Speaker 1: John Bolton has spent years arguing that bombing Iran isn't
Speaker 1: just justified, but necessary.
Speaker 2: Because Iran, for many decades has been the world central
Speaker 2: banker of international terrorism, funding Shia Sunni terrorist on an
Speaker 2: equal opportunity basis.
Speaker 1: For decades, he's argued that American military force has solved
Speaker 1: the problem of hostile regimes in the Middle East. He
Speaker 1: backed the invasion of Iraq, champion some of the most
Speaker 1: disastrous American interventions of the modern era, and despite that,
Speaker 1: he's still arguing more force, more intervention, and more regime
Speaker 1: change will bring stability to the Middle East. Now, as
Speaker 1: the US escalates again, Bolton's worldview is back at the
Speaker 1: center of the debate, a world view that when it
Speaker 1: comes to Iran, our government shares. I'm Daniel James and
Speaker 1: you're listening to seven am today former US National Security
Speaker 1: Advisor John Bolton on the strikes on Iran and why
Speaker 1: a man who backed the invasion of Iraq still sees
Speaker 1: bombing as the answer. It's Friday, March twelve, Ambassador Bolton.
Speaker 1: This war has been criticized by world leaders, by international
Speaker 1: policy experts, by politicians in our country and in yours.
Speaker 1: You say it's legally questionable, strategically risky, and morally unjustified.
Speaker 2: We seem to be on a path without any clear
Speaker 2: aestimati on cost.
Speaker 3: The powers involved in this conflict must immediately cease hostilities
Speaker 3: and commit to dialogue and diplomacy.
Speaker 1: Blo Mafia.
Speaker 3: Nobody believes that Donald Trump is engaged in this war
Speaker 3: on the side of the Iranian people for democracy and
Speaker 3: human rights.
Speaker 1: Why then, do you think it was the right call
Speaker 1: for America to bomb our aunt Well?
Speaker 2: I think the objective of regime change in Iran, which
Speaker 2: may or may not be Donald Trump's objective, who knows,
Speaker 2: But I think legitimate reason here is that we've had
Speaker 2: ample demonstration over a sustained period of time that Iran's
Speaker 2: quest for deliverable nuclear weapons and its support for international
Speaker 2: terrorism in the Middle East and around the world is
Speaker 2: a threat to our security, the security of Israel, the
Speaker 2: security of our friends in the our world, and really
Speaker 2: the West as a whole, and that it's been demonstrated
Speaker 2: that there is no alternative that will eliminate the threat
Speaker 2: other than taking military action against the regime in hopes
Speaker 2: of toppling it and giving the people of Iran the
Speaker 2: chance to take control of their own government. So I
Speaker 2: think it's strategically necessary. I think it's perfectly legitimate, and
Speaker 2: indeed it is the moral thing to do to rid
Speaker 2: the world of this abhorrent autocracy.
Speaker 1: Knowing Donald Trump as you do, and having worked along
Speaker 1: beside him, how much confidence, if any, do you have
Speaker 1: that this decision was driven by a coherent strategy rather
Speaker 1: than impuls because in the dice. Since the stroke, the
Speaker 1: White House has offered shifting explanations of itsimes, including mixed
Speaker 1: messages about regime change to terrence and durriction of the conflict.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm sure it was not driven by a coherent strategy.
Speaker 2: He doesn't do coherent strategy. He doesn't have a philosophy,
Speaker 2: he doesn't do policy the way we normally understand it.
Speaker 1: You just said it is a little excursion and you
Speaker 1: said it is a war.
Speaker 2: So which one is it?
Speaker 4: Well, it's both. It's both. It's an excursion that will
Speaker 4: keep us out of a war, and the war is
Speaker 4: going to be uh, I mean for them, it's a war.
Speaker 4: For us, it's turned out to be easier than we thought.
Speaker 4: But think of it. They had thousands of missiles, seven
Speaker 4: eight thousand missiles.
Speaker 2: I tried to persuading that our objective should be regime
Speaker 2: change back in the first term, obviously without success. And
Speaker 2: I have to say, I'm still wondering who had the
Speaker 2: magic words that made him change his mind this time?
Speaker 1: Was it Benjamin na Perhaps?
Speaker 2: Well, I don't think so, because that's been that Nahu's
Speaker 2: policy for a long time, including in the first term.
