYT 0p-ed department provide Bolton with the opportunity to talk up yet another American war? His advice is not nor does it reflect a non biased opinion.
3
Question. If a Republican takes the White House will Bolton be Secretary of State? Please no, no, no.
6
All candidates for president in 2016 should be relentlessly hounded by the press and the public at large to answer this simple question: do you agree with John Bolton that the U.S. should bomb Iran. Let's start with Cruz; although I think I know how he would answer.
6
Two words: Bad idea.
10
Seriously, bomb another nation and most likely start World War 3? Is this any resemblance of common sense?
4
Iran has developed an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). This very expensive weapon is not used to deliver useless tnt explosive charge. The only reason for this weapon is to fit it with nuclear warhead. The range of this weapon is enough to deliver nuclear warhead to American cities. So those who want to hide their heads in the sand for now, may eventually pay the price.
And do not compare USSR with Iran. Soviet leaders were not suicidal, that's why deterrence worked. It may not work with Iran.
And do not compare USSR with Iran. Soviet leaders were not suicidal, that's why deterrence worked. It may not work with Iran.
2
John Bolton used to be a dangerous man but now he is ineffectual in his agenda because nobody with any common sense listens to a person who has been wrong about everything for over a decade.
And where does he get the idea that we could get any opposition in Iran to unite for regime change? This action would unite the Iranian people against the US for a millennium.
And where does he get the idea that we could get any opposition in Iran to unite for regime change? This action would unite the Iranian people against the US for a millennium.
3
As I just read this headline, before seeing who is the author, I thought it was a joke on the ol' McCain refrain, "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran". And then I saw John Bolton and I knew it wasn't a joke, even though he is.
How is it possible that this person - who helped take us into an illegal war - can be given print space in the NY Times? He should be in prison along with the rest of the blackguards.
How is it possible that this person - who helped take us into an illegal war - can be given print space in the NY Times? He should be in prison along with the rest of the blackguards.
3
My initial response to this column is "The NYTs is being irresponsible for giving this criminal imbecile a forum in which he might be taken seriously." My second response is "OK., somebody is saying it...so, just how dumb are the American People?"
To call John Bolton a "scholar" is laughable...Bolton is nothing but a political hack whose appearance at the United Nations was a mistake and cemented our appearance as a laughingstock in the eyes of serious nations around the world. This column was perhaps necessary but, honestly, the space could have been better used to discuss the value of raising spinach with gray-water. Like all his draft-dodging colleagues in the Bush debacle, he doesn't know what he's talking about and deserves to be ignored.
To call John Bolton a "scholar" is laughable...Bolton is nothing but a political hack whose appearance at the United Nations was a mistake and cemented our appearance as a laughingstock in the eyes of serious nations around the world. This column was perhaps necessary but, honestly, the space could have been better used to discuss the value of raising spinach with gray-water. Like all his draft-dodging colleagues in the Bush debacle, he doesn't know what he's talking about and deserves to be ignored.
6
Bolton's logic, as I pointed out in a letter to the WSJ in 2008, is the usual flim flam. Bomb Iran, and the Turks, Saudis, and others will behave and forego nuclear arms development. Right. Iran is the natural hegemon in the region and attaining this position will involve more years of bloody conflict with its neighbors, probably including nuclear threat. Banging the bombing drum again and again as Bolton does has accomplished about as much as Obama's talks. Instead of focusing on the things the US cannot control, how about Bolton actually elaborates a strategic vision for the US in the region, which is becoming increasingly irrelevant to American interests?
2
Bolton, ever the war-mongering hawk, says sanctions have not worked in stopping Iran's nuclear development, but that is exactly what they are doing as a result of these negotiation and the previous interim agreement. Secondly, Bolton says Israel's nuclear weapons have not resulted in a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Well if Iran is in fact pursuing nuclear weapons it is likely directly the result of Israel having nuclear weapons, so yes, Israel has created a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. To say that Saudi Arabia is moving ahead with nuclear weapons because of Obama is a very big stretch. First there is no evidence that Saudi Arabia is pursuing nuclear weapons and, secondly, how would Obama trying to prevent Iran from acquiring weapons motivate Saudi Arabia to also pursue similar weapons? What alternative does Bolton recommend. Like many other Republicans he offers no realistic alternative to negotiations. Going to war or military airstrikes are not alternatives and will not get rid of Iran's nuclear pursuit. Many military experts have said that air strikes would do little and would only further inflame the region. Has Bolton even thought about any blowback from attacking Iran? Guys, like Bolton, and their continual pursuit of military action have proven over the years to be wrong, as military action has done very little at accomplishing its goals and in almost every case has made things worse.
2
Mr Bolton's arguments are self-defeating when he says nuclear weapons could be bought from North Korea or Pakistan. Why build them when they're for sale? After all how many nuclear bombs can Iran or the Saudis use. Bolton assumes that if these nations get the bombs they can use them without retaliation. After all If he thinks Iran and Saudi Arab are unreliable neighbors take a look at North Korea or Pakistan.
Ultimately, whoever gets a bomb by development or purchase will end up having to negotiate with the remainder of the world to assure the bombs are secure so you find yourself negotiating. Clearly, we believe negotiations work or what's the point of having Bolton in government in the first place. And Bolton and Congress should have the self-restraint to wait for the document being negotiated before assuming it is unworkable.
After all war should be the last resort, not the first choice. We seem to forget attacking Iran would create new hatred rather than potentially negotiating our way to a much more promising future.
But I can understand that should the Obama Administration and Iran successfully negotiate a workable solution it would be a huge success story, one that must be undermined to continue the Republican propaganda that Obama's Administration has been a failure. That success is a failure. It's a shame when citizens can't believe anything that is said about the Iran negotiations because of the unprecedented attacks on those efforts for peace.
Ultimately, whoever gets a bomb by development or purchase will end up having to negotiate with the remainder of the world to assure the bombs are secure so you find yourself negotiating. Clearly, we believe negotiations work or what's the point of having Bolton in government in the first place. And Bolton and Congress should have the self-restraint to wait for the document being negotiated before assuming it is unworkable.
After all war should be the last resort, not the first choice. We seem to forget attacking Iran would create new hatred rather than potentially negotiating our way to a much more promising future.
But I can understand that should the Obama Administration and Iran successfully negotiate a workable solution it would be a huge success story, one that must be undermined to continue the Republican propaganda that Obama's Administration has been a failure. That success is a failure. It's a shame when citizens can't believe anything that is said about the Iran negotiations because of the unprecedented attacks on those efforts for peace.
2
By now, the American public should realize that Mr. Bolton and his warmongering colleages - George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald "Unknown Unknowns" Rumsfeld, etc. - and their world view are totally discredited. No one should give Mr. Bolton and his opinions the time of day.
5
Similarly, President Obama independently decided to forcibly remove Qaddafi from Libya. Terrorists are now in control of that country, and accessing Europe via Libya. And while we still have troops in Germany, Korea to ensure peace, President Obama decided against the advice of his advisors and departed Iraq. Everything bad thing in the world is not the fault of George Bush.
1
NYT. Your readers, from examining the many comments herein, must be akin to Neville Chamberlain (who they probably never heard of). Like him, Obama wants "Peace in our Time"! What followed was WW2 and 60 million people killed and the development of the atomic bomb.
Sometimes you have to act tough, like a football or hockey player, and not like a (no touch me) golfer or basketball player.
Sometimes you have to act tough, like a football or hockey player, and not like a (no touch me) golfer or basketball player.
3
What a bad idea but what else would you expect from this individual. One thing this world does not need is another war. As a retired Lt. Col. in the USAF, war is the very last option and in this case war should never be considered. Mr. Bolton have you ever served in the armed forces and have you ever been in harms way?
Lets get serious and solve the problems with Iran and show the world that the USA is the world bully. We have enough weapons along with Russia and China to destroy the world many times over. In the worst case should Iran develop a nuclear weapon all the nations above would be able to force Iran to realize that nuclear war is not an effective option but rather a mission in suicide.
Lets get serious and solve the problems with Iran and show the world that the USA is the world bully. We have enough weapons along with Russia and China to destroy the world many times over. In the worst case should Iran develop a nuclear weapon all the nations above would be able to force Iran to realize that nuclear war is not an effective option but rather a mission in suicide.
7
RM comments, "Mr. Bolton, you are one scary man."
Wrong!
Bolton is not scary, he is pathetic!!
I have wondered for awhile why the Times gives so much coverage to people such as Bolton and Cheney whose track records are so dismal and who, more pertinently, are no longer particularly relevant. They are legitimate sources for writing history but, having shown no particular knowledge or ability when in power, would seem to be poor sources for current analysis.
All I can come up with is that the Times is moving toward the talk radio strategy: the goal is the number of listeners/readers. If you can get people to pay attention and talk about your product because they are furious at what you put out there, you have succeeded in advancing your numbers, which you can then sell to advertisers.
In the case of talk radio, it makes a certain sense. In the case of the Times, it is self-defeating. As it more and more dilutes its brand this way (increasing fluff on the Home Page is another example), it is consequently giving up the reason most core readers stick with it. As it will never be able to compete in the sleaze and titillation departments, it risks ending up like CNN, monumental history but contemporary afterthought..
Wrong!
Bolton is not scary, he is pathetic!!
I have wondered for awhile why the Times gives so much coverage to people such as Bolton and Cheney whose track records are so dismal and who, more pertinently, are no longer particularly relevant. They are legitimate sources for writing history but, having shown no particular knowledge or ability when in power, would seem to be poor sources for current analysis.
All I can come up with is that the Times is moving toward the talk radio strategy: the goal is the number of listeners/readers. If you can get people to pay attention and talk about your product because they are furious at what you put out there, you have succeeded in advancing your numbers, which you can then sell to advertisers.
In the case of talk radio, it makes a certain sense. In the case of the Times, it is self-defeating. As it more and more dilutes its brand this way (increasing fluff on the Home Page is another example), it is consequently giving up the reason most core readers stick with it. As it will never be able to compete in the sleaze and titillation departments, it risks ending up like CNN, monumental history but contemporary afterthought..
5
Go Johnny go, you mad dog you!
1
'Peace in our time.'
Barack Obama
Barack Obama
4
John Bolton is a monstrous war monger, and his extremist views are neither realistic assessments of any threat posed by Iran nor do they promote America's long term strategic interest to bring stability and peace to the Middle East and the rest of the world. Shameful. Stupid. GTFO, Bolton.
7
It's ironic that a white American politician can advocate in a mainstream newspaper bombing a country preemptively, a measure that surely would result in thousands upon thousands of innocents dying, not to mention bring more chaos to the region, and be taken seriously. If a brown-skinned Middle Eastern politician did the same, he would immediately be deemed a terrorist and his words alone would be considered sufficient provocation to justify violence. Bolton needs to look in the mirror. He, and people like him, are more a threat to world peace than Iran, ISIS, or any other middle eastern country or organization. Just look at what happened after we very mistakenly followed his advice in Iraq.
4
Wow. Notwithstanding the disastrous wars they marched us (and much of the world) into, these neocons keep peddling their discredited ideology. It would almost be funny -- except the last time I laughed at these guys, they took us into Iraq. I can't believe they weren't prosecuted for lying to us all. But here we go again, the neo-con mouthpieces are hard at work stoking fear and trying to undermine any diplomatic solution. And maybe it's because the public was so easily misled after 9-11, but these warmongers think they don't even need facts to persuade us - just bellicose language and chest thumping. The Times did us a great disservice here - not by giving Bolton a precious platform to spout his drivel, but by mislabeling his argument. It should have read: "Even absent palpable proof ..."
3
Whenever I see him, I can't escape the mental image of John Bolton -- his mustache blowing in the wind -- doing a Strangelove a la Slim Pickens into an Iranian bunker. Until there's such a commitment from John Bolton, any public forum is hot air intended to involve other people's sons and somebody else's tax dollars.
4
Looks like Bolton hit a nerve with the left. Good going John. These folks needed some waking up. Bombs away. If we or Israel doesn't strike first to disable Iran's nuke program it will be too late when they finally get the bomb. Israel will be gone and the middle east will kill itself off by attacking each other. Hey, that's a good thing. Maybe the plan is just that. Let Iran get the bomb, kill off Israel and then everyone else want the bomb and they can kill each other off.
2
And what happens after we or Israel bombs Iran?
So, um, is Mr. Bolton a born-again evangelical? Just, uh, wondering. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as Jerry Seinfeld would say, ba-da-boom!
1
As I recall, Bolton elsewhere has argued that mutually assured destruction, a nasty policy that worked with respect to the USSR during the Cold War, wouldn't work with Iran. Boiled down, his reasoning is that the Russians were atheists and, therefore, rational and unwilling to risk annihilation. In contrast, as he sees it, Iran is highly religious and, hence, is irrational and willing to forego existence.
And this was (is?) put forth as a serious argument.
And this was (is?) put forth as a serious argument.
2
From the same people that sold us the Iraq war based on the premise that Saddam was out to get us with his WMDs! Sure enough the country was destroyed and no WMDs were ever found.
A word of caution might be in order. If these warmongers get their way Iran would be our most formidable enemy since WWII. I don't think that we, the American people, will be conned into squandering our children, money and future for another neocon fantasy regardless of the propaganda they throw at us..
A word of caution might be in order. If these warmongers get their way Iran would be our most formidable enemy since WWII. I don't think that we, the American people, will be conned into squandering our children, money and future for another neocon fantasy regardless of the propaganda they throw at us..
3
How can you think to convince anybody of your "thesis" about Iran - which to me appear only fantasies - after the support you gave to the disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003, which could have been avoided simply by accepting the exile of Saddam Hussein?
2
For years and years Mr. Bolton, your solution has been to bomb everyone to oblivion who doesn't agree with you, while you remain safe in a comfortable armchair. No need even to read this article.
3
To avoid letting Iran make its own nuclear fuel for civilian reactors, he wants to bomb the country? Insane.
1
Irresponsible hyperbole from John Bolton.....inexcusable and ridiculous.
Thoughtless and irrational.
Thoughtless and irrational.
3
To Ralph Averill: Unfortunately whatever Israel does, we will be blamed. Just look today at what's being written about the Saudi's attacking Yemen's rebels: "they are America's tools"!
Also, according to objective information, Iran is much closer to attaining a weapon that Iraq ever was. This is a specious argument in this case. However I am not in favor of bombing Iran; we can't know what will result from this action. I am not sanguine on the negotiations. Unfortunately, in my lifetime, (I'm 74), we'll be seeing nuclear proliferation throughout the mid east
Also, according to objective information, Iran is much closer to attaining a weapon that Iraq ever was. This is a specious argument in this case. However I am not in favor of bombing Iran; we can't know what will result from this action. I am not sanguine on the negotiations. Unfortunately, in my lifetime, (I'm 74), we'll be seeing nuclear proliferation throughout the mid east
1
Why does the Times give a shrill neo-con (emphasis on "con") a public soapbox to stand on? I can only hope that it is so that the utter absurdity of his argument can be fully exposed rather than allowing it to quietly metastasize. In any case, by now, virtually everyone understands that American military campaigns in the Middle East have the same effect as the ridiculous police response we saw in the early days of the Ferguson, MO protests.
Another American military incursion into the Middle East will do incalculable long term damage to our, already questionable, standing as a global force for peace and stability. The inevitable civilian casualties will create more recruiting posters for anti-Western jihad than a thousand mullahs inciting violence by chanting "death to America" at prayer services.
The only beneficiaries of the resulting chaos that would follow an American attack on Iran would be the global energy companies. It's not hard to imagine a rapid return to $140 to $200 a barrel oil. Just imagine the effect $5.00 a gallon gasoline will have on the fragile economic recovery. But then again, maybe that's what the neocons are pushing for.
Another American military incursion into the Middle East will do incalculable long term damage to our, already questionable, standing as a global force for peace and stability. The inevitable civilian casualties will create more recruiting posters for anti-Western jihad than a thousand mullahs inciting violence by chanting "death to America" at prayer services.
The only beneficiaries of the resulting chaos that would follow an American attack on Iran would be the global energy companies. It's not hard to imagine a rapid return to $140 to $200 a barrel oil. Just imagine the effect $5.00 a gallon gasoline will have on the fragile economic recovery. But then again, maybe that's what the neocons are pushing for.
1
The Bush administration bears some responsibility for the problem that an Iranian atom bomb presents to the USA today.
Two reasons: (1) Our invasion of Iraq destroyed the country that acted as a check on Iran, and (2) it became clear that the military forces in the Mideast could not stop the USA if we really chose to invade. Perhaps one reason why Iran wants to develop a bomb is as a deterrent against invasion.
Until I see an acknowledgment from the neocons of the mess they made in the Mideast, invading Iraq when they were clueless about the consequences, I won't take their warnings seriously. If they don't have enough responsibility to own up to the damage they already did, why would anyone think they would be responsible in the future?
Two reasons: (1) Our invasion of Iraq destroyed the country that acted as a check on Iran, and (2) it became clear that the military forces in the Mideast could not stop the USA if we really chose to invade. Perhaps one reason why Iran wants to develop a bomb is as a deterrent against invasion.
Until I see an acknowledgment from the neocons of the mess they made in the Mideast, invading Iraq when they were clueless about the consequences, I won't take their warnings seriously. If they don't have enough responsibility to own up to the damage they already did, why would anyone think they would be responsible in the future?
4
Iran is modern nation of 75 million people. They have missiles with conventional warheads that can destroy Tel Aviv in a short time. Bombing Iran would mean a full scale war in the middle East. For Israel to use its nuclear capacity to attack Iran in turn would forever make Israel a pariah nation and destroy all moral and ethical reasons for supporting It. Diplomacy while far from perfect, is a far better solution to try than letting Americans get killed for nothing as in Iraq and Afghanistan. American listened to the war mongers before, some issues, 1000 years old, in the swamp called the middle East.
