Transcripts For ALJAZ John Bolton 20240712

All the orders. Hes one of the most divisive figures in american Politics Today to some hes washingtons most famous warmonger to others a fearless defender of u. S. Interests john boltons decades of conservative Foreign Policy have influenced the position and actions of the United States in conflicts worldwide. From iraq to iran syria and north korea to mention just a few. Ever since 1st serving on the president Ronald Reagan the administration back in the 1980 s. Bolten built a career as a solid conservative republican politician. He was assistant secretary of state for International Organization when president george h. W. Bush was in the white house and when his son was and was under secretary of state for arms control in the National Security as well as ambassador to the u. N. For president george w. Bush. And most recently National Security adviser to President Donald Trump but theyre working relationship ended in acrimony and accusations of the 17 months trump tweeted Bolton Services will no longer needed in the white house bolton insists he quit his recent book the room where it happened the white house memoir caused controversy is bolton portrays a president driven only by his desire for reelection. In this interview we go beyond this latest well covered controversy to explore what was the truth of his policy advice and positions and whether he has any regrets did he really encourage the trumpet ministration to take on the whole world at the same time as President Trump stated or is he just misunderstood