Speaker 2: He's thought about regime change because of its implications for
Speaker 2: Israel longer and harder than anybody else. And he wasn't
Speaker 2: able to persuade Trump in the first term. So there's
Speaker 2: something out there that did this, And I don't know
Speaker 2: what it was, and I don't know how long it
Speaker 2: will last. It may have faded already.
Speaker 1: You say that lock Trump, you want raging change, but
Speaker 1: already the slain Autoritoles been replaced by his son. He
Speaker 1: was close with the Revolutionary Guard. Di you CoA said
Speaker 1: that to be raging change, and what good's that change?
Speaker 1: The replacement leader is just as bad or worse.
Speaker 2: No, to me, regime change it means getting rid of
Speaker 2: not only the Iotolas but the Revolutionary Guard. I could
Speaker 2: make a pretty good argument that functionally the Revolutionary Guard
Speaker 2: is in charge of the country. Now they control the
Speaker 2: nuclear and ballistic missile programs. By most estimates, they control
Speaker 2: at least forty percent of Iran's economy, and the Iatola's
Speaker 2: served mainly as theological cover, kind of ideological legitimacy for
Speaker 2: the regime itself.
Speaker 1: So you know.
Speaker 2: The sign of the former Supreme leader, it's you know,
Speaker 2: new bo, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Speaker 1: Us intelligence has warned that there's not a strong alternative
Speaker 1: opposition in our oan, So heady get raging change in
Speaker 1: those conditions.
Speaker 2: Well, the regime is more unpopular and weaker than at
Speaker 2: any point since it took power in nineteen seventy nine.
Speaker 2: The demonstrations in December and January were caused fundamentally by
Speaker 2: really economic conditions that have taken the economy to its
Speaker 2: lowest point in anybody's memory. Today's demonstrations the largest so far,
Speaker 2: and in their second week, flames and fury over the
Speaker 2: country's currency falling to a record low. According to the
Speaker 2: young people, who amount two thirds of the people under
Speaker 2: thirty are dissatisfied. They know they could have a different life.
Speaker 2: They can see it across the Gulf. The women have
Speaker 2: been dissatisfied for three years or more after the murder
Speaker 2: of Masiamini, the young Kurdish woman who defied the iatola's
Speaker 2: command to wear the he job. And one thing about
Speaker 2: the opposition of the women. Every ayetola, every revolutionary guard
Speaker 2: general has a mother, A lot of them have sisters,
Speaker 2: wives and daughters, and they hear the same thing from
Speaker 2: all of them. So the effect of these US and
Speaker 2: Israeli airstrikes is to destabilize the regime at the top,
Speaker 2: to open fractures in the regime, to get the leaders
Speaker 2: going at each other. And I think the elevation of
Speaker 2: the Supreme Leader's son to the Supreme Leader position has
Speaker 2: already helped increase those fractures. The whole concept of the
Speaker 2: Islamic Revolution, I think has to be thrown out ultimately.
Speaker 2: I think that's what the people of Iran want. What
Speaker 2: kind of government they want going forward, I don't know,
Speaker 2: and I can tell you one thing, We're not going
Speaker 2: to dictate it from the outside.
Speaker 1: Both the International Atomic Energy Agency and US intelligence assists
Speaker 1: that Iran's weapons program was shot in two thousand and three.
Speaker 1: Iran hasn't reached uranium to dangerous levels, but that's not
Speaker 1: the same thing as proven weaponization. The Iraq War was
Speaker 1: sold on weapons development claims that turned out to be
Speaker 1: utterly false. Why should audiences trust youal certainty and the
Speaker 1: certainty of the administration when the central premise of what
Speaker 1: happened in Iraq was so catastrophically wrong.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't think the central Iraq premise was so
Speaker 2: catastrophically wrong. In fact, you now have Democrats in the
Speaker 2: United States. This is very interesting saying that you know,
Speaker 2: the bombing of Iran's nuclear weapons program isn't going to
Speaker 2: end as the nuclear threat. They say, the knowledge of
Speaker 2: how to build a nuclear program can't be a ra
Speaker 2: by bombing. They are correct, and in Iraq, after the
Speaker 2: UN found after the First Golf War a much more
Speaker 2: extensive nuclear weapons program in Iraq than anybody had known before,
Speaker 2: and they dismantled that in the nineties into the George W.