4
The Obama administration must let the American people know of the horrendous details and concessions in the Obama plan. According to leaks, it is a plan which will VERY likely give the ayatollahs the nuclear bomb. Even most Arabs fear that, and have made that clear in private. A nuclear Iranian regime is a grave threat not only to Israel but also the US and indeed, the world. It would give a radical Islamic regime hegemony over the Middle East. In an attempt to prevent that, the Arab states would engage in a race toward developing or purchasing nuclear armaments. And furthermore, the Iranians have acquired the most advanced missile technology, capable of delivering nuclear warheads. The range of these missiles has rapidly expanded to the point where they can hit targets well beyond Israel. In the not too distant future they will likely have an ICBM. There is a viable non-military alternative to the bad agreement Obama is on the verge of making. And that is a step up in the imposition of sanctions. That, in combination with low oil prices, will force the Islamic regime to give up its capability to manufacture nuclear weapons. Iran must NOT be allowed to remain a nuclear threshold state, as Obama would have it.
2
It is evident from most of the posts here that people have learned nothing from history.
The history of weakness is war - in this case nuclear war, spreading from the Middle East to the rest of the world.
A piece of paper will not convince Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program.
The history of weakness is war - in this case nuclear war, spreading from the Middle East to the rest of the world.
A piece of paper will not convince Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program.
2
Why should Iran abandon its nuclear weapons program (if it even has one)? Israel has one? So does the US and several other countries?
You want war. Go for it...
You want war. Go for it...
1
And this is from an Ambassador? I would have thought he would understand what negotiations are for.
4
This man is a dangerous man.
He should NEVER have been given a position of authority and influence on the national and world stage - but obviously, the ilk of the Right who elected Reagan saw fit to put this man in that position.
More poor we.
God save us from such men.
He should NEVER have been given a position of authority and influence on the national and world stage - but obviously, the ilk of the Right who elected Reagan saw fit to put this man in that position.
More poor we.
God save us from such men.
7
This guy was an ambassador? Color me ashamed.
3
Leaders like Bolton in a nuclear-armed state are probably the strongest reason developing countries purse their own nuclear weapons programs.
3
Uh oh ... I feel another "cakewalk" coming on ...
1
OK, let's bomb Iran, which by the way is the size of Mongolia or Alaska. I think when people like John Bolton say something like, Let's bomb somebody to fix a problem, they are violating the very first rule of warfare - never underestimate your enemy. I get the distinct impression that Bolton looks at Iran and sees a room full of rubes who don't understand how the world works. As other commentators have already pointed out, we have been led by the nose doing Iran's bidding since the Iraqi invasion - aided no less by the American Enterprise Institute. This all reminds me of something really said by, I think Dick Cheney, a few years ago, something to the effect that Republicans use military force to solve problems with its enemies while Democrats offer couples therapy. If I thought I could crush my enemies with therapy, sure, I'll go there.
80
The question is how to free Iranian people from the fanatic Islamic regime. It is pretty clear the regime is set to acquire nuclear weapons as a means to perpetuate itself. Regime's success will be indeed a catastrophe on multiple fronts. Belief in negotiations should not be blind. Why does the Islamic regime take part in the negotiations with 5 1? To diminish sanctions and avert attack. They perceive credible danger. Obama's administration is eroding this perception. Bolton's article helps to reinstate the pressure on Iran and in that it is a valuable contribution.
3
At least awkward to have a guy like Bolton cite UN resolutions when he so famously dismissed the UN as irrelevant so often in the past.
Also interesting to see him make speculative statements about what was on agendas during meetings that he did not attend. Notable how his speculation just happens to feed the narrative he created in his own head.
Now it becomes clearer how he and his fellow neocons are so dangerous. They make up a world fabricated from their own fears and think it's real. And the answer is bomb, bomb, bomb. His buddies Cheney and Rummy join in too.
Also interesting to see him make speculative statements about what was on agendas during meetings that he did not attend. Notable how his speculation just happens to feed the narrative he created in his own head.
Now it becomes clearer how he and his fellow neocons are so dangerous. They make up a world fabricated from their own fears and think it's real. And the answer is bomb, bomb, bomb. His buddies Cheney and Rummy join in too.
5
Why give this loony bird air time? He and his neocon cult took the US into a devastating war of choice that took thousands of American lives, billions in treasure, set the Mideast aflame and, arguably, paved the way for ISIS.
3
Dr Strangelove was funny, and fiction - John Bolton is scary, and real - but he nonetheless lives in a similar fictional world, one in which American agression has no unpleasant consequences, and one in which the US alone is supposed to be the supreme arbiter of nuclear weapons. Bolton's gratuitous warmongering has no place in the actual world -
John Bolton is more frightening than the Iranian leadership.
John Bolton is more frightening than the Iranian leadership.
3
It is such a great idea that Bolton did not do it while working in the Bush Administration. I wonder if Mr. Bolton has considered that military action with international support might be possible today in Iran if he and his fellow neo-cons had not squandered all political and moral credibility the United States had by invading Iraq on fraudulent terms? No - these people never take responsibility for their abject failures and see the world as some big game of RISK in which you justy move pieces around the board and nobody really dies - certiainly not them or any of their family members.
I also wonder if Mr. Bolton realizes that he completely undercuts his argument by detailing that Saudi Arabia and Turkey are pretty much set on developing nuclear weapons regardless of what other nations do?
I have read a lot of these power strategy op-eds in my time and while I do think it is important for the New York Times to publish them, I have to say this is the worst one I have ever read. It is the least persaussive, least credible and most illogical piece of its kind I have ever seen. If neocons want to sell another military adventure (in which they do not participate) they really need a more talented salesman.
I also wonder if Mr. Bolton realizes that he completely undercuts his argument by detailing that Saudi Arabia and Turkey are pretty much set on developing nuclear weapons regardless of what other nations do?
I have read a lot of these power strategy op-eds in my time and while I do think it is important for the New York Times to publish them, I have to say this is the worst one I have ever read. It is the least persaussive, least credible and most illogical piece of its kind I have ever seen. If neocons want to sell another military adventure (in which they do not participate) they really need a more talented salesman.
6
Anytime John Bolton is in favor of something - anything - it is wise to run in the opposite direction.
9
Mr. Bolton has advocated for war, any war, from the beginning of his public life. Of course, he would never volunteer to fight. He is a complete hypocritical fraud and I am disgusted that the NY Times would publish one word from him.
9
Yes, perhaps we should also help to rebuild the Berlin Wall, unite Balkan states to reform the Soviet Union, assist in dissolving the EU.....etc, etc, etc. With a burgeoning youth and middle class, Iranians are connected to a globalized world in a far more informative way than ever before. They are aware of the freedoms and benefits that a more open democratic society can bring. Excessive use of force can only serve to push the Iranians and it's culture further into the arms of eastern countries that have little to no interest in what political motives the US has in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It would also contribute to the continued deterioration of Islamic states in the region by serving as a recruitment tool for radical jihadism against Western imperialism consigning the US to the much familiar 20th century neocon framework of world police. The US certainly has Israel's back which has been demonstrated time and again. Bombing Iran would certainly not be doing Israel any favors and would only serve to close off any hope of transparency. The near future of global economic stability and nation building in the region depends on it.
1
Why would we listen to John Bolton who promoted, under false pretenses, our invasion of Iraq? As one who avoided service during the Vietnam war, Bolton now wants to shed more american blood in a senseless war. This man has no shame.
6
Whether intentional or not Bolton has made the strongest possible case for the President's policy of attempting a negotiated solution of the Iran nuclear situation. Bolton's articulation of the alternative helps all but the most irresponsible and irrational of Americans to come to the only responsible and rational solution: support the President's efforts and hope that the present negotiations are successful.
3
Sure, lets bomb Iran. Mr. Bolton, you go first.
6
So General Ripper didn't commit suicide after all. The only thing missing is the talk of precious bodily fluids.
5
Pres Obama may be on to something here. Let every country be nuclear and then we will have equality at last.
1
It feels kind of surreal. Can't believe my eyes! It's 21st century and some has written a long article in a major newspaper blatantly advocating war as the solution !
5
When I first saw the headline, I thought it was a satire. I really have nothing to say except to offer an apology to the Iranian people.
9
Why are these idiots always so eager to bomb somebody? Do any of them ever consider the consequences or next move to their plan? Certainly nobody did before "Shock and Awe". It's easy to go bomb somebody but how do we deal with the aftermath? The people we bomb cannot be expected to just roll over and play nice. If anything, things just get worse - witness Iraq.
Diplomacy is difficult, risky and takes dedication to achieve results. Bombing is a neanderthal approach to solving problems. We used to be a nation that entered war only when attacked or directly threatened. Since Viet Nam we have seen it easier and easier to initiate war in place of diplomatic political action. We would all be living in a post apocalyptic age if these same bomb mentality crazies had been in charge during the 45 years of the cold war. Even Reagan saw the wisdom of negotiating tension reduction rather than just dropping bombs to solve problems. For years, China was our mortal enemy and far more dangerous to our security than Iran. Nixon decided to engage them politically instead of continuing in a state of hostility. North Korea is a bigger threat to us and our ally South Korea than Iran is. Nobody is suggesting we bomb them.
Iran is a bad actor but sanctions are having an affect on them to want to bargain. Let's see what kind of bargain they are willing to make. Their people will not continue to support a regime that is ruining their lives and their leaders know this.
Diplomacy is difficult, risky and takes dedication to achieve results. Bombing is a neanderthal approach to solving problems. We used to be a nation that entered war only when attacked or directly threatened. Since Viet Nam we have seen it easier and easier to initiate war in place of diplomatic political action. We would all be living in a post apocalyptic age if these same bomb mentality crazies had been in charge during the 45 years of the cold war. Even Reagan saw the wisdom of negotiating tension reduction rather than just dropping bombs to solve problems. For years, China was our mortal enemy and far more dangerous to our security than Iran. Nixon decided to engage them politically instead of continuing in a state of hostility. North Korea is a bigger threat to us and our ally South Korea than Iran is. Nobody is suggesting we bomb them.
Iran is a bad actor but sanctions are having an affect on them to want to bargain. Let's see what kind of bargain they are willing to make. Their people will not continue to support a regime that is ruining their lives and their leaders know this.
3
Iran got Reagan elected in 1980. Bolton & Co. will do their best to perpetuate this vehicle to enable even more power for the 1%.
1
Mr. Bolton reminds me of the Slim Pickens character in Dr. Strangelove
9
The astonishing part of this fantasy is in the biographical footnote. The author of this irresponsible, inaccurate and utterly inflammatory proposition, who wants not to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, rather to deliberately set off a box of fireworks there, was in actual fact the official ambassador of the United States of America to the United Nations.
Is it any wonder we attacked Iran's primary enemy as the best way to deal with Iran and set off the flowering of democracy in the Middle East?
Delusional war criminal.
Is it any wonder we attacked Iran's primary enemy as the best way to deal with Iran and set off the flowering of democracy in the Middle East?
Delusional war criminal.
8
Innaccurate? How? Infalmmatory? Where?
So many clueless NYT whining readers attacking the messenger, but unable to substantiate any argument against the facts Mr. Bolton states.
So many clueless NYT whining readers attacking the messenger, but unable to substantiate any argument against the facts Mr. Bolton states.
1
Don't bomb them but also don't trust them
2
And what would Bolton do the day after bombs fell, especially since it is 100%
unlikely that bombing would "work" e. g. destroy Iran's atomic bomb capacity. This very foolish man does not seem to realize 3 important facts: every survey of bombing by the US has found under performance in goals; one can not destroy knowledge of how to make the bomb; and the US would become involved in the mother of all mid east wars. I gather Bolton is not signing up to "fight"; he will support the usual sacrifices -young men and women.
unlikely that bombing would "work" e. g. destroy Iran's atomic bomb capacity. This very foolish man does not seem to realize 3 important facts: every survey of bombing by the US has found under performance in goals; one can not destroy knowledge of how to make the bomb; and the US would become involved in the mother of all mid east wars. I gather Bolton is not signing up to "fight"; he will support the usual sacrifices -young men and women.
6
How amazingly irresponsible it this? If we actually had plans to do this, announcing we would opens us up to all kinds of blackmail. Say a hotheaded ally of ours decides to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities on their own. Who do you think would get the blame? The ally would be off the hook as they would have been seen as acting as our surrogate. Would Iran ever trust us again? Would any other Middle Eastern country? How many other Middle Eastern countries would want to develop a bomb after such an act?
Do these Neocons ever think about what happens the day after? This is a blatantly irresponsible act on Mr. Bolton's part.
Do these Neocons ever think about what happens the day after? This is a blatantly irresponsible act on Mr. Bolton's part.
4
Has Mr. Bolton published op-eds in papers in the other nations participating in this multinational effort, telling them that they, too, should be doing some bombing?
It seems the Fox Channels fascination with picking on exactly one of the many global leaders trying seriously for a deal with Iran is clouding their vision.
It seems the Fox Channels fascination with picking on exactly one of the many global leaders trying seriously for a deal with Iran is clouding their vision.
4
When you see and hear about how warm and fuzzy Jeb Bush is going to present himself as for the next twenty months, remember this article, because this is what you'll get.
9
When one reads this "drivel", one should recall the recent military misadventures of the Republican War Party in the Middle East-Central Asia region. If intervention in Iran is needed because of imminent threat, wouldn't Europe be leading the request? No, complete silence. Note that the countries, identified in the article, that would assist Sunni nations building nuclear reactors in the region, are the same nations that will rely on the transit of Persian Gulf oil through the Straits of Hormuz in this century-i.e. China, Pakistan, South Korea, France. America no longer will rely on energy from this area. Consequently, what is our pressing need to intervene? Could it be the insecurity of a very small colony on the Eastern Mediterranean? Is that, in and of itself, enough to require American forces to be deployed? And perhaps, in a cynical Machiavellian twist, could this line of thought be designed more for domestic consumption in reconfiguration of a certain segment of the American political scene for the upcoming 2016 national elections?
3
"The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary."
Hasn't the US (& its allies) done enough destruction. Actions set in motion consequences and results that one can't control.
1. Orchestrating a coup d'état (CIA & MI6) to unseat the democratically elected & socially progressive Mossadegh. Replacing him with a despotic puppet dictator to brutality oppress Iranians & pander to the West's desires.
2. Giving Saddam intelligence & arms to attack Iran, turning a blind eye to his horrific use of chemical weapons. 800,000+ people died in that war.
3. Backing the unprovoked Israeli invasion of Lebanon
4. Declaring the Lebanese forces trained by Iran to defend Lebanon terrorists and all that progresses from that.
and on & on.
Obama is correct in his negotiations - it's time this insanity stopped. Iran is a country with the majority of citizens under 30, educated, wordily people who look to a better future. Extremists are not born - they have been bred by the insanity people like Bolton propose. We'll see a rerun of Bush's Invasion of Iraq - a fostering hate & extremism, condemning generations to suffer, wasting the promise of youth & the hope of a better future both for the world.
What is the anti-Iran end game for the US/Israel?
How is actively promoting and fostering violence of benefit to anyone's future?
Why is Israel so important, that the US allows it to dictate its future?
Why is foreign policy imprisoned in the past?
Hasn't the US (& its allies) done enough destruction. Actions set in motion consequences and results that one can't control.
1. Orchestrating a coup d'état (CIA & MI6) to unseat the democratically elected & socially progressive Mossadegh. Replacing him with a despotic puppet dictator to brutality oppress Iranians & pander to the West's desires.
2. Giving Saddam intelligence & arms to attack Iran, turning a blind eye to his horrific use of chemical weapons. 800,000+ people died in that war.
3. Backing the unprovoked Israeli invasion of Lebanon
4. Declaring the Lebanese forces trained by Iran to defend Lebanon terrorists and all that progresses from that.
and on & on.
Obama is correct in his negotiations - it's time this insanity stopped. Iran is a country with the majority of citizens under 30, educated, wordily people who look to a better future. Extremists are not born - they have been bred by the insanity people like Bolton propose. We'll see a rerun of Bush's Invasion of Iraq - a fostering hate & extremism, condemning generations to suffer, wasting the promise of youth & the hope of a better future both for the world.
What is the anti-Iran end game for the US/Israel?
How is actively promoting and fostering violence of benefit to anyone's future?
Why is Israel so important, that the US allows it to dictate its future?
Why is foreign policy imprisoned in the past?
6
When Mr. Bolton's ancestors were living in filth and excrement during their own "dark ages", the same people not to be trusted with a nuclear weapon were inventing and discovering the math and chemistry concepts that would eventually be used to design, test, and build nuclear weapons.
So what if Iran gets a nuclear weapon? They aren't going to use them for the same reason no one else in the region does. The day after the day after a nuclear bomb explodes in the Middle East, the trade routes that have been used for thousands of years are rendered unusable. They traded before Buddha, Moses, Christ, and Muhammed, and will continue to do so.
Don't believe your own PR. The only apocalyptic extremists hell-bent on a war in the Middle East already have nuclear weapons. But they make their money the old-fashioned way: they arm, incite and then support the unrest their parents and grandparents sewed after WWI.
Why isn't John Bolton identified with the real job he holds? A lobbyist for the military industrial complex.
So what if Iran gets a nuclear weapon? They aren't going to use them for the same reason no one else in the region does. The day after the day after a nuclear bomb explodes in the Middle East, the trade routes that have been used for thousands of years are rendered unusable. They traded before Buddha, Moses, Christ, and Muhammed, and will continue to do so.
Don't believe your own PR. The only apocalyptic extremists hell-bent on a war in the Middle East already have nuclear weapons. But they make their money the old-fashioned way: they arm, incite and then support the unrest their parents and grandparents sewed after WWI.