Speaker 2: Bush administration, Sodom Hussein kept together three thousand roughly roughly
Speaker 2: three thousand nuclear scientists and technicians. He called them his
Speaker 2: nuclear Mujahideen, and these people had the intellectual capacity to
Speaker 2: rebuild the nuclear weapons program, which was one reason we
Speaker 2: thought Saddam was a threat that is precisely what the
Speaker 2: Democratic senators and others are saying today. Trump's bombing of
Speaker 2: the nuclear facilities will not accomplish. When you see the
Speaker 2: persistence with which the Iranians have pursued nuclear weapons, it's
Speaker 2: very clear they regard this as something central to their
Speaker 2: regimes legitimacy. They're not going to give it up. They'll
Speaker 2: negotiate to give it up, they'll make all kinds of concessions,
Speaker 2: but they will never stop that pursuit. And when you
Speaker 2: combine it with what they've done in terms of the
Speaker 2: support of terrorist groups, and you listen to them for
Speaker 2: forty seven years chant death to America, you know eventually
Speaker 2: you should take it.
Speaker 1: Seriously coming out what's an acceptable amount of bloodshed to
Speaker 1: bring down the regime? Ambassador, we know from Iraq, Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: and Libya that toppling regimes is easier than building stable
Speaker 1: states afterwards. How will Iron be any different to the
Speaker 1: chaos and long term conflict we saw after American interventions there?
Speaker 2: Well, I don't think the three cases are at all similar.
Speaker 2: I think in the case of Afghanistan, the mistake we
Speaker 2: made was in trying to build a central, unitary state,
Speaker 2: which was contrary to a millennium of afghan culture. I
Speaker 2: think we could have left well enough alone in many senses,
Speaker 2: and I think the biggest mistake we made in Afghanistan
Speaker 2: was leaving, because if we were still there, we'd have
Speaker 2: much greater visibility into the risk of terrorist attack. I
Speaker 2: think our mistake in Iraq was not overthrowing Saddam. That
Speaker 2: was an incredible military success. It was setting up the
Speaker 2: Coalition provisional Authority and becoming a governing force, a political
Speaker 2: player in Iraqi affairs. Was done with the best of intentions,
Speaker 2: but it was a mistake. I think we should have
Speaker 2: turned matters back to the Iraqis as early as possible
Speaker 2: and let them decide what they want to do and
Speaker 2: make the mistakes that we made and learned from them.
Speaker 2: In the case of Iran, that's why I described a
Speaker 2: moment ago. I think a military government and interim kind
Speaker 2: of regime, at least one that's not run by religious fanatics,
Speaker 2: is going to be necessary to restore order and could
Speaker 2: provide a basis for a real constitutional debate. So that's
Speaker 2: something roughly I think what might work in Iran.
Speaker 1: You said that these could take months, not wakes. What
Speaker 1: level of regional escalation, civilian death toll, oil shock and
Speaker 1: retaliation against the US, to your God, is acceptable as
Speaker 1: a prose for pursuing graijame change.
Speaker 2: Well, I think the Iranian decision to attack the Gulf
Speaker 2: Arab States has turned into a catastrophic mistake for them.
Speaker 3: A missile fragment falling to the ground and exploding in Doha,
Speaker 3: the capital of Kutter. It's part of the retaliation from
Speaker 3: Iran after the US and Israel launched a massive.
Speaker 2: Enough they thought they could intimidate the golf Arab States,
Speaker 2: and it turned out they were wrong. I think the
Speaker 2: golf Arab States always wanted regime change, they just wanted
Speaker 2: it without a lot of fuss and bother and I
Speaker 2: understand that that's not possible, but I think they will
Speaker 2: resist it. And in terms of the damage that's being done,
Speaker 2: I think if you could measure the amount of let's
Speaker 2: just call it tonnage of bombs that are being dropped
Speaker 2: on Iran compared to the tonnage of bombs they're dropping
Speaker 2: on all of their adversaries, the ratio is unbelievably, unbelievably
Speaker 2: heavy in favor of the anti Iotota forces. And that's
Speaker 2: what's going to cause their problems internally if.
Speaker 1: We zoom that for a moment, Ambstaday, Does this wall
Speaker 1: benefit China or Russia?
Speaker 2: Well? I think in the short term it benefits Russia
Speaker 2: a little bit because it's driven up the oil prices.
Speaker 2: But ultimately Iran is a surrogate, an outrider for both
Speaker 2: Russia and China in the new Sino Russian axis that's
Speaker 2: being formed. They lost the Aside regime in Syria last year,
Speaker 2: They've partially lost Venezuela, they maybe on the verge of
Speaker 2: losing Cuba, and now Iran is under great pressure. That
Speaker 2: leaves them with the real wonderful choices of Belarus and
Speaker 2: North Korea as the remaining outriders. And I think ultimately
Speaker 2: this shows to them that we have the capability to
Speaker 2: affect them in their part of the world, so to speak,
Speaker 2: and they don't have any comparable capability.