Why isn't John Bolton identified with the real job he holds? A lobbyist for the military industrial complex.
7
Shorter John Bolton : "Hey middle east , nice fire you have burning there, how 'bout some more gasoline?"
4
Another war? Seriously, after the Afghan and Iraqi successes? Or maybe it's because the military-industrial complex needs continuing business?
5
Bolton usually fulminates without any actual recommendation. IN this case he does recommend something, starting what is likely to become a major war. However, he offers no technical support for his notion that starting a war will actually set back the Iranian program for 3-5 years, which is not very much. The Iranian regime may be evil but they are not stupid and we can be sure this contingency has been planned for, no inshallah
3
I have no doubts in President Obama's good intentions, he realy believes in what he is doing, not only viz-za-viz Iran but in his approach to the Middle-East as a whole and the Israeli-Palestinian in particular. The President believes that his policy in the MIddle East will be good for America and the free world. The only problem is that the radicals in the Middle East, headed and support by the Iranian regime, understand the President's desire and use it to advance their goal which is to dominate the Muslim world first and to restore the Islamic Empire later. Unfortunately, Mr. Boilton is right. America is facing an enemy who is excellent in the diplomatic game but has an agenda that they openly proclaim and this agenda will never parallel the Western World agenda. Unlike Sadam Hussain the Shiite Ayatollahs have a world strategy and nothing less than their removal will stop them. At this stage only military power can do the job otherwize they will bring their horror to Europe and the USA.
2
Bombing will never work. Iran is to big of a country. Its nuclear assets are to well hidden. This will turn into a grind out war. It has the potential to break the United States. And for what?
Iran is not going to start a nuclear war against Israel or the United States. There are 130 million people in Iran. The leaders are not crazy fanatical people. They don't want to see their country and their people destroyed by a nuclear conflict.
Economic sanctions are working. The young people in Iran love America especially our culture. Eventually they will rule Iran and when that occurs there will be peace.
Iran is not going to start a nuclear war against Israel or the United States. There are 130 million people in Iran. The leaders are not crazy fanatical people. They don't want to see their country and their people destroyed by a nuclear conflict.
Economic sanctions are working. The young people in Iran love America especially our culture. Eventually they will rule Iran and when that occurs there will be peace.
6
By Mr. Bolton's reasoning we should consider bombing Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and perhaps Egypt and Turkey while we're at it.
4
While we are near to attaining an agreement with Iran along with other world powers, if Iran is attacked now, our credibility and honor will be worthless in the world for a hundred years or more. This op ed could not have been more damaging.
4
What is the statute of limitations for war crimes? Bolton would be well advised to ponder that question.
7
The Times did once give Moammar Gadhafi space on this page, so I suppose John Bolton should have his say too. But Gadhafi's essay (advocating a single-state solution for Israel) at least gave the impression of sanity.
If Mr. Bolton counts as a "scholar" at the American Enterprise Institute, one wonders: Does AEI keep anything in their library other than old John Birch Society journals and perhaps Timothy McVeigh's manifesto?
If Mr. Bolton counts as a "scholar" at the American Enterprise Institute, one wonders: Does AEI keep anything in their library other than old John Birch Society journals and perhaps Timothy McVeigh's manifesto?
6
What Mr. Bolton fails to add is that bombing is not enough. If you bomb, they will rebuild again. SInce bombing will also result in Iran pulling out of the non-proliferation treaty (which currently provides us with most, in not nearly all, of our targets), it will be difficult to use this strategy again. At most, it will buy 2-3 years.
The only way to permanently and effectively use force, again a fact Mr. Bolton ignores to add, is a ground regime change through ground invasion. Considering that Iran has a population of about 90 mn (compared to Iraq's about 15-18 mn) and is, geographically, 3 X the size plus is much more ethnically homogeneous than Iraq, it will obviously need many more times the number of troops (and cost) to do this than in Iraq.
Hence the key question is does the US have the will power to do this? Will it reconstitute the draft (US troops levels were no where enough to handle Iraq but will have to be many times that force level in Iran)? Will taxes be raised to pay for this war (which will cost many times more than the Iraq war)? What end plan does Bolton propose with respect to the US leaving and, simultaneously, insuring that a group like ISIS does not come to power?
The only way to permanently and effectively use force, again a fact Mr. Bolton ignores to add, is a ground regime change through ground invasion. Considering that Iran has a population of about 90 mn (compared to Iraq's about 15-18 mn) and is, geographically, 3 X the size plus is much more ethnically homogeneous than Iraq, it will obviously need many more times the number of troops (and cost) to do this than in Iraq.
Hence the key question is does the US have the will power to do this? Will it reconstitute the draft (US troops levels were no where enough to handle Iraq but will have to be many times that force level in Iran)? Will taxes be raised to pay for this war (which will cost many times more than the Iraq war)? What end plan does Bolton propose with respect to the US leaving and, simultaneously, insuring that a group like ISIS does not come to power?
126
This clown was our "ambassador" to the UN. Think about that.... This is what represents America. Not one word about consequences, blowback, risk, failure, etc. This is so tired. It is an utter disgrace that the NYT would give this "ambassador" a platform for outrageous recklessness.
7
Unreality permeates Mr Bolton's, not Pres. Obama's, thinking.
1) Assuming that he is correct that bombing will push Iran's program back 3 to 5 years, the plan that is reported to be under discussion will put a 10 year halt to Iran's nuclear development.
2) Iran is certainly in a position, unlike Iraq and Syria, to retaliate - a situation that Mr Bolton does not seem to imagine. It might not be able to directly hit the US but Israel and other countries (Saudi Arabia?) are clearly within its range. Is Mr. Bolton forgetting the Iraq-Iran war where Iran fought tenaciously and, ultimately, successfully against Saddam Hussein.
3) Has Mr. Bolton forgotten, or perhaps he never paid attention to, Colin Powell's warning that if you break it, you own it? To how many years of warfare is he willing to commit the US. How much American blood and treasure is he willing to expend while the domestic needs of the country remain unattended?
4) Does he contemplate the possible results of destabilizing the mid-East further. His hope that the Iranian people will respond to an American or Israeli attack by rising up, embracing democracy and, I suppose he imagines, become pro-American, seems the height of unreality.
Mr Bolton, who apparently has never seen a war he didn't like, calls to mind the lyric of the Weavers' song
"I still I wonder why the worst of men must fight and the best of men must die"
1) Assuming that he is correct that bombing will push Iran's program back 3 to 5 years, the plan that is reported to be under discussion will put a 10 year halt to Iran's nuclear development.
2) Iran is certainly in a position, unlike Iraq and Syria, to retaliate - a situation that Mr Bolton does not seem to imagine. It might not be able to directly hit the US but Israel and other countries (Saudi Arabia?) are clearly within its range. Is Mr. Bolton forgetting the Iraq-Iran war where Iran fought tenaciously and, ultimately, successfully against Saddam Hussein.
3) Has Mr. Bolton forgotten, or perhaps he never paid attention to, Colin Powell's warning that if you break it, you own it? To how many years of warfare is he willing to commit the US. How much American blood and treasure is he willing to expend while the domestic needs of the country remain unattended?
4) Does he contemplate the possible results of destabilizing the mid-East further. His hope that the Iranian people will respond to an American or Israeli attack by rising up, embracing democracy and, I suppose he imagines, become pro-American, seems the height of unreality.
Mr Bolton, who apparently has never seen a war he didn't like, calls to mind the lyric of the Weavers' song
"I still I wonder why the worst of men must fight and the best of men must die"
6
It s hilarious to listen to people criticize "warlike" people: meanwhile, they breathe not a word about mullahs eagerly building nuclear weapons and screaming "death to America." Yeah, no warlike people in that government. War is horrific: letting Iran have nuclear weapons will lead to that war inevitably. Or would you rather wait until they finally get those ICBM things figured out?
The commenters here are nice people who obviously don't' want war. Good for you! Nobody does! But making the easy decision doesn't change anything.
The commenters here are nice people who obviously don't' want war. Good for you! Nobody does! But making the easy decision doesn't change anything.
1
Bolton is wrong - of course Israel's weapons are offensive (logically and morally). No country acquires nuclear weapons for defensive reasons. Ask the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He does not say that Iran is responding to Israel's unacknowledged weapons and flaunting of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
Can one blame Iran given Israel's brutality in the Occupied Lands?
I do give Bolton some credit - he is the first Republican, to my knowledge, who has publicly stated that Israel has nuclear weapons. Now, the diplomats can make more progress on non-proliferation. What he doesn't want to acknowledge (nor does Senator McCain and the defense establishment that profits from arms and their very expensive delivery systems), but what is clearly the correct trajectory, is that the world needs to turn away from nuclear proliferation. Only diplomacy can do this; constant warfare and the threat of waging it only reinforces the tendency towards more warfare and bigger weapons, i.e. The Butterball Wars by Seuss.
Can one blame Iran given Israel's brutality in the Occupied Lands?
I do give Bolton some credit - he is the first Republican, to my knowledge, who has publicly stated that Israel has nuclear weapons. Now, the diplomats can make more progress on non-proliferation. What he doesn't want to acknowledge (nor does Senator McCain and the defense establishment that profits from arms and their very expensive delivery systems), but what is clearly the correct trajectory, is that the world needs to turn away from nuclear proliferation. Only diplomacy can do this; constant warfare and the threat of waging it only reinforces the tendency towards more warfare and bigger weapons, i.e. The Butterball Wars by Seuss.
5
Mr. Bolton,
How many connections do you have with defense contractors and retired military personnel who thrive on war ? Someone please check this out now !
How many connections do you have with defense contractors and retired military personnel who thrive on war ? Someone please check this out now !
9
Can't stop chuckling.
"Given multiple options to a problem, the most obvious one is usually the correct choice." I can't remember what that is called? Ockham's Razor?
So, when do the planes take off, Mr. President?
Any suggestions on that option, Mr. Bolton?
"Given multiple options to a problem, the most obvious one is usually the correct choice." I can't remember what that is called? Ockham's Razor?
So, when do the planes take off, Mr. President?
Any suggestions on that option, Mr. Bolton?
The clarity of Mr. Bolton's position is a bit of fresh air in spring time. He clearly speaks for a group of people that still think that war is the way to a lasting peace. He believes that might without exercise is weakness and impotence, he clearly wants to have a visible example created for the world that will cause the world to understand that superpowers must be able to exercise and project might anywhere in the world.
This war as a solution mind set has been seen before and is again in the air, and we can only hope that more sober minds in the US, China, Russia and Europe develop counter arguments and other solutions to global issues that at the present monument seem to be taking us to the precipice of a global confrontation.
The illustion of war as a solution needs to be challenged vigourously and meaningful alternatives need to be explored and discussed publicly with the same conviction that Bolton has put into his own position.
This war as a solution mind set has been seen before and is again in the air, and we can only hope that more sober minds in the US, China, Russia and Europe develop counter arguments and other solutions to global issues that at the present monument seem to be taking us to the precipice of a global confrontation.
The illustion of war as a solution needs to be challenged vigourously and meaningful alternatives need to be explored and discussed publicly with the same conviction that Bolton has put into his own position.
3
There is no secret to nuclear technology, nor does the US have a lock on pure intentions. The best way to regulate nuclear weapons is through treaties and international oversight. If Israel has been able to get rid of the Osirak reactor and the Syrian reactor, let it act again on its intelligence. Israel is part of the Middle East but the US is not.
3
Bolton's article and reasoning are bizarre: classic right-wing thinking--war in the name of peace. Doesn't he realize that containing such an action to Iran would be utterly impossible and merely pour more gasoline on the fire that is western Asia. Clearly he's been spending too much time with Netanyahu and I can only thank god that Bolton no longer represents this country before the U.N.
9
It is so easy for a guy like Bolton to advocate war when he will sit in front of his TV at home while people die. He will probably have a smile on his face. Don't we have enough of these wars? Bolton and Co. should be on trial for all the crimes they have committed. Money and big interest groups are driving these people. Bravo to the NYT for publishing such an article, it probably suit your purpose.
2
Hogwash seems to hardly even begin to address the flaws in Mr. Bolton's understanding of history and how he uses it to address the present.
Historically we have not been very helpful in stoping the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Aside from the many Cold War combatants; India, Pakistan and South Africa all stood outside our "sphere of influence" and did what they felt was necessary. With our help Israel amassed a wonderful little arsenal of nukes that Mr. Bolton seems most determined to ignore.
His gold standard of nuclear weapons control isn't a myth, it's another lie just like weapons of mass destruction or we'll be greeted as liberators, and perhaps even more deadly.
Historically we have not been very helpful in stoping the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Aside from the many Cold War combatants; India, Pakistan and South Africa all stood outside our "sphere of influence" and did what they felt was necessary. With our help Israel amassed a wonderful little arsenal of nukes that Mr. Bolton seems most determined to ignore.
His gold standard of nuclear weapons control isn't a myth, it's another lie just like weapons of mass destruction or we'll be greeted as liberators, and perhaps even more deadly.
5
Mr. Bolton consistently continues to be the peace-seeking voice of measured restraint and reason a world going through what it is today needs more than ever . . . Or put another way, he's exactly why the world is in the present state it's in. Somebody please put a sock in that man's mouth!
5
This is such a silly article dismissively plowing through its own contradictions with abandon. But what is most laughable is that it offers regime change as a solution, willfully dismissing the fact that the Ayatollahs are craving for a nuclear bomb exactly to thwart such an outcome. The author attacks, like his good friend Netanyahu, the very strength of the current negotiation effort as it's weakness. Only God knows how dumb these people think the American people are. They shamelessly push our country into another devastating war even before it fully struggled back to its feet. Just unbelievable!
6
I say we give Mr. Bolton his war on three conditions: First: the CBO do a projected analysis of the cost of the war and that Congress then pass a law imposing a 90 percent surcharge on all incomes over one million dollars to pay for the war. Furthermore, not one bullet can be fired until at least fifty percent of the war’s projected costs have been paid by those subject to the surcharge. As part of the new tax, Congress would also agree to finance the war without touching social security, medicare, etc. Two: all industrial suppliers of war materials would agree to discount their goods anywhere from fifty to seventy-five percent or risk forfeiture of all assets and profits to the government to pay for the war. Third: all family members of neocons like Bolton would be imbedded in front line infantry units regardless of age, sex, or physical capability. If the neocons will agree to these very reasonable proposals, then they can have their war.
14
Time to recall Colin Powel's 'Pottery Barn' analogy warning the Neocon's about Iran - "If you brak it, you bought it." The Arabs and the Persians have been at war with each other for centuries before the U.S. even existed. Bolton's biggest fallacy is to think the Arabs are our friends. We are just proxies in this ancient war and our interests are best served by isolating the hostilities to the Middle East realize neither party should be welcomed in the modern world until this fued is settled and a realistic timeline is generations away. Anything we do will just be undone by the Russians anyway.
4
It's worth pointing and repeating the obvious to Mr. Bolton and every other chicken hawk: US military action in the Mid-East has only created chaos. Every military action, save for the limited action in the early 1990's, has resulted in more instability, not less.
225
Would someone please explain to a poor bewildered foreigner where exactly the USA gets these knuckle-dragging Neanderthals? What exactly gives the USA the right to bomb people who haven't done anything but whom it simply doesn't like? I don't recall any threat to bomb Israel, which, I'm told, also might be in the process of trying to obtain nuclear weapons... And did these Neanderthals not also threaten Iran with "regime change" at the time of the Iraq invasion? In which case is it not understandable that Iran would want something to throw back at any such invaders?
The point is that, if a country wants a nuclear weapons capacity, the only way to stop it is a full-scale invasion and conquest, and we know how well that worked out for the USA in a country one-third the size of Iran. Carrot and stick is the only way - stick alone is never going to cut it.
The point is that, if a country wants a nuclear weapons capacity, the only way to stop it is a full-scale invasion and conquest, and we know how well that worked out for the USA in a country one-third the size of Iran. Carrot and stick is the only way - stick alone is never going to cut it.
8
Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades. About 300 warheads now, by some estimates.
The same fine insight and advice you provided us in the past. You may think it unfair if we dismiss your assessment just because you lied us into Iraq. I’m sure Dick Cheney does, and Dick Cheney is an honorable man.
4
They were all, all honourable men.
John Bolton, another warmongering politician who admittedly avoided the Vietnam War by joining the National Guard, supposedly because he didn't want to enter a losing war, is once again wanting to engage in conflict by bombing another country. This is what America must get rid of... people who are unafraid to expose our troops as long as they can sit in their homes and watch the war on tv. Remember President Bush avoiding Nam by joining the National Guard? How about Cheney? Loves war as long as he avoided serving in Nam. Let's see...Boehner, McConnell, Kyl, Cornyn, just a few who avoided serving. This list goes on and on. Nothing more to say... well yes there is... they make me want to vomit.
10
Bomber Bolton's conclusion another war, this time against Iran, to 'set back' their nuclear program '3-5 years' while 'supporting the opposition for regime change' is a fantasy more inspired than anything Lewis Carroll could conjure. If they are bombed, the hard liners control will be total, and an Iranian nuclear weapon become a certainty.
6
I recommend reading John Bolton's wikipedia entry, which is about the most astonishing document I've ever seen there.
It seems that from the start, this guy's been your basic chicken hawk: suring the 1960s, he thumped the tub for the Vietnam War, but if course when it came time to go--and he was healthy--he got hisself into a Guard unit specifically to avoid the War, and then wrote that yup, he didn't want to go fiight a war he considered already lost.
Lovely, really. I bring this up because yet again, Bolton's thumping the tub for a war he won't be fighting. And he's doing it in a spectacularly lazy and stupid way, too. Notice that among other things in this insane editorial, he writes as though bombing Iran would be easy as pie, and there'd be no consequences?
i think we've seen this act before.
It seems that from the start, this guy's been your basic chicken hawk: suring the 1960s, he thumped the tub for the Vietnam War, but if course when it came time to go--and he was healthy--he got hisself into a Guard unit specifically to avoid the War, and then wrote that yup, he didn't want to go fiight a war he considered already lost.
Lovely, really. I bring this up because yet again, Bolton's thumping the tub for a war he won't be fighting. And he's doing it in a spectacularly lazy and stupid way, too. Notice that among other things in this insane editorial, he writes as though bombing Iran would be easy as pie, and there'd be no consequences?
i think we've seen this act before.
11
With this disgusting, immoral essay, Mr. Bolton persuasively drives home the point that other countries should do everything in their power to obtain nuclear weapons to protect themselves from the United States because the party he belongs to might come to power.
13
Dear me. What a very unconvincing piece. When trying to make the case that one's country should go to war, perhaps one should not rely so heaving on statements like:
"Even absent palpable proof..."
"Analysts have long believed..." (Analysts like Mr. Bolton?)
"Other states understood - even if they couldn't admit it publicly..."
"Nuclear matters were almost certainly on the agenda..."
"Everyone understood why..."
These phrases are a window into how Mr. Bolton thinks. Evidence is apparently unnecessary. He knows! Because he just does!
"Even absent palpable proof..."
"Analysts have long believed..." (Analysts like Mr. Bolton?)
"Other states understood - even if they couldn't admit it publicly..."
"Nuclear matters were almost certainly on the agenda..."
"Everyone understood why..."
These phrases are a window into how Mr. Bolton thinks. Evidence is apparently unnecessary. He knows! Because he just does!
8
"Ironically perhaps, Israel’s nuclear weapons have not triggered an arms race. Other states in the region understood — even if they couldn’t admit it publicly — that Israel’s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure."
Yeah, right, Israels' nukes are no factor whatsoever in Irans' push for nukes.
What absolute, obscene nonsense.
Yeah, right, Israels' nukes are no factor whatsoever in Irans' push for nukes.
What absolute, obscene nonsense.
6
A lunatic. A raving lunatic.
A lunatic who would in a Republican administration be National Security Adviser or even Secretary of State-- it's the job he wants. Imagine that. Then imagine nuclear war.
Well Mr. Bolton, we can't defeat Iran. It is a regional power with more than a million men under arms, capable of mobilizing millions more within months and with a real air force. Oh not one that has our strategic reach but more than tactically capable of taking us on and causing great damage. The shock and awe would be on our side this time. Oh and by the way Mr. Bolton, Iran is a nation of 80 million people in a territory the size of Texas. So even if we had sufficient troops,and it would take an Army of 3 million to do it and we don't have, can't afford and don't want that army, so we are not about to invade and overthrow the regime there.
Lunacy, lunacy, lunacy from a man no one should take seriously because to take him seriously is to contemplate Armageddon.
A lunatic who would in a Republican administration be National Security Adviser or even Secretary of State-- it's the job he wants. Imagine that. Then imagine nuclear war.
Well Mr. Bolton, we can't defeat Iran. It is a regional power with more than a million men under arms, capable of mobilizing millions more within months and with a real air force. Oh not one that has our strategic reach but more than tactically capable of taking us on and causing great damage. The shock and awe would be on our side this time. Oh and by the way Mr. Bolton, Iran is a nation of 80 million people in a territory the size of Texas. So even if we had sufficient troops,and it would take an Army of 3 million to do it and we don't have, can't afford and don't want that army, so we are not about to invade and overthrow the regime there.
Lunacy, lunacy, lunacy from a man no one should take seriously because to take him seriously is to contemplate Armageddon.
13
None of the criticism of Bolton I've seen here addresses his point that if the fundamentalist regime in Iran gets the bomb, it will be very very bad for world peace. We have held back when we shouldn't have (North Korea), we've attacked when we shouldn't have (Iraq), which has left us questioning our own judgment. But we can't let it keep us from taking a courageous path when it's necessary.
As for the idea we could leave Iran alone and it would become more moderate of its own accord, I wish this were true. But over 30 years of leaving Iran alone has brought us to where we are now. Besides, if Iran is bent on getting the bomb, we may have no choice but to use force to stop it. And I'm not even a Republican!
As for the idea we could leave Iran alone and it would become more moderate of its own accord, I wish this were true. But over 30 years of leaving Iran alone has brought us to where we are now. Besides, if Iran is bent on getting the bomb, we may have no choice but to use force to stop it. And I'm not even a Republican!
1
Actually, the 1953 CIA-orchestrated overthrow of Mohammed Mosaddegh and the ascension of the US-funded and backed Reza Pahlavi who terrorized his own people (with US support) has "brought us to where we are now" with respect to Iran. History does not start and end when the US is aggrieved.
1
In my opinion, John Bolton has just provided a vivid example of why Independent and Republican voters better do a lot of soul searching before they vote another Republican into office. We already have a war mongering legacy created by the last Republican president of launching preemptive war that was a disaster in many ways. To repeat that approach now would compound all the negative results of the last Republican President , Vice President and advisors.
11
Ah, the bravado of the Chickenhawk.
Pink Floyd put it best:
"Forward! He Cried...
...from the rear."
Pink Floyd put it best:
"Forward! He Cried...
...from the rear."
15
If Bolton is correct, don't you think that the Israelis would have launched their planes by now? Bolton's ideas are based on raw speculation. The goal is not limited to nuclear negotiations. The goal is to bring Iran back into the family of nations, to a place where it does not feel threatened by its Sunni neighbors and US hegemony. Remember, this is a country that was invaded by its Sunni neighbor in 1980 and lost upwards of 700,000 people over the course of an eight-year war.
6
Is it "fair and balanced" for the Times to tacitly promote the validity of Mr. Bolton's enthusiasm for starting World War III? His strategy of preemptive murder and international destruction would prove the terrorists correct; we would, indeed, be "The Great Satan".
8
Mr. Bolton is paid to find conclusions like this. Who would believe this man, about anything? This guy has blood and his hands and no conscience.
He stills owes us for the Iraq debacle when he and Cheney provided the Welcome Us As Heroes scenario/delusion.
He stills owes us for the Iraq debacle when he and Cheney provided the Welcome Us As Heroes scenario/delusion.
13
Dear Mr. Bolton,
Please feel free to arm yourself and your family and go to Iran personally to try to effect regime change.
Leave the rest of us out of it.
Please feel free to arm yourself and your family and go to Iran personally to try to effect regime change.
Leave the rest of us out of it.
19
Author Bolton states, "The president’s biggest legacy could be a thoroughly nuclear-weaponized Middle East." In making this statement Bolton forgets or consciously ignores the 60 to 70 B61 bombs that the United States still maintains at the Incirlik air base in Turkey.
Likewise Bolton seems to accept at face value, "...that Israel’s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure."
If that were indeed the case – Either Israel’s nuclear capabilities play no role vis-à-vis strategies to prevent an Iran from acquiring a bomb, in which case why does Israel have them at all, or Israeli nukes matter greatly in terms of the missions they support, in which case the existence of Isreal's nucelear arsenal should be open for actionable discussion.
More importantly, however, Bolton entirely discounts the possibility of rational deterrence while simultaneously assuming the mental health of 500 million Iranians and other Middle Easterners is sub-par.
Likewise Bolton seems to accept at face value, "...that Israel’s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure."
If that were indeed the case – Either Israel’s nuclear capabilities play no role vis-à-vis strategies to prevent an Iran from acquiring a bomb, in which case why does Israel have them at all, or Israeli nukes matter greatly in terms of the missions they support, in which case the existence of Isreal's nucelear arsenal should be open for actionable discussion.
More importantly, however, Bolton entirely discounts the possibility of rational deterrence while simultaneously assuming the mental health of 500 million Iranians and other Middle Easterners is sub-par.
6
Meir Dagan, a former head of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, was quoted on 60 minutes as saying that, "... an attack on Iran would be the "stupidest idea [I've] ever heard."
And now we have John Bolton who helped bring us such programs as "regime change" in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya" saying WHAT??? Seriously!!! Mr. Bolton, if the former head of Mossad thinks it's a dumb idea, how exactly do YOU propose this be done? Can't wait to hear your ideas on this.
And now we have John Bolton who helped bring us such programs as "regime change" in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya" saying WHAT??? Seriously!!! Mr. Bolton, if the former head of Mossad thinks it's a dumb idea, how exactly do YOU propose this be done? Can't wait to hear your ideas on this.
9
John Bolton is a knee-jerk neoconservative who can spout blather based on specious logic and half-digested facts. The same arguments found here can be made about North Korea and Pakistan, both nations bordering on theocratic regimes, yet, there is no clarion call to bomb them. Indeed, he chides us for neglecting our responsibility to keep these weapons out of hand, passing over the fact that he played an active role in administrations that created the scenarios he now wants to lay at Obama's doorstep.
It amazes me how feckless the entire neoconservatives are in their desire to employ all those wonderful toys they've endowed our military with and how willing they are to sacrifice lives for their questionable ideology. More's the pity, their articulate stooge Bibi has been playing this same song for 25 years.
It amazes me how feckless the entire neoconservatives are in their desire to employ all those wonderful toys they've endowed our military with and how willing they are to sacrifice lives for their questionable ideology. More's the pity, their articulate stooge Bibi has been playing this same song for 25 years.
8
Just what does this writer think will happen the day after our bombing that kills thousands of Iranians? We've heard all this before. As the story goes, delirious crowds will fill streets screaming with joy, "how beautiful(exceptional) thou art America." But when the predictable occurs and we are in an all out war with Iran, what do we do? This is not a toothless Tiger like Hussein. How do we stop it; Nuke them? Mr. Bolton is so very righteous in his opinion and so very ignorant or uncaring of the consequences that must surely follow.
7
Oh, goody, another Middle East war with America on the wrong side. Israel's nuclear armament is only used as a deterrent? Guess that ignores Israel's invasions of Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, not to mention the massacre of unarmed Turks and Americans in the Mavi Marmara?
3
Israel's nuclear weapons do indeed serve an offensive purpose.
It keeps anyone else from interfering militarily when they bomb Gaza, or annex more of the West Bank. That is certainly part of the "deterrence".
It keeps anyone else from interfering militarily when they bomb Gaza, or annex more of the West Bank. That is certainly part of the "deterrence".
7
I am so stunned by this gibberish I don't know where to start
but let's address Mr. Bolton's desire for regime change in Iran. Isn't that what brought the Ayatollah to power in Iran? Did you conveniently forget that in 1953 Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, European-educated Muhammad Mossadegh,was overthrown by US and UK? He was replaced by the Shah, which led to the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini. It's exactly this kind of outmoded thinking that has so harmed the US and made a mess out the Middle East. We're tired of war, Mr. Bolton, and that you want to entangle Americans in another foolhardy military expedition in the Middle East leads me to ask Who are you really speaking for?
but let's address Mr. Bolton's desire for regime change in Iran. Isn't that what brought the Ayatollah to power in Iran? Did you conveniently forget that in 1953 Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, European-educated Muhammad Mossadegh,was overthrown by US and UK? He was replaced by the Shah, which led to the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini. It's exactly this kind of outmoded thinking that has so harmed the US and made a mess out the Middle East. We're tired of war, Mr. Bolton, and that you want to entangle Americans in another foolhardy military expedition in the Middle East leads me to ask Who are you really speaking for?
14
"Who are you really speaking for?"
Let's make a list of possible candidates:
- Defense suppliers and related industries ("military industrial complex)
- His good friends at the helms of Saudi Arabia and Israel
- the Multinational Petroleum Industry
- the banks that channel the flows of money that these industries produce
Who did I leave out?
Let's make a list of possible candidates:
- Defense suppliers and related industries ("military industrial complex)
- His good friends at the helms of Saudi Arabia and Israel
- the Multinational Petroleum Industry
- the banks that channel the flows of money that these industries produce
Who did I leave out?
I think the problem here is the end game. I have no doubt we can set back Iran's program by several years. What then?
1
The disastrous war in Iraq should have silenced some of these neo-con voices. They were proven wrong - wrong about WMDs and mushroom clouds, wrong about oil paying for the war, wrong about creating democracy, wrong about the war being short and not needing many military personnel and wrong about virtually everything else. After the longest war in U.S. history, one that cost a trillion dollars and lives and health, then these same voices kept saying that if only the U.S. had remained longer, all would have been well. Newsflash: you cannot occupy a country where 70% of the citizens and its leader want you to leave. You cannot have wars with few of your own citizens supporting you: it is their family members and their tax dollars paying for the ridiculous wars they dream up.
Just sit down and be quiet might be the advice given. You were wrong before, and are wrong still.
Just sit down and be quiet might be the advice given. You were wrong before, and are wrong still.
9
"Only we are allowed to murder without impunity!"
6
Reading Bolton's incredible column makes you wonder if he's paid any attention to the changes between when Papa Bush swept into Iraq and today, when the terrorists du jour, ISIS, are in the forefront. There's not a word in Bolton's column about what might happen after an attack on Iran, but his simplistic, jingoistic display of power would spawn generations of Muslims acting in terrorist offshoots or singly, bent on inflicting damage and death on the Western world and the U.S. in particular. Can Bolton be so driven to cover up his previous policy blunders with Iraq that he is blind to today's reality?
7
Ah, Republican wisdom for the ages. Why bother negotiating when you can just pull the trigger?
12
I think this Fox News talking head is simply staking out the most extreme position possible so that Republicans running for president can seem moderate by comparison when they say anything else.
7
There isn't a substantiated statement of fact or any analysis of the consequences of the recommendations in this article. I don't understand why the NYT publishes such dismal "scholarship". Yes, in a democracy people can opine more or less as they wish, but fortunately intelligent people responsible for making real decisions know better.
4
It doesn't matter if Iran gets the bomb. The Pakistanis already have it, and the world can't get any scarier than that. Not to mention the paranoid North Koreans or delusional Russians.
8
can see why most of the world views the US, not Iran, as the bigger threat to peace
15
So, the neocons show their true colors. No negotiated solution would satisfy them. They want war with Iran. That would be disastrous. It also would make us, rather than the Ayatollahs, the international pariahs.
Interesting, when the Iranian nuclear program was far more bombable than it is now, and sanctons/negotiations seemed less likely to produce much positive results than they do today, the insider Bolton was unable to persuade the Bush/Cheney administration to bomb Iraq. The stupidity of his proposal was evidently recognized by President Bush.
President Obama would be well-advised to follow GWB's course and not start a war with Iran.
Interesting, when the Iranian nuclear program was far more bombable than it is now, and sanctons/negotiations seemed less likely to produce much positive results than they do today, the insider Bolton was unable to persuade the Bush/Cheney administration to bomb Iraq. The stupidity of his proposal was evidently recognized by President Bush.
President Obama would be well-advised to follow GWB's course and not start a war with Iran.
4
The real story here is how and why did the NYT choose to publish this irrational story? The NYT has some explaining to do.
11
I think just about everyone who reads this paper knows where Bolton is coming from. He was one of the architects of George W. Bush's deceptive and destructive approach to the Middle East. Why an otherwise-sane newspaper would give him space to spout his warmongering idiocy is beyond me.
11
Human nuclear suicide may be the best hope for the environment.
9
Bomb Iran! What a brilliant plan that is. Now why didn't Obama think of that. Look how well American bombing has worked in the past. And why stop there?
12
Bomb Iran. Then what?
12
Of course Josh Bolton would say that. He was saying the same thing while in the Bush administration, and lest we forget the British diplomat that glibly said "Everyone wants to go to Iraq, real men want to go to Iran". Josh Bolton wants the children of America to prove they are 'real men'.
There were a lot of suspicions at the time of the start of the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein didn't actually have weapons of mass destruction, and his regime was toppled in short order. North Korea on the other hand tested nuclear weapons, and it was clear they had them.
On its face, that's a pretty clear sign that a 'rogue' state named as part of the axis of evil could only be safe from external force if it had demonstrated possession of nuclear weapons.
The Bush administration's approach of total abasement to it's desires before even sitting down to negotiate only underlines that point. Iran would only be able to talk with the U.S. if it proved beyond any shadows in Dick Cheney's and Josh Bolton's minds that they had no nuclear weapons or capability. At this point the Ayatollah's must consider that having shown they have no nuclear deterrent, what's to stop the U.S. from invading them too? Nothing.
When will the neoconservatives learn that imposing U.S. interests on countries against their own good only results in more dangerous enemies being created in the future? But maybe Bolton already knows that, and realizes it isn't in his personal interest for there to be good relations.
There were a lot of suspicions at the time of the start of the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein didn't actually have weapons of mass destruction, and his regime was toppled in short order. North Korea on the other hand tested nuclear weapons, and it was clear they had them.
On its face, that's a pretty clear sign that a 'rogue' state named as part of the axis of evil could only be safe from external force if it had demonstrated possession of nuclear weapons.
The Bush administration's approach of total abasement to it's desires before even sitting down to negotiate only underlines that point. Iran would only be able to talk with the U.S. if it proved beyond any shadows in Dick Cheney's and Josh Bolton's minds that they had no nuclear weapons or capability. At this point the Ayatollah's must consider that having shown they have no nuclear deterrent, what's to stop the U.S. from invading them too? Nothing.
When will the neoconservatives learn that imposing U.S. interests on countries against their own good only results in more dangerous enemies being created in the future? But maybe Bolton already knows that, and realizes it isn't in his personal interest for there to be good relations.
10
Well said. To add just a point: the ultra-wealthy and their hired pols all know there is a good deal of money to be made from hiring contractors, no bid contracts and the like. We are stuck now in a political posture domestically where so many of these dimwits will vote for anyone who wants to go to war, be it against some different kinds of people, or against the middle and poor at home.