Speaker 1: What about Ukraine? Has this war harmed Ukraine? I mean
Speaker 1: burning through me to set missiles that Kiev has been
Speaker 1: begging for, the deployment of Tomahawks that Ukraine has also
Speaker 1: been calling for. Has this harmed their chances of defeating
Speaker 1: Russia or pushing back Russia?
Speaker 2: Well, I think Trump had so reduced the amount of
Speaker 2: assistance we were giving that it's hard to imagine he
Speaker 2: could give up more. The one the one thing I'm
Speaker 2: worried about is because Russia has reportedly been providing Iran
Speaker 2: not just with military intelligence but tactical advice on use
Speaker 2: of drones that they've learned against Ukraine, that at some
Speaker 2: point Putin could say to Trump, Look, Donald, we shouldn't
Speaker 2: be adverse to each other. Let's make a deal. I'll
Speaker 2: cut off military intelligence to Iran. If you cut off
Speaker 2: military intelligence to Ukraine, that would be a big problem.
Speaker 2: And that may be what Putin is waiting to do.
Speaker 1: That would worry me and bessid is the measure of
Speaker 1: success for Trump, reging change or whether this war results
Speaker 1: in a turnaround in his flagging poll numbers.
Speaker 2: The only result that ever matters to Donald Trump is
Speaker 2: the greater glorification of Donald Trump. And that's why he can't.
Speaker 2: He stopped the Twelve Day War last summer after one
Speaker 2: day of American bombing with fourteen bunker busters because it
Speaker 2: was an unqualified success, and the bunker busters did enormous
Speaker 2: damage to the Iranian nuclear program, they did not obliterated
Speaker 2: as Trump said, because he never he always exaggerates. But
Speaker 2: they did do substantial damage. There was much more to do,
Speaker 2: but he cut it off because he had what he wanted,
Speaker 2: had visible success, no casualties, and if he cut it off,
Speaker 2: no more risk. That's what I'm worried about here, and
Speaker 2: I think that's what the Israelis are worried about. I
Speaker 2: don't think they have the practical capability or the political
Speaker 2: leeway to continue the war after the US stops, whether
Speaker 2: they want to or not.
Speaker 1: What are the chances if this action isn't successful, whatever
Speaker 1: success is defined for the president, that he will just
Speaker 1: turn around and blame Israel for its lack of success.
Speaker 2: Well, if something goes wrong, it won't be Donald Trump's
Speaker 2: fault because it never is. So he might blame Bibet
Speaker 2: in Yahoo, he might blame somebody in his own administration,
Speaker 2: but it won't be his fault. I'm sure that.
Speaker 1: So finally, Ambassador, what does victory look like to you?
Speaker 1: In Iran? You've laid out some of the aspects of it,
Speaker 1: but five years down the track, ten years down the track,
Speaker 1: what does success look.
Speaker 2: Like if this eliminates the nuclear program and the support
Speaker 2: for terrorism and the ballistic missile program and the iatolas
Speaker 2: and the Revolutionary Guard are out. I would consider that success.
Speaker 2: I don't expect Iran to become a Jeffersonian democracy. If
Speaker 2: they were still under a military government, let's say, like Egypt,
Speaker 2: they would still be infinitely better than what we have now.
Speaker 1: Ambassador Bolton, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 2: Well thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Also in the news, Alassian workers have lashed out a
Speaker 1: billionaire boss, Mike cannon Brooks, after he acts ten percent
Speaker 1: of the software company's staff via email on Thursday. The
Speaker 1: Australian founder blamed AI for the sixteen hundred job losses,
Speaker 1: five hundred of which are in Australia. He told staff
Speaker 1: AI is changing the mix of skills needed and the
Speaker 1: number of roles in certain areas. The sealed section of
Speaker 1: the Robodet Royal Commission has been released. Three years after
Speaker 1: the final report. The Anti Corruption Commission found two former
Speaker 1: public servants, Serena Wilson and Mark Whitnol, had engaged in
Speaker 1: serious corrupt conduct. However, the watchdog concluded they will not
Speaker 1: be referred to face criminal charges. Another four people, including
Speaker 1: former Prime Minister Scott Morrison, were cleared I'm Daniel James.
Speaker 1: You've been listening to seven AM. We'll be back tomorrow.