No easy way out in the near future that I see.
No easy way out in the near future that I see.
Bolton shouldn't be allowed this forum especially after this newspaper's checkered history with neoconservative propaganda.
9
Yes, censorship of ideas we do not agree with is best.
If you and your fellow chickenhawks want a war with Iran so much, Jon, then you, your families and every single Republican can march down to your nearest military recruiter and enlist and then demand that you be on the front lines. And you will also turn over your money in order to pay for the war.
But let me remind you..both China and Russia have said they will defend Iran if we attack them so I have to ask..do you want World War 3?
Also there is a history lesson you're forgetting. That being the fact that the Ayatollah's came to power in 1979 is directly the fault of the US led 1953 coup of Iran's democratically elected government.
All attacking them is going to do is to ensure that Iran will build a nuclear bomb later and then they won't be interested in negotiating. Iran is ruled a..well...people like you Jon..old hardline men. Except the vast majority of Iran's population is far younger and far more moderate then the religious hardliners that are currently in control of Iran. All attacking them is going to do is create a new generation of hardliners who hate the United States at all costs.
Every time you Republicans muck around in the Middle East it comes back to bite the United States on the rear end later on. You did it with Iran in 1953, you Republicans did it with Reagan's support of the Taliban against the Soviets in the 1980s, you did it with your support of Iraq versus Iran in the 1980s, your policies created ISIS. Enough, Jon, with your warmongering.
But let me remind you..both China and Russia have said they will defend Iran if we attack them so I have to ask..do you want World War 3?
Also there is a history lesson you're forgetting. That being the fact that the Ayatollah's came to power in 1979 is directly the fault of the US led 1953 coup of Iran's democratically elected government.
All attacking them is going to do is to ensure that Iran will build a nuclear bomb later and then they won't be interested in negotiating. Iran is ruled a..well...people like you Jon..old hardline men. Except the vast majority of Iran's population is far younger and far more moderate then the religious hardliners that are currently in control of Iran. All attacking them is going to do is create a new generation of hardliners who hate the United States at all costs.
Every time you Republicans muck around in the Middle East it comes back to bite the United States on the rear end later on. You did it with Iran in 1953, you Republicans did it with Reagan's support of the Taliban against the Soviets in the 1980s, you did it with your support of Iraq versus Iran in the 1980s, your policies created ISIS. Enough, Jon, with your warmongering.
26
I would hope Mr. Bolton would look around at how effective US military action has been in the last 15 years and then take that into consideration before starting another one.
10
That's one way of doing it - it seems that those who never served in the Armed Forces - Ie. Cheney - and this cowboy are quick to use force as long as they other person puts his life on the line
13
I am willing to support Mr. Bolton's position if Mr. Bolton agrees to pick up a rifle and go be on the front lines of the ensuing war. To wit, put his money where his mouth is.
Otherwise, he should stop volunteering other peoples' husbands/wives/sisters/brothers/sons/daughters to die so that his chickenhawk bloodlust is satisified and so that the corporate keepers of whatever foundation/think tank he works at can make a handsome profit. He should just keep his mouth shut.
Otherwise, he should stop volunteering other peoples' husbands/wives/sisters/brothers/sons/daughters to die so that his chickenhawk bloodlust is satisified and so that the corporate keepers of whatever foundation/think tank he works at can make a handsome profit. He should just keep his mouth shut.
16
The New York Times publishes an op-ed by Bolton with all the hostility of one of his FOX opinion pieces. By publishing this you have inevitably lent credence to this sort of fear mongering. Given your global reach and acceptance as a respected news agency you have done the world a disservice. Bolton has his outlet, if this was an attempt to display your fairness in reporting chops you picked the wrong poison, Bolton's history of picking out the bad guys is not very good. He continues to have only one solution, bombs. more and more bombs.
17
And don't miss our next week's Op Ed. " The case for preempt destruction of all mouse trap companies." by Mickey Mouse
7
In Mr. Bolton'd delusional world:
--Israel's large nuclear arsenal, its unilateral bombing raids on its neighbors and repeated threats to do the same to Iran have done NOTHING to "trigger" the regional nuclear arms race he describes;
--the threat that Pakistan might supply nuclear arms to Sunni 'empire-states' like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey is Iran's fault; and
--unilateral air assaults on Iran by Israel and/or the US will enhance the popularity of pro-Western opposition groups in that country.
Who let this madman loose in the op-ed pages of the Times?
--Israel's large nuclear arsenal, its unilateral bombing raids on its neighbors and repeated threats to do the same to Iran have done NOTHING to "trigger" the regional nuclear arms race he describes;
--the threat that Pakistan might supply nuclear arms to Sunni 'empire-states' like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey is Iran's fault; and
--unilateral air assaults on Iran by Israel and/or the US will enhance the popularity of pro-Western opposition groups in that country.
Who let this madman loose in the op-ed pages of the Times?
10
Finally some common sense has appeared on the Opinion Pages of the NYTimes. Instead of the "trust the Iranians" drivel from Obama and his ilk we hear the truth from Mr. Bolton.
I suggest that Obama and his inept advisors like John Kerry and Susan Rice stop deceiving the American public about stopping Iran from obtaining the Bomb with this bad treaty. Instead, let experienced negotiators like Mr. Bolton broker a treaty that would end Iran's quest for the Bomb once and for all.
I suggest that Obama and his inept advisors like John Kerry and Susan Rice stop deceiving the American public about stopping Iran from obtaining the Bomb with this bad treaty. Instead, let experienced negotiators like Mr. Bolton broker a treaty that would end Iran's quest for the Bomb once and for all.
1
I'm concerned that the Times would give such a prominent platform to this bellicose relic.
18
I don't know the details of the West's possible deal with Iran and I am also concerned about Israel's security, but having witnessed Mr. Bolton's record as a Busch administration cheerleader of needless wars where he didn't fight, makes me unwilling to subscribe to his theories.
Iran was the other side in a war against Iraq, a Saddam Hussein bloody venture we supported when we sent Mr. Rumsfeld to Baghdad to support Hussein and kiss his ring, the same he stepped on several years later when we invaded. And yes, Hussein had to give up his dreams against Iran.
To think that the Persians are weaker militarily or morally today is foolish.
Iran was the other side in a war against Iraq, a Saddam Hussein bloody venture we supported when we sent Mr. Rumsfeld to Baghdad to support Hussein and kiss his ring, the same he stepped on several years later when we invaded. And yes, Hussein had to give up his dreams against Iran.
To think that the Persians are weaker militarily or morally today is foolish.
3
When I read the headline on this piece, I thought it was a satire, but the guy's actually serious! I guess I should have expected it, coming from the American Enterprise Institute. Why don't we just nuke the entire region and be done with Iran, ISIS, the Palestinians, Al Quaida, Assam, and all the rest of those pesky Middle Easterners?
12
When is Mr. Bolton volunteering to join the army and go for combat in Iran?
7
It is a strong possibility that Mr. Bolton's analysis is on the money. Many critics of Mr. Bolton's piece in today's N.Y. Times should think twice about disregarding Mr. Bolton's strong opinion. It's a very, very disturbing piece.
1
I don't know what you mean about "a strong possibility." A possibility, sure. But "strong?" Consider the source. A broken clock is right twice a day, but we'd be fools to rely on it.
The fact that murderous proposals like this are taken as a serious discussion of a reasonable alternative is perhaps the saddest thing of all. A three to five year setback at most? And probably not even that, given that as Bolton himself acknowledges, the technology and maybe even the weapons themselves are probably available on the Q.T. from Pakistan or North Korea. For that, how many American kids will never see Daddy or Mommy again? How many Iranian parents will bury their little boys and girls? And we wonder why we are viewed in the region as the root of all evil. Shame.
6
Mr. Bolton has yet to meet a situation that would not be improved by the use of force. The consequences of starting small war after small war always elude him. Like Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, Mr. Bolton remains fixated on an expansive Pax Americana underwritten by the unremitting use of our military might.
6
John Bolton has always been a bit nuts, but now is certifiable. The one way to guarantee that Iran develops a nuclear weapons capability is to bomb Iran. After all, they would justifiably need one for self-defense! The opinion of our intelligence community has not changed, as he states. The IC believes that Iran has attempted to acquire the capability to build a weapon, but has not actually attempted to build one. And name one country that Iran has ever attacked in thousands of years of history. Yes, they fund and support Shiite militants, but they are also fighting alongside Iraq against ISIS, a far more dangerous enemy.
With an agreement, we can verifiably assure they are not building a bomb, and over time the moderates will gain power. By bombing them, we empower the right wing militants and guarantee they will build a bomb.
With an agreement, we can verifiably assure they are not building a bomb, and over time the moderates will gain power. By bombing them, we empower the right wing militants and guarantee they will build a bomb.
5
OK, OK, NYT readers, calm down.
I know that you don't think letting John Bolton's intern from Liberty University submit an Op-Ed in his name because Ambassador "Recess Appointment" Bolton is too busy making rain at Kirkland & Ellis for defense contractors is the highest and best use of this sort of real estate.
But Trish Hall knows exactly what she is doing. Bolton is the Id of the Neo-cons and it helpful every once and a while to have that Id bubble up from the unconscious so that we can be reminded of how really crazy these guys are.
Remember, Bolton was one of the geniuses who, in 2003, justified the Iraq War by saying it would send a message to Syria.
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_05/syria_may03
4,500 American dead, 20,000+ casualties, many life time debilitating, six figures worth of Iraqi dead and wounded, and $2 trillion later, John wants to "send another message" to the region because, well, because the last one was so successful.
And you guessed it. Bolton, when he's not using his Rolodex over at K&E, is holed up at that beacon of patriotic values, the American Enterprise Institute, where one of the Brooks Bothers, Arthur, who also graces these Op-Ed pages from time to time with his self-help nostrums, is President.
Think of it also this way. Bill Kristol is really annoyed that Bolton got to show how muscular he is before Bill could flash his SEG on Fox while singing along with Sean Hannity and John McCain, "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran."
I know that you don't think letting John Bolton's intern from Liberty University submit an Op-Ed in his name because Ambassador "Recess Appointment" Bolton is too busy making rain at Kirkland & Ellis for defense contractors is the highest and best use of this sort of real estate.
But Trish Hall knows exactly what she is doing. Bolton is the Id of the Neo-cons and it helpful every once and a while to have that Id bubble up from the unconscious so that we can be reminded of how really crazy these guys are.
Remember, Bolton was one of the geniuses who, in 2003, justified the Iraq War by saying it would send a message to Syria.
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_05/syria_may03
4,500 American dead, 20,000+ casualties, many life time debilitating, six figures worth of Iraqi dead and wounded, and $2 trillion later, John wants to "send another message" to the region because, well, because the last one was so successful.
And you guessed it. Bolton, when he's not using his Rolodex over at K&E, is holed up at that beacon of patriotic values, the American Enterprise Institute, where one of the Brooks Bothers, Arthur, who also graces these Op-Ed pages from time to time with his self-help nostrums, is President.
Think of it also this way. Bill Kristol is really annoyed that Bolton got to show how muscular he is before Bill could flash his SEG on Fox while singing along with Sean Hannity and John McCain, "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran."
9
This man belongs in a mental institution for the criminally insane. He is but terrorists who speaks American English and is given the forum to express it by the NY times. He is a tool for the criminally insane like him who are advocating the same against us.
7
John Bolton is even more amoral that Dick Cheney. And I did not think it was possible for anyone to be more soulless and evil than the Prince of Darkness himself.
14
This from the past representative of the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons against a civilian population? Irony or hypocrisy, you choose.
I do not say that we should not have used them, only that a sovereign nation has every right to build any weapons they feel a need to possess.
I do not say that we should not have used them, only that a sovereign nation has every right to build any weapons they feel a need to possess.
It is foolish to think that any amount of bombing can permanently disable Iran's nuclear ambitions. What is the difference if their ability to develop a bomb is delayed by three to five years? All these hopes of regime change in Iran are pointless. What regime would we install? Are there thousands of pro-American and Pro-Israeli Iranians chomping at the bit to overthrow the current government? Can anyone even name a pro-western Iranian waiting for his moment to seize control of the country?
Obama should take the best deal he can get from Iran AND THEN deliver 30 fully functional weapons to Saudi Arabia and Turkey, along with the best missile defense systems we have.
The argument could be and that the reason why Russia and America never went to open war was the threat of mutual and total destruction. Let's see just how crazy the Mullahs are.
Obama should take the best deal he can get from Iran AND THEN deliver 30 fully functional weapons to Saudi Arabia and Turkey, along with the best missile defense systems we have.
The argument could be and that the reason why Russia and America never went to open war was the threat of mutual and total destruction. Let's see just how crazy the Mullahs are.
2
Hilarious. This clown complains about Iran wanting Nuclear weapons while simultaneously claiming that Israel's nuclear weapons haven't caused an arms race in the region.
8
"Time is terribly short"
No, it isn't. It might take a few hours to bomb Iran as opposed to a couple of years for Iran to build a nuke.
It seems like hysterical (not hysterical haha) propaganda from neocons looking for another war to profit from. Give peace a chance.
No, it isn't. It might take a few hours to bomb Iran as opposed to a couple of years for Iran to build a nuke.
It seems like hysterical (not hysterical haha) propaganda from neocons looking for another war to profit from. Give peace a chance.
10
What a thuggish, unAmerican policy recommendation. Someone should inform Mr. Bolton that in civilized societies punishment comes *after a crime has been committed, not when those in power get it into their heads that someday a crime will almost certainly be committed. Bolton promotes the same flimsy logic upon which the Bush Administration invaded Iraq -- certain of Saddam's plans to build nukes and/or chemical weapons, no more evidence was required.
9
My God. John Bolton is so out of his mind it is just astonishing. And here's why--he talks nothing of the aftermath. The counter-Iranian attacks on US properties and their allies--that the Iranians have promised, and would be certain to engage. The rapid expansion of US military forces in the region to counter. The explosion of anti-US sentiment among radicalized Islamic factions. The rush to join them, and to execute more terrorist actions, everywhere. The plunging of economic markets. Such a big talker when it comes to solution, and no story of the consequences.
4
Kind of reminds me of all the planning that was done to deal with the aftermath of the Iraq invasion. Brought to you by the same neocons.
Thank you, NYT for giving Mr. Bolton this space to fall on his own sword. Any of the GOP contenders would be wise to steer clear of this man and his rhetoric.
3
Any advice from John Bolton, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, who was never confirmed by the Senate, a recess appointment, is always radically right-wing, salacious, and loaded with bias. He is to be trusted less than the Iranian Ayatollahs! He should be regarded with nothing but scorn.
9
"Ironically perhaps, Israel’s nuclear weapons have not triggered an arms race. Other states in the region understood — even if they couldn’t admit it publicly — that Israel’s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure."
The author should pull his head out of the ground. Israel's possession of nuclear weapons for decades has nothing to do with Iran's desire to acquire them? Get real. What a blind spot to reality!
The author should pull his head out of the ground. Israel's possession of nuclear weapons for decades has nothing to do with Iran's desire to acquire them? Get real. What a blind spot to reality!
3
It's good the United States is a peace-loving country, as we showed in Iraq, or I would worry the NY Times had turned its op-ed page over to a hysterical, insane warmonger.
2
This is why John Bolton is a pariah in the "diplomatic" community. Given his record, it's impossible to imagine why anyone would take him seriously--or give him a platform.
3
It seems like the left has an opinion, the right has an opinion, and then there is reality. I do not know if Bolton's suggestion that we should bomb Iran is a good one, but there are a few things that are factual. Obama is trying to come to an agreement with a government that hates America. He is having a very difficult time because much of Congress is against him, and the Iranians themselves do not want to sign on any dotted line. If Iran is successful in achieving nukes the world is in trouble. One way or another we must stop this from happening. While Netanyahu may be rather annoying, we have to understand his view. The Iranians cannot be trusted and his country is on the front lines. Additionally, Israel is the last real friend America has in the region. Obama must be personal feeling aside and do what is best to keep America's power in the region.
2
nothing in your statement is factual. What's your proof that the Iranian government "hates America," at least enough to pose a real threat? Where's your proof that the world is in trouble if Iran is successful in obtaining nuclear weapons? most of our intelligence, as well as the Mossad, have concluded the contrary...so maybe you've been watching too much Fox news
"Israel is the last real friend America has in the region"
Whose soldiers are fighting alongside Americans against ISIS--Israel or Iran?
Who is a mortal enemy of al Qaeda--Israel or Iran?
Who has elections in which every adult can vote (as opposed to occupying and disenfranchising millions)--Israel or Iran?
Whose soldiers are fighting alongside Americans against ISIS--Israel or Iran?
Who is a mortal enemy of al Qaeda--Israel or Iran?
Who has elections in which every adult can vote (as opposed to occupying and disenfranchising millions)--Israel or Iran?
Just what we need -- another war. Mr. Bolton couldn't even get GW Bush to drop bombs on Iran. Can't we just sit this one out and let the Islamic world settle its differences in whatever way it wants? Even Israel has apparently concluded that there's no way to stop a country larger than California from secretly developing nuclear capabilities. And all the so-called "experts" have told us that Iran could rebuild those capabilities within a couple of years after we supposedly destroy them. Are we ready for an endless war with Iran?
4
I would like for Bolton to explain how Bush's war of choice in Iraq, a policy he helped to craft, helped ameliorate the problem about which he is so worried.
That being said, look at a map of the Middle East. A nuclear exchange? Who survives?
That being said, look at a map of the Middle East. A nuclear exchange? Who survives?
3
Sincere thanks, NYT.
Letting Bolton make his case openly is the best way to ensure that Americans understand his agenda.......permanent American hegemony in the Middle East and around the world, in the service of the Military-Industrial-National Security- Keep E'm Frightened All the Time - Complex. Bolton's making a fortune with this schtick.
Letting Bolton make his case openly is the best way to ensure that Americans understand his agenda.......permanent American hegemony in the Middle East and around the world, in the service of the Military-Industrial-National Security- Keep E'm Frightened All the Time - Complex. Bolton's making a fortune with this schtick.
5
Every time Bolton shows up rattling his pocketful of ball-bearings, the 9-11 conspiracy theorists gain Sherlock Holmes credibility. US ambassador to the United Nations? Joseph Conrad's Secret Agent has nothing on this guy, his pocketed rubber bladder, notwithstanding. This guy does not walk softly & his big stick is sprouting leaves.
2
John Bolton is apparently exploring a run for President in 2016. One can only hope that as soon as his dreams are inevitably dashed, he will quickly and prominently join the foreign policy team of whomever the ultimate Republican nominee is, where he can do the United States the most good - by helping to sink that erstwhile ship-of-state as soon as it's launched down the slipway.
4
Why is a person, who was so wrong about so many things, given space on this page to reach so many?
6
Mr. Bolton, your hysteria serves no constructive purpose. If we bomb Iran, it could, upon recovery, re-start nuclear development. Pres. Obama's "soft touch" shows the beginning of understanding a Middle East so different from us it could be in another galaxy.
2
What Bolton doesn't say is that bombing them isn't enough. The knowledge to build a bomb is there so the real alternative to talks is an all out war and regime change. Taking over Iran would make the Iraq War look like a cake walk.
2
Is Bolton telling us that will be OK if another nation will bomb us because we have the atomic bomb?
3
When all opinion grows to be as uniformly certain on one subject as consistently as it's reflected here, it's most always the prudent time to get out of that particular investment. Is Iran worthy of being embraced with the confidence and good hope of today's humanity? Sell!!
2
Was it not Cuba's "right" to put whatever it chose on its own sovereign soil? Did we have the right to credibly threaten nuclear world wide war to prevent a threat to ourselves? The answer is yes, of course we did. Parse the difference in 'breakout times' and secret programs til the proverbial cows come home, but I believe that in Israel's corporate mind, it is doing nothing other than what John F Kennedy did. In which case, there is a real warning in the wind.
3
Do "humans" like Bolton realize how many very good people live in Iran and would die in a bombing campaign? Just like the shock and awe campaign in Iraq there were many innocents killed. His rhetoric is irresponsible and inhumane. If he were a teenager he would be told that he needed counseling and required to get anger management treatment.
6
I couldn't even complete reading this diatribe on going into yet another black hole. This is what we can expect from men like Bolton, Cheney, and all the others so quick to draw their weapons and begin shooting. The difference is that these war lords sit behind their polished desks and are more than willing to sacrifice more and more young men and women to fortify their thirst for blood. It's is despicable.
9
In his eagerness to advance the Netanyahu agenda of war with Iran, at US expense, Mr. Bolton lies. He lies repeatedly and well. In 2007, the U.S. government startled the Neocon lobby by releasing a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) reflecting a consensus of the 17 largest U.S. intelligence agencies called “Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities.” “Key Judgment A” began: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” The document sent shockwaves through Neocon world because it flatly contradicted the increasingly bellicose warnings emanating from the Bush administration, as well as from Tel Aviv. The war lobby has been trying to deny the existence of that report ever since.
The Guardian newspaper last month revealed that during the same month Netanyahu warned the UN that Iran could have a nuclear bomb within a year or less, his own intelligence agency was saying the opposite, stating that Iran “does not appear to be ready” to enrich uranium to the levels necessary for nuclear weapons.
Moreover, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its nuclear facilities are subject to regular international inspections, while Israel refuses to sign the treaty or allow any outside inspection of its nuclear installations, even by its ally the US.
The question for every American is whether we are going to fall for another set of lies by people whose only interest is to gin up another war in the Middle East.
The Guardian newspaper last month revealed that during the same month Netanyahu warned the UN that Iran could have a nuclear bomb within a year or less, his own intelligence agency was saying the opposite, stating that Iran “does not appear to be ready” to enrich uranium to the levels necessary for nuclear weapons.
Moreover, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its nuclear facilities are subject to regular international inspections, while Israel refuses to sign the treaty or allow any outside inspection of its nuclear installations, even by its ally the US.
The question for every American is whether we are going to fall for another set of lies by people whose only interest is to gin up another war in the Middle East.
8
I think I've seen this movie "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.' John Bolton plays General Ripper, a man of incredibly pure bodily fluids who decides to start World War II while we still have an edge.
3
that guy is straight from Dr.Strangelove…..How can you take him seriously.!
11
"Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran."
After twelve breathless paragraphs of bomb, bomb, bomb, this one lazy, over-simplified prescription is all Bolton has to say about diplomatic outreach.
The irresponsible policies of Bolton and his neocon hawk brethren have helped create a Middle East where "Iran's opposition" is defined (or ill-defined) by the theocracies and military dictatorships he references as rushing to develop or buy their own secret nuclear arsenals. Slim pickins for "vigorous support", I would say.
And taking Bolton's advice on regime change is a bit like asking the arsonist how to put out the fire.
After twelve breathless paragraphs of bomb, bomb, bomb, this one lazy, over-simplified prescription is all Bolton has to say about diplomatic outreach.
The irresponsible policies of Bolton and his neocon hawk brethren have helped create a Middle East where "Iran's opposition" is defined (or ill-defined) by the theocracies and military dictatorships he references as rushing to develop or buy their own secret nuclear arsenals. Slim pickins for "vigorous support", I would say.
And taking Bolton's advice on regime change is a bit like asking the arsonist how to put out the fire.
5
Irresponsible to publish stuff by this delusional maniac. One supposes that the times editorial board has not listened to any of his previous insane ravings, such as when he was U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
I remember him laughing during an interview on NPR about some dreadful event in which many people were killed. While laughing, he said, "none of them were Americans, so I don't care". (continued laughter).
He is an appalling person. Not fit to print.
I remember him laughing during an interview on NPR about some dreadful event in which many people were killed. While laughing, he said, "none of them were Americans, so I don't care". (continued laughter).
He is an appalling person. Not fit to print.
10
Some questions:
1. Why doesn't Israel attack Iran? They have a large standing army, a nuclear arsenal, and already receive a few billion a year in aid from the US. Why must the US lead the charge?
2. Why are we so concerned about Iran building nuclear weapons when a much less stable and more erratic country, North Korea...and Pakistan, have them? Osama bin Laden lived in Pakistan for years and many there knew it and helped hide him. So you can't tell me they are one of our allies in the region. Yet they have nuclear weapons and we don't hear cries to disarm them.
3. What right do we have to dictate to another country what they can or cannot do with regards to self-protection? Republicans most of all should be supportive of a nation being able to arm itself for self defense, right? Would they be supportive of Iran bombing our missiles and reactors? Would they have thought the Soviet Union justified in bombing our reactors when developing a weapon? Look at the arms race we caused.
Perhaps these questions are naive, but I don't see any justification for bombing a country for defending itself even if they are one of our "enemies".
Even if we are justified, given how the Iraq invasion was handled by the GOP, would we trust them to handle another war?
1. Why doesn't Israel attack Iran? They have a large standing army, a nuclear arsenal, and already receive a few billion a year in aid from the US. Why must the US lead the charge?
2. Why are we so concerned about Iran building nuclear weapons when a much less stable and more erratic country, North Korea...and Pakistan, have them? Osama bin Laden lived in Pakistan for years and many there knew it and helped hide him. So you can't tell me they are one of our allies in the region. Yet they have nuclear weapons and we don't hear cries to disarm them.
3. What right do we have to dictate to another country what they can or cannot do with regards to self-protection? Republicans most of all should be supportive of a nation being able to arm itself for self defense, right? Would they be supportive of Iran bombing our missiles and reactors? Would they have thought the Soviet Union justified in bombing our reactors when developing a weapon? Look at the arms race we caused.
Perhaps these questions are naive, but I don't see any justification for bombing a country for defending itself even if they are one of our "enemies".
Even if we are justified, given how the Iraq invasion was handled by the GOP, would we trust them to handle another war?
Who cares if Iran makes a nuclear bomb? They are no threat to America. We have 2,000 nukes and over 60 years' experience and practice to deliver them anywhere in the world we choose.
The concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) has no application here; there is simply Assured Destruction of Iran or anyone else foolish enough to attack America with a nuke.
A nuclear attack on an ally is another matter entirely, and our response should be measured according to the reasons the attack was precipitated.
The concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) has no application here; there is simply Assured Destruction of Iran or anyone else foolish enough to attack America with a nuke.
A nuclear attack on an ally is another matter entirely, and our response should be measured according to the reasons the attack was precipitated.
3
The critical comments I have read merely point out the obvious: we don't want another Iraq war. But Bolton is not calling for a ground invasion.
No one seems to be grappling with Bolton's arguments that (1) Iran's past behavior shows that neither sanctions nor negotiations can stop Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, and (2) its acquisition of nuclear weapons will lead to nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East.
If Bolton is right, then the question becomes, which is more dangerous to US national security: bombing Iran, or nuclear proliferation? I'm not sure, but surely Bolton's answer (nuclear proliferation) is not to be lightly dismissed.
No one seems to be grappling with Bolton's arguments that (1) Iran's past behavior shows that neither sanctions nor negotiations can stop Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, and (2) its acquisition of nuclear weapons will lead to nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East.
If Bolton is right, then the question becomes, which is more dangerous to US national security: bombing Iran, or nuclear proliferation? I'm not sure, but surely Bolton's answer (nuclear proliferation) is not to be lightly dismissed.
2
Bolton's not merely wrong but insanely wrong, those aren't the only two choices, and anybody who's paid attention has seen this sort of cheerful, "Yeah, we'll just go blow stuff up, it'll be over in a couple hours, they'll whine for a week or two but they're losers anyway so there won't be any consequences, hooray for us!" lunacy before.
what, exactly, is its "past behavior" that warrants the assumption Iran cannot be dealt with diplomatically and must be bombed? Preemptive strikes and invading other countries that result in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths? calls by national leaders to bomb countries preemptively? continuing an occupation for over 60 years that deprives millions of people of basic human rights? bombing an open air prison every couple of years to ensure that large portions of those who live imprisoned in poverty within it are killed and maimed? Oh no, these don't describe Iran, they describe the United States and our #1 "ally", Israel
Calm down, commenters. The Times is performing its journalistic duty to occasionally publish a piece representing an alternative point of view. Regular readers will not be persuaded. Anybody who might be persuaded isn't reading the Times. And anybody who is already in agreement is satisfied that they have been given their due. Now let's all return to our respective corners.
1
I hope any Iranians reading this Bolton op ed piece understand the contempt and revulsion felt for this treasonous liar and ultimate chicken hawk by vast swaths of the American public. That he has found refuge in a right wing think tank, instead of rotting in prison for the WMD lies that led to the Iraq invasion doesn't mean he has influence beyond the right wing lunatics embraced by the Republican party. And I hope any Americans who read this Bolton harangue and are thinking of voting Republican in 2016 understand they are voting to enable the neocon dogs of war yet again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
6
Question here is would Bolton ever come to a different conclusion?
2
Regime change. Wow. Where have we heard that before? Can't you just wait until Bolton and his delusional party get their hands on the Oval Office again?
4
Could anyone expect any less from John Bolton? Neo-conservative's solutions to every foreign affair problem is war and bombing.
The last time the United States started a war in the middle east, the region became extremely volatile and unstable.
Good luck trying to sell a war with Iran to the American public.
The last time the United States started a war in the middle east, the region became extremely volatile and unstable.
Good luck trying to sell a war with Iran to the American public.
2
The only way to make 100% sure that the mad mullahs of Iran do not acquire nuclear weapons is to bomb them back into the stone age. Due to high population density, it is estimated that fourteen x 750KT W88 warheads would be more than enough to do the job. That equates to the payload of only two Trident D5 missiles and just one Ohio class missile submarine carries 24 such missiles.
It's obvious that history repeats concerning Obama and Kerry.
The phrase "Peace for Our Time" was spoken on 30 September 1938 by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in his speech concerning the Munich Agreement and the Anglo-German Declaration. The phrase echoed Benjamin Disraeli, who upon returning from the Congress of Berlin in 1878 stated "I have returned from Germany with peace for our time." It is primarily remembered for its ironic value: less than a year after the agreement, following continued aggression from Hitler and his invasion of Poland, Europe was plunged into World War
The phrase "Peace for Our Time" was spoken on 30 September 1938 by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in his speech concerning the Munich Agreement and the Anglo-German Declaration. The phrase echoed Benjamin Disraeli, who upon returning from the Congress of Berlin in 1878 stated "I have returned from Germany with peace for our time." It is primarily remembered for its ironic value: less than a year after the agreement, following continued aggression from Hitler and his invasion of Poland, Europe was plunged into World War
2
The only thing worse than failing to learn the lessons of history is learning the wrong lesson.
If I was to follow your thinking I would be forced to believe we are powerless to the underlying fate of cards handed to us by The Greatest Generation and that merely uttering phrases dooms us to extinction due to their origins.
More death and destruction. Iran is not going to bomb anyone. USA and Israel will do the killing.
2
How is it this lying war monger gets space in the Times?
Maybe we really do need to be reminded of the people who put the Middle East in flames in the latest version of the Apocalypse 1.01. bush/cheney lied this Nation into a poorly conceived invasion of Iraq while taking their eyes off the real task in Afghanistan, and bolton was one of their major mouths.
We the People seem to have such pitiful memories of even recent events, which must be the reason we are seeing McConnell and Boehner leading the congress. We just forgot it was their party that inflamed the unrest in the Middle East, as well as the last great financial crisis.
Maybe we really do need to be reminded of the people who put the Middle East in flames in the latest version of the Apocalypse 1.01. bush/cheney lied this Nation into a poorly conceived invasion of Iraq while taking their eyes off the real task in Afghanistan, and bolton was one of their major mouths.
We the People seem to have such pitiful memories of even recent events, which must be the reason we are seeing McConnell and Boehner leading the congress. We just forgot it was their party that inflamed the unrest in the Middle East, as well as the last great financial crisis.
5
This is just what we need. Advice from a George W. Bush official about going to war. Send other people's sons, daughters, wives, and husbands into a battle that will do nothing but make things worse. Mr. Bolton doesn't bother to mention that Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China are with us in these negotiations. Also, he seems to ignore the fact that we have no real friends in the Middle East. We can't even trust Israel at this point.
5
On Mr. Bolton's previous watch...
Back when we invaded Iraq, on the mere (and misplaced) suspicion of the possibility of a nuclear capability - North Korea was standing on their chair, and screaming "We have a nuke!!!" We chose to ignore this little tidbit, in favor of the misguided War Of The Wells. I never saw an explanation for this choice from Mr. Bolton.
Iran is evolving. While they are not our best friends, they (and we) are learning now to coexist, and be partners, probably unwillingly, but partners nonetheless.
Seems like the nuclear genie is well out of the bottle. Certainly, bio-weapons are. Maybe we should stop screaming ourselves, and figure out how to play with the other kids in the sandbox.
Back when we invaded Iraq, on the mere (and misplaced) suspicion of the possibility of a nuclear capability - North Korea was standing on their chair, and screaming "We have a nuke!!!" We chose to ignore this little tidbit, in favor of the misguided War Of The Wells. I never saw an explanation for this choice from Mr. Bolton.
Iran is evolving. While they are not our best friends, they (and we) are learning now to coexist, and be partners, probably unwillingly, but partners nonetheless.
Seems like the nuclear genie is well out of the bottle. Certainly, bio-weapons are. Maybe we should stop screaming ourselves, and figure out how to play with the other kids in the sandbox.
3
Bolton is not accurate in stating that Israel can take effective military action.
However, if Saudi Arabia lends some logistical support, we have a different set of facts. It is in every nation's interest to halt Iran from becoming the dominant player in the region. Their ascension to their historic role, given their current leadership, will toss the region into unbridled chaos. It could be 1914 all over again. History constantly repeats itself, unfortunately.
However, if Saudi Arabia lends some logistical support, we have a different set of facts. It is in every nation's interest to halt Iran from becoming the dominant player in the region. Their ascension to their historic role, given their current leadership, will toss the region into unbridled chaos. It could be 1914 all over again. History constantly repeats itself, unfortunately.
1
Nobody ever seems to learn from it.
Didn't we just leave this party? This is how we got into Iraq; look how well that turned out. But it'll work in Iran? Doubt it.
2
My God! And this guy was almost our UN Ambassador? America has had all the warmongering it can possibly survive, and Bolton is just the perfect tool to keep the bombs bursting in air.
Go lay down somewhere quiet Bolton and contemplate your flawed intellect.
Go lay down somewhere quiet Bolton and contemplate your flawed intellect.
1
A bomb. Yeeth, that's the ticket.
Lord.
I'm good with that, John.
If you ride it down...
Lord.
I'm good with that, John.
If you ride it down...
6
If John Bolten got locked out of his house, he would propose bombing the front door. If his pool was not warm enough, he'd bomb the water. If his lawn wasn't green enough, he'd bomb it into submission. The man knows no problem that cannot be fixed with a rain of explosives. It does not matter what the side effects are or whether it even fix the problem. He is nothing but a warmonger and does not deserver publication in this esteemed newspaper. Let him hold a placard and shout at the subway stop. That is the appropriate venue for musings of this depth and character.
7
It is so sad to see as to how a great country like the USA is being reduced to do things which she would have otherwise not done, just because in this country of ours now, some have become much "more equal than others." It is time that the country shakes up this "undue" pressure from some quarters. Wars are costly to begin with, and the ones proposing it as the alternative must be forced to send their children to the front lines!
4
Gee, if Mr. Bolton is right about Saudi Arabia being close or able to obtain nuclear weapons, then we should bomb them too.
I vote on sending Bolton over to Iraq giving him an AR-15 and ask him to finish what he and Bush started.
I vote on sending Bolton over to Iraq giving him an AR-15 and ask him to finish what he and Bush started.
4
Simplistic view actually. Clauswitz said that the armed forces are a tool of a nations foreign policy. It isn't the only tool. Frankly, I would find it refreshing to have the best troops in the world in their barracks for a change. That way, everyone is afraid of them. 15 yrs of these war adventures have severely weakened the U.S. In so many ways If we weren't overextended militarily Putin would be much more reserved in his view of the world too.
5
There is nothing more dangerous than an American in a position of power or influence who thinks they understand the Middle East. America (yes, all of us) doesn't get it when it comes to that part of the world, as we have shown many times in the past, to our shame and embarrassment and with tragic consequences for people in the region. No to bombing Iran!
3
Only military action can accomplish what is required? Really, Mr. Bolton? How convenient that you fail to mention how the US spent billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives chasing nonexistent nuclear devices in Iraq and changing the regime there so that now we have friends in Iraq. Why should anyone put any store in anything you have to say in this matter?
3
I might just be in favour of an invasion of Iran providing that Mr Bolton and his ilk agree to lead the ground troops into the fray and show us all how nation building should work.
That'll be fun to watch.
p.
That'll be fun to watch.
p.
6
Regardless of Hillary's flaws, stuff like this is one very good reason to vote for her in 2016. Assuming the GOP keeps control of Congress, we are just one vote away from entering the Dark Ages. With his constant beating of war drums, Bolton clearly must receive some kind of financial backing from the military-industrial complex. He's a walking advertisement for them.
2
The West has proven time and again that political correctness trumps strategic goals however unpopular. There were many opposed to US intervention in Europe's disasters in the 20th century. That cost 100 million lives. Middle East states must view our naivete with amusement and fear. No one wants war. The question is will you have to clean up a bigger mess later if you don't take care of it now. Never forget, predatory powers like Iran understand one thing only, force. When they know we are willing to use it, they will be brought to heel.
I think John Bolton should lead the charge and that his platoon, if he is capable of command which is really questionable, should be made up from the core of his right wing sycophants. His first order of business should be to insist that his friends in congress declare war and at the same time reinstitute the draft. Talk like Bolton's is easy if it is somebody else that is doing the bidding.
2
I'm Republican.
I see no MORAL reason that would give us with the right to bomb Iran - at this time
We have concerns with the middle east, yes, but the concerns do not justify the actions as described in this article.
I see no MORAL reason that would give us with the right to bomb Iran - at this time
We have concerns with the middle east, yes, but the concerns do not justify the actions as described in this article.
4
Mr. Bolton is of course, deluded. Fortunately he has absolutely no effect on public policy, other than to demonstrate exactly what intentional ignorance combined with aggression will accomplish.
6
All I could think of was McCain singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" as I read this.
6
I watched Bolton at relatively close range when he headed the State Dept bureau responsible for UN affairs, and when he was U.S. ambassador to the UN. How he maintains a coterie of supporters of his extreme positions boggles the mind. The Times does no service to the informed public by publishing his ravings.
5
What with embracing Netanyahu's recent public abandonment of a two-state solution for Israel/Palestine crisis and now Bolton's diatribe about bombing Iran, the rethuglican agenda is laid bare. The good part of all this is that they are now out in the open.
4
What issues are Republicans right on?
I often wonder IF any of the Republican Presidents of the last 50 years had been Commander in Chief during the Cuban Missile Crisis would we even be having this discussion?
Now ask yourself the same question about any of the current crop of Republicans who are contemplating a run for the Presidency?
I often wonder IF any of the Republican Presidents of the last 50 years had been Commander in Chief during the Cuban Missile Crisis would we even be having this discussion?
Now ask yourself the same question about any of the current crop of Republicans who are contemplating a run for the Presidency?
2
There may be legitimate arguments for not trusting Iran, but Mr. Bolton is not the messenger to convince any who need convincing. Which makes this piece curious to me: does Bolton believe he's going to sway anyone not already in his camp, given what a polarizing figure he's been (is he that naive, stupid?), or is this part of some larger strategy to just hammer this administration and democrats with 2016 in mind? I figure the latter, although it could be both.
2
My God, what a chilling reminder of what a frightening position our country was in when Mr. Bolton and his ilk were running U.S. foreign policy.
9
Bomb a country we are currently in negotiations with!!?? I can't believe this "option" is even being discussed.
6
Shall we also bomb Israel since they have acquired a Nuclear Arsenal that upsets the balance of power in the Middle East? What gives us the right to unilaterally bomb Iran? Has Congress passed a declaration of war?
4
Another dualistic good vs. evil perspective from a war-hawk. It is unbelievable how selective memory rules Bolton's prescriptions to nuclear negotiations. The nationalist theocratic party that is negotiating this deal has to be taken seriously, THEY WANT TO USE NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AS A WEAPON DETRIMENTAL TO ALL HUMANITY (incontrovertible). The problem with this piece is not the pragmatic understanding that the mullahs and their cronies speciously invest in these negotiations, but that some how we still control some divinely appointed moral/ethical high ground. As though we have some right to bomb other countries as the worlds policemen because we follow our self proclaimed constitutional and ethical principles. Our foreign policy over the past 75 years (arguably much longer) has fueled more opposition and hatred (and a complete failure) for the red white and blue then respect. As superficial and self-centered my millennial generation can be these are the peoples in Iran that need to be empowered. They are the only non-apologetic strain of secular, forward-thinkers in Iran. We can actually confide in this sects statements when they proclaim relative peace & prosperity is their only desire. We need to do what we have been good at for decades and that is get out or stimulate a coup to disenfranchise these despotic religious fanatics. Im sick of politicians and pundits who are anathema to history and subscribe repeating the same foreign policy of perpetual war.
5
Wonderfull that mr. Bolton refreshes our memory of the dark decade he and his buddies fooled us into perpetual warfare. Glad his rascal article reminds us their stupidities should never be repaeated.
6
I'm going to clip this article and save it, so twenty years from now, when my grandchildren ask me, "Grandpa, why was George W. Bush the worst president in history?", I can pull it out and say, "He appointed this man our ambassador to the United Nations."
7
You fly the mission Mr. Bolton.
4
This opportunity to further inflame moderate arabs to hate the US. Wars are most profitable and Mr Bolton lusts for bigger and better wars (that other fight).
3
Let's set that precedent for every nation with nuclear weapons...
1
OK, Ok. this is an opinion page. Here's an idea, to get even more clicks and traffic why not give the floor to some serial killer or mass murderer lunatic.
4
The dictionary defines psychopathy as, among other things, failure to learn from experience. If the shoe fits, wear it.
5
Because bombing Iraq, Afganistan, Syria, and oh yes, Vietnam--were such overwhelming successes.
3
John Bolton and his hawkish neocons are the one’s who will bring us to the brink of global conflagration. With the American right wing establishment intent on war against Iran, Mr. Bolton places himself within the heart of the Sunni Gulf States against the Iranian Shia.
Mr. Bolton’s narrative is totally incoherent raising false flags while the President is making a play for peace. Nowhere in this article are the reasons why Iran distrusts the West: John Bolton should research the history of the region since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
Mr. Bolton sings to the Israeli tune that Iran is a danger, but it was America's war in Iraq that destabilised the region. Iran does not want war, no country does but if India and Pakistan can coexist with both having a nuclear arsenal, why can't Israel accept Iran's industrial nuclear aspirations? Behind all this antagonism lies Netanyahu, a bigger danger than Iran.
Mr. Bolton’s narrative is totally incoherent raising false flags while the President is making a play for peace. Nowhere in this article are the reasons why Iran distrusts the West: John Bolton should research the history of the region since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
Mr. Bolton sings to the Israeli tune that Iran is a danger, but it was America's war in Iraq that destabilised the region. Iran does not want war, no country does but if India and Pakistan can coexist with both having a nuclear arsenal, why can't Israel accept Iran's industrial nuclear aspirations? Behind all this antagonism lies Netanyahu, a bigger danger than Iran.
2
Violence is an addiction for the GOP, so we shouldn't be surprised to see them shooting up again, even though the last time was such a disaster. It's not just addiction to money from the military-industrial complex, as they undoubtedly are, and it's not just addiction to oil profits so they don't want Iran to sell it. It is more than that. The GOP is disproportionately filled with men and women addicted to physiological effects of having enemies to hate and kill and the prospect of spilling enemy blood gets them strongly aroused. When you listen to them write or talk about their latest hated targets you can practically chart the rise in their voices, the agitation in their body language, and the redness rising to their necks and faces, as the endorphins and adrenaline course through their blood. It surely makes them feel wonderfully, keenly alive. Of course, the problem for addicts always is figuring out how to live in the dull world that is life without drugs, so the GOP who are addicted to violence have a hard time enjoying the unexciting world of peace. It is not that they are bad men and women; we need generals and combat specialists and others ready to throw themselves into killing if need be. But excitable men jonesing for their next hit of violent war should not be in positions of power, and such addicts are certainly unfit for the Presidency who makes the ultimate decisions about war, where cooler heads like President Obama's should prevail.
5
Awesome analysis - an addiction to violence, indeed.
1
This idea that the Obama administration is "frantically" trying to reach an agreement is partisan double-talk. Bolton is not involved in the negotiations and has no formal place in the administration; so actually, he has no idea what's really going on.
It's amazing to me that the idea of peace is so much more frightening than the idea of war. If you want a war, Mr. Bolton, by all means, be the first to strap on a uniform and head to the front lines. Otherwise, most of us have had enough war in the Middle East to last 10 lifetimes.
It's amazing to me that the idea of peace is so much more frightening than the idea of war. If you want a war, Mr. Bolton, by all means, be the first to strap on a uniform and head to the front lines. Otherwise, most of us have had enough war in the Middle East to last 10 lifetimes.
4
Bombing Iran's nuclear infrastructure would have only one long term effect: strengthening (or creating?) firm resolve to become a nuclear weapons state. Visiting Iran for 12 days in 2010, I found the Iranians well-educated, proud, hospitable AND convinced that Israel will eventually bomb them. Creating an international inspection regime and allowing Iran to resume its well-deserved role as a major Middle Eastern power is the only rational strategy here to maintain order in this volatile region. Something like 75% of Iranian citizens are under 35 - these young people want to participate in world youth culture and are mostly not interested in the strictures of Ayatollah-style Islam. Prudence here, please. Has John Bolton ever been right about anything?
5
As highlighted elsewhere, it is difficult to heed the warnings of one of the key architects of the preemptive, perpetual war philosophy of the "Bush Doctrine." And let us also not forget that it was Mr. Bolton who once sardonically mused about blowing up much of the United Nations. It is a wonder that anyone listens to this broken-record theme of bombing our way to peace.
4
What a grand list of suppositions, from a source known to be enamored of aggressive war! Though actually it sounds more like another excuse to rag on Obama, the right's favorite form of masturbation.
It was our intervention in Iran in 1953, when we deposed the fairly-elected Mossadegh, a "socialist" who would have been about as threatening to America as Francois Mitterand, that gave the initial impetus to hardline conservative Islam in the region. Now our oil-pushing allies, Saudi Arabia, are the beheaders-in-chief of the world, while Iran, caught though it is in the grip of religious fascism, is one of the few Arab states where woman have any rights at all, serve in government, and attend universities. If we're going to be allied with repressive theocracies, Iran may be a better choice than Saudi. Why not engagement instead of manufactured rage?
Bolton, a Colonel Blimp for today....
It was our intervention in Iran in 1953, when we deposed the fairly-elected Mossadegh, a "socialist" who would have been about as threatening to America as Francois Mitterand, that gave the initial impetus to hardline conservative Islam in the region. Now our oil-pushing allies, Saudi Arabia, are the beheaders-in-chief of the world, while Iran, caught though it is in the grip of religious fascism, is one of the few Arab states where woman have any rights at all, serve in government, and attend universities. If we're going to be allied with repressive theocracies, Iran may be a better choice than Saudi. Why not engagement instead of manufactured rage?
Bolton, a Colonel Blimp for today....
5
This would only delay Iran, not stop it. But it would definitely solidify the position of Iran's hardliners and end any possibility for a diplomatic relationship with that country. The neocons want only perpetual war and this would guarantee it. Why is ink still being wasted on the likes of Bolton and Cheney?
272
What relationship do you think you can have with a country that executes you if you convert from islam or executes you if you are gay or executes you for adultery? What type of relationship can you have with a country that is run by its religious leaders that say Israel has no right to exist? What type of relationship can you have with a country that supports Hezbollah and Hamas? What type of relationship can you have with a coutry that teaches children in grade school that America is the great satan and western values must be destroyed? How do you negotiate with that. They have a fundamental view of the world that is in direct conflict with Western cultures and European cultures. Unless the "moderate and inclusive" muslims in that country can some how take over there is no negotiation with Iran. Iran has a very clear message that liberal idiost just dont seem to get.....Shia Islam will rule the middle east and that western values and any other religious view points have no place on the planet. What part of their actions and words tell you different? I would love to hear how you think we can all just get along and Obama and the Ayatolla will be trolloping through the daisies hand in hand. Please tell me.
"John R. Bolton, a scholar...", what a joke!! Logic that leaps from one ridiculous assumption to another isn't scholarship, it is partisanship. Is he actually paid to come up with such nonsense? Obvious answer is yes. He is paid to come up with hawkish rhetoric very thinly disguised as academic discussion. Is it possible to have a conversation in this country that is based around the center? All published thought is one extreme or another because it sells newspapers and creates a buzz. NYT, you can do better!
3
What can you obtain by nuclear bombing Iran? A delay of some years and 100 million people from Iran marching to destroy Israel? Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent!
1
Why are we listening to this man at all? Given his role in the last fiasco of American realpolitik, he has no credibility. NYT, if you feel the need to air a position on this side of the Iraq debate, find a fresher rock to turn over.
4
Can we please stop hearing the opinions of John Bolton, "scholar", and Dick Cheney? Their positions are totally predictable, NOT thought-provoking (nor well thought-out), and we are still cleaning up the mess that their particular approach produced.
1
While I think Mr. Bolton is out of his mind in wanting to bomb Iran. I do agree with him that the negotiations have no shot at stopping Iran from getting a bomb on their time table.
Our failed foreign policy under the last 2 administrations have given Iran the upper hand. They know it and we know it.
Our failed foreign policy under the last 2 administrations have given Iran the upper hand. They know it and we know it.
1
Exactly how does Mr. Bolton come to the conclusion that Israel's nuclear capability did not raise the stakes in the Middle East for nuclear proliferation? The other Middle Eastern countries "understood" that Israel only meant to have nuclear weapons as a "defensive measure"? Seriously? So now we should just bomb Iran with no thought whatsoever to consequences? We can certainly see how well the pre-emptive strike against Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" worked. Oops there weren't any. Sorry for ruining your country.
If the Republicans keep up their war mongering some nation may decide to make a pre-emptive strike against the United States. Vote as if your life depended on it in 2016, because it might.
If the Republicans keep up their war mongering some nation may decide to make a pre-emptive strike against the United States. Vote as if your life depended on it in 2016, because it might.
2
Mr. Bol;ton, the ,mistakes made on YOU watch have caused this. Thanks bud!
1
John R. Bolton. A scholar? Such misuse of language. The old story of what the German Imperial Army Staff did with analyzing and selecting officers comes to mind: intelligent, energetic officers went to the Staff. Intelligent lazy officers became division commanders. Stupid, lazy officers became company commanders. Stupid, energetic officers were shot. More and more we can bemoan that the war criminals in our midst were not prosecuted. I should hope that the NY Times editorial board will eviscerate Ambassador Bolton in an editorial as eloquently as the many readers have done and explain why he was given this platform.
3
Of course no discussion from Mr. Bolton of what would happen after the bombing. But then again it's not like Mr. Bolton's daughter or any of the children of the chickehawk neocons will ever volunteer to fight. They are all cowards. To Mr Bolton and his ilk, war is just another means of fleecing the rubes of the GOP to finance their lavish lifestyles.
3
Bolton is in part correct. The threat of imminent military action against Iraq's bomb development program, backed up with the stationing of a huge air capacity in Iraq and Saudi Arabia would have seen Iran back down and submit to inspection far earlier. Bush's mistaken assesment and Obama's rush to create a legacy no matter how weak a deal he might make have brought us to this situation.
Iran kept our diplomatically protected hostages because a weak Carter refusal to use force. The day Reagan came in the hostages were released. Iran could plainly see that with Reagan, the jig was up
I voted for Obama two times and am deeply disappointed with him in relation to this deal. If the Republicans could ever get it together to cooperate in government, I would vote Republican though I have not in 27 years.
Iran kept our diplomatically protected hostages because a weak Carter refusal to use force. The day Reagan came in the hostages were released. Iran could plainly see that with Reagan, the jig was up
I voted for Obama two times and am deeply disappointed with him in relation to this deal. If the Republicans could ever get it together to cooperate in government, I would vote Republican though I have not in 27 years.
1
Iran kept US hostages until Reagan was sworn in because Iran the Reagan campaign made deals for US arms--and the Israelis helped.
Iran's nuclear facilities have been inspected.
Iran's nuclear facilities have been inspected.
No-Carter refused to end the OPEC boycott. Once the dirty deal was made, Reagan took the credit for the hostage release as he turned the OPEC pumps back on. Carter was right. If we had continued the boycott OPEC would have been broken 35 years ago!
Is this guy a republican, independent, democrat or a degenerated teaparty member?
Of course he must be a republican who is insane. Even Oppenheimer the father of the atom bomb, says soon someone is going find out a way to build the atom bomb. Ok, Pakistan built one and India built one. Did they use it against each other or against the US? JB wants another war just for the heck of it. I have lost so much respect for these so called "Voltaire's bastards" We went to Iraq when this JB guy was the US envoy at the UN.
I am so glad Obama is the current US President who doesn't feel very fuzzy about just shooting from the hip. In the hands of the republicans the USA becomes a tyranny.
Of course he must be a republican who is insane. Even Oppenheimer the father of the atom bomb, says soon someone is going find out a way to build the atom bomb. Ok, Pakistan built one and India built one. Did they use it against each other or against the US? JB wants another war just for the heck of it. I have lost so much respect for these so called "Voltaire's bastards" We went to Iraq when this JB guy was the US envoy at the UN.
I am so glad Obama is the current US President who doesn't feel very fuzzy about just shooting from the hip. In the hands of the republicans the USA becomes a tyranny.
3
Bolton is not an "intellectual" as some have referred to him. Real intellectuals have original ideas and understand the nuances of complex situations.
4
Many of the comments here are focused on the threat (or according to some, lack of such) of a nuclear weapon in the hands of a radical Islamic regime towards Israel.
The Obama policy is not just endangering Israel. The Iranian regime already has ballistic missiles designed to be fitted with a nuclear warhead. The range of these missiles currently covers all of the Middle East as well as southern, eastern, and central Europe. At the current rate of development, the regime will have an ICBM in the not too distant future.
So a nuclear Iran is a lethal threat to populations well beyond Israel, including the US.
The Obama policy is not just endangering Israel. The Iranian regime already has ballistic missiles designed to be fitted with a nuclear warhead. The range of these missiles currently covers all of the Middle East as well as southern, eastern, and central Europe. At the current rate of development, the regime will have an ICBM in the not too distant future.
So a nuclear Iran is a lethal threat to populations well beyond Israel, including the US.
1
It's very hard to go from nuclear weapon to nuclear weapon on missile.
"radical" try the Saudis.
"radical" try the Saudis.
"Regime change." Hmmm...where have I heard that before....
3
Consider the fact that Bolton held high level advisory positions and that McCain/ Palin might have been leading a government that had and has, at least, hundreds of thermonuclear multi-warhead ICBMs .By comparison, It would add an insignificant threat to the world, if Iran were to develop a nuclear fission bomb.
1
American Enterprise Institute--conservative "think tank," if you believe that conservatives have to capability to think logically. This would be another "preemptive" George Bush/Dick Cheney move, leading to WWIII. Does anyone think Russia would not step in here? Where are the assassins when you need them? Stupid, stupid, stupid.
1
Here is another possible approach that is at least as well thought out as "scholar" Bolton's. We can play the NRA gambit. The NRA has assured us that guns for everyone will solve the gun slaughter problem in our streets, so why not apply that crazy logic to nuclear weapons proliferation? Nukes for everyone are the obvious solution. Nukes for large countries (done), nukes for small countries (proceeding right now); but even better, nukes for large and small corporations and “house atomics” for the 1% dynasty families of the world. Then, when we all nuked up, someone, possibly Mr. Bolton himself, will light the fuse and this good Earth will be reduced to a cold, dead cinder, thus solving for once and for all the problem of nuclear weapons proliferation. I’m absolutely certain a scholar as brilliant as Bolton will understand the beautiful logic of this solution; the problem isn’t with nukes in too many hands, the problem is they are in the hands of humans. Eliminate the humans and you eliminate the problem!
1
Thanks, NY Times, for publishing this. Americans need to know these people are still around and will have outsized influence in any Republican administration.
This op-ed confirms my future actions should a Republican, any Republican, win the presidency in 2016. Pull every dime possible out of equities and put the money somewhere safe. 1% interest rate CDs, statement savings, whatever. Anywhere where the risk of principal loss is zero.
These clowns, with their perpetual drumbeats of war (in which neither they nor anyone they know will serve), will drive this country's economy into the toilet. I won't be party to it.
And yes, I'm a US military veteran and love this country dearly. But I've had it with these guys.
This op-ed confirms my future actions should a Republican, any Republican, win the presidency in 2016. Pull every dime possible out of equities and put the money somewhere safe. 1% interest rate CDs, statement savings, whatever. Anywhere where the risk of principal loss is zero.
These clowns, with their perpetual drumbeats of war (in which neither they nor anyone they know will serve), will drive this country's economy into the toilet. I won't be party to it.
And yes, I'm a US military veteran and love this country dearly. But I've had it with these guys.
2
I kept reading to the end to see what Mr. Bolton proposed for the day after we bombed Iran. He never addressed that question and so can't be taken seriously.
3
John Bolton lives in a world of his own creation. His frequent calls for military force against any and all nations that wish to go their own way are predictable, boring, appalling, and always wrong. Personal courage was not an attribute of his during the time when he was of age to fight in Vietnam, so now he seems to be making up for his own cowardice with these tiresome inflammatory calls to military force as solutions to 'whatever' tics he sees.
That he would criticize President Obama for using the tactics of diplomacy and sanctions is similar to all of John Bolton's commentaries. And that he would only hint at his own part in getting the U.S. involved in Iraq because of mythical weapons of mass destruction is part of what is to be expected from this evil man. Following John Bolton's advice gets a lot of good people killed and results in unanticipated consequences. Bomb, bomb Iran? No way.
That he would criticize President Obama for using the tactics of diplomacy and sanctions is similar to all of John Bolton's commentaries. And that he would only hint at his own part in getting the U.S. involved in Iraq because of mythical weapons of mass destruction is part of what is to be expected from this evil man. Following John Bolton's advice gets a lot of good people killed and results in unanticipated consequences. Bomb, bomb Iran? No way.
1
I have to say that it's a lot of fun to read through over 400 (and counting) comments universally condemning John Bolton as a cowardly traitor. I absolutely agree, but others have that topic covered, and I don't need to add anything to the chorus.
As to a nuclear-armed Iran, the main reason they feel like they need a nuclear deterrent is because they don't necessarily know the difference between John Bolton and an American statesman. From their perspective, all they've heard from us is saber-rattling insanity for nearly 40 years. Having at least one nuke will certainly make them feel safer.
John Bolton's over-the-top, utterly mad war-mongering hate speech only sends Iran the message that it needs to hurry up and test a nuke before the next Republican presidential administration, when Bolton will probably be named Secretary of Defense.
As to a nuclear-armed Iran, the main reason they feel like they need a nuclear deterrent is because they don't necessarily know the difference between John Bolton and an American statesman. From their perspective, all they've heard from us is saber-rattling insanity for nearly 40 years. Having at least one nuke will certainly make them feel safer.
John Bolton's over-the-top, utterly mad war-mongering hate speech only sends Iran the message that it needs to hurry up and test a nuke before the next Republican presidential administration, when Bolton will probably be named Secretary of Defense.
3
First it was Joshua Muravchik's op/ed in the Washington Post saying war is our best option in Iran.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/war-with-iran-is-probably-our-bes...
And now this detritus. It's the same lunatics beating the drums of war that got us into the Iraq mess. These "men" have no shame. And they certainly don't have any skin in the game.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/war-with-iran-is-probably-our-bes...
And now this detritus. It's the same lunatics beating the drums of war that got us into the Iraq mess. These "men" have no shame. And they certainly don't have any skin in the game.
3
ok, so instead of negotiating a cooperative long term deferral of Iran's nuke threat, we should bomb them into a more uncertain short term deferral? Brilliant!
1
Yes, by all means, let's start another war in the Middle East. Because we haven't quite screwed things up enough just yet.
Bolton characterizes the President's desire to strike a deal as having an air of unreality. Pot, meet kettle.
Bolton characterizes the President's desire to strike a deal as having an air of unreality. Pot, meet kettle.
1
Oh! What madness we have created on earth! What is the difference between a mass murderer steering a loaded plane into a mountain and a "leader" like this?
Bolton makes a number of empirically false claims herein. First, he asserts that Iran has not slowed enrichment in response to US negotiations. It is simply not so cut and dry, as the Iranian nuclear program has sped up and slowed down over the past 10 years for a variety of reasons. There is no reason to assume that Bolton, who has no legal access to classified information, knows something that the general public does not in this regard. Second, Bolton claims that "Israel alone can do what is necessary." This is simply not true, as any person who knows anything about the Israeli air force's capabilities. Bombing Iran is simply not analogous to Israel's bombing of Iraq's nuclear program in '81.
For anyone who wants to know more about the relevant issues, please read the Center for Strategic and International Studies' report on how such a bombing campaign would be executed and its possible effects. CSIS is clear: this will not be a simple bombing of Natanz and Fordow, it will require a concerted campaign costing billions and incurring some US losses. It will also not meaningfully erode Iran's nuclear capability. Rather, it will almost certainly embolden them.
http://csis.org/files/publication/120906_Iran_US_Preventive_Strikes.pdf
For anyone who wants to know more about the relevant issues, please read the Center for Strategic and International Studies' report on how such a bombing campaign would be executed and its possible effects. CSIS is clear: this will not be a simple bombing of Natanz and Fordow, it will require a concerted campaign costing billions and incurring some US losses. It will also not meaningfully erode Iran's nuclear capability. Rather, it will almost certainly embolden them.
http://csis.org/files/publication/120906_Iran_US_Preventive_Strikes.pdf
Of course we know this is where all the neocon rhetoric has been leading to. They want a new war. Defense contractors could use the money. Oil companies could use some sweet deals. And Likud and its allies want to make sure all their neighbors know they can get the US to attack any country they please.
The Iraq war worked like that too, and we all know how it turned out. The worst self-inflicted wound for our country in who knows how many years. On top of that 150,000 to 1 million Iraqis died. I doubt a majority of them were "terrorists". Iran has more than twice the population of Iraq; imagine how much better it would go for us there.
The Iraq war worked like that too, and we all know how it turned out. The worst self-inflicted wound for our country in who knows how many years. On top of that 150,000 to 1 million Iraqis died. I doubt a majority of them were "terrorists". Iran has more than twice the population of Iraq; imagine how much better it would go for us there.
3
A timely article (along with the recent GOP budget) to remind voters why Republicans are not to be trusted in office.
4
Talks over Iran’s nuclear program have hit a stumbling block a week before a key deadline because Tehran has failed to cooperate with a United Nations probe into whether it tried to build atomic weapons in the past, say people close to the negotiations.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/iran-stalls-un-probe-into-its-atomic-pa...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/iran-stalls-un-probe-into-its-atomic-pa...
2
A lot of American lives will be lost in a war with Iran, but that is a sacrifice Israel is willing to take.
2
What Bolton omits is Iran has already significantly reduced its enriched uranium stockpiles. He further omits that our intelligence, Israeli intelligence, and the IAEA are all in agreement that Iran is no where near building a nuclear weapon.
It never ceases to amaze me how causal this guy and those of similar mindsets are eager to start another war without considering the consequences. That he advocates "regime change" at the end of the piece confirms he hasn't learned a thing from our experiences in Iraq.
It never ceases to amaze me how causal this guy and those of similar mindsets are eager to start another war without considering the consequences. That he advocates "regime change" at the end of the piece confirms he hasn't learned a thing from our experiences in Iraq.
5
What a brave visionary! Bush-era true believers usually never leave the safety of Fox News and radio shows. Now this Great American has condescended to go to the belly of the liberal beast and write a daring op-ed.
Mr. Bolton can do his best Slim Pickens and sit on the first payload as it descends. Then his friends and survivors can leave the "think tank" for real tanks for the next few decades.
Mr. Bolton can do his best Slim Pickens and sit on the first payload as it descends. Then his friends and survivors can leave the "think tank" for real tanks for the next few decades.
3
"Mr. Bolton can do his best Slim Pickens and sit on the first payload as it descends."
No need for such foolishness. All he has to do is give the launch orders for two Trident D5 missiles. Each carries seven x 750KT W88 warheads, more than enough to bomb the mad mullahs of Iran back into the stone age where they belong.
No need for such foolishness. All he has to do is give the launch orders for two Trident D5 missiles. Each carries seven x 750KT W88 warheads, more than enough to bomb the mad mullahs of Iran back into the stone age where they belong.
1
"Gold standard." "Inconvenient truth." "Regime change." Every think tank has an audience, a market, defined by the buzz expressions it responds to. That AEI's audiences are of the old school, and unable to accept or think in terms of a multi-polar world, is pretty obvious. That Bolton expects to find an audience for these expression among Times readers is surprising - our knees jerk to a very vocabulary - so much so that it can't be his or the Times intent. It seems our editors want to be sure we understand what the Republicans really want.
1
This is actually a sound proposal, Mr. Bolton; please use your Bush-era hawk credentials and forward it to Bibi. He's been itching for a fight and this one is wholly appropriate for the Israel that re-elected him. Besides, it's time Israel substituted action for whining and manipulation. Just leave out the part about significant American support.
Very well, and I do see your point. Now let me ask a few questions:
1. how are we going to pay for it?
2. how are we going to sell this to the american people?
3. more importantly, how are we going to sell it to the rest of the world?
4. what are the plans for post-bombing?
5. who are we going to nominate to oversee this exercise?
6. what do we tell the neighboring countries when hundreds of thousands of refugees flee Iran?
7. are we putting more troops on the ground in Iran? How many? For how long?
1. how are we going to pay for it?
2. how are we going to sell this to the american people?
3. more importantly, how are we going to sell it to the rest of the world?
4. what are the plans for post-bombing?
5. who are we going to nominate to oversee this exercise?
6. what do we tell the neighboring countries when hundreds of thousands of refugees flee Iran?
7. are we putting more troops on the ground in Iran? How many? For how long?
1
Ambassador Bolton makes the statement that there should be "vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran". Sooo, tell me John, we're back to regime change, are we? And if the past is any indicator, how has that worked out for you?
1
If bombing those who threaten our nation's well-being were truly the answer, John Bolton would be well advised to build himself a personal bomb shelter. Hmmm, perhaps it would be best for Grover Norquist to join him. Then, of course, . . . But list quickly becomes unwieldy. I certainly hope cooler heads prevail.
Which is better - an agreement that stops Iran from developing any nuclear weapons for 10 years, or an attack that by his own admission sets Iran back by five years at best (possibly as little as three years) and probably unites the people behind the hard liners?
BTW, how's that regime change thing working out in Iraq, Syria, and Libya?
BTW, how's that regime change thing working out in Iraq, Syria, and Libya?
3
Given John Bolton's record at the State Department and the United Nations, I'm astonished that the New York Times would publish anything he has to say. Any Iranian leader reading Bolton's op-ed piece would only become more determined to obtain nuclear weapons, given that Bolton is explicitly advocating a U.S. attack on Iran.
Given Bolton's prior record, his attitudes and incendiary statements are entirely predictable. But what were the Times' editors thinking?
Given Bolton's prior record, his attitudes and incendiary statements are entirely predictable. But what were the Times' editors thinking?
3
And this is why you were never confirmed as the UN Ambassador and hopefully will never hold a significant diplomatic post on behalf of the United States ever again.
3
If John Bolton is serious about the need to bomb Iran he will:
-propose a new War Tax. It is critically important that we have the funding available to pay for all of these wars. I'm thinking a 75% tax on incomes over $500,000, increased corporate taxes, initiating a financial transaction tax, reinstating the estate taxes, and taxing capital gains at the same rate as income would be a START.
-propose a draft. We need the man/woman power to adequately do this. This requires a draft. It goes without saying that those people most interested in war should send their children. Thus, all 1st degree relatives of Congress and the Administration must go to war, AND must be on the front lines. No "serving" at an air base in Texas. Front line grunts. If it's good enough for MY kids to die, it's good enough for Bolton's to die too.
-Nationalize the military industrial complex. We need to use our money wisely. We can't be wasting it on CEO bonuses for Lockheed Martin and Boeing. During times of war all employees of military/defense contracting firms etc should be paid what they would be paid at comparable Governmental positions. Pay the CEO's as you would a general perhaps.
-NO foreign firms can be trusted. This means no Halliburton (which is a Dubai company).
If WE are going to do it, then WE need to all pull together and sacrifice. As a team.
If Bolton isn't willing to propose the above measures then we need to pursue other options.
-propose a new War Tax. It is critically important that we have the funding available to pay for all of these wars. I'm thinking a 75% tax on incomes over $500,000, increased corporate taxes, initiating a financial transaction tax, reinstating the estate taxes, and taxing capital gains at the same rate as income would be a START.
-propose a draft. We need the man/woman power to adequately do this. This requires a draft. It goes without saying that those people most interested in war should send their children. Thus, all 1st degree relatives of Congress and the Administration must go to war, AND must be on the front lines. No "serving" at an air base in Texas. Front line grunts. If it's good enough for MY kids to die, it's good enough for Bolton's to die too.
-Nationalize the military industrial complex. We need to use our money wisely. We can't be wasting it on CEO bonuses for Lockheed Martin and Boeing. During times of war all employees of military/defense contracting firms etc should be paid what they would be paid at comparable Governmental positions. Pay the CEO's as you would a general perhaps.
-NO foreign firms can be trusted. This means no Halliburton (which is a Dubai company).
If WE are going to do it, then WE need to all pull together and sacrifice. As a team.
If Bolton isn't willing to propose the above measures then we need to pursue other options.
5
We do not need any of these silly measures. We have more than enough nuclear weapons in our inventory and need no more than a dozen or so to completely destroy Iran.
1
American foreign policy does not work when we act unilaterally.
A huge mistake was made by invading Iraq. By eliminating Iran's nearest foe we strengthened them in the region. Sanctions are working and Kerry and the other foreign powers are making progress.
John Bolton's article has filled me with fear of a return of the neo cons should Jeb Bush be elected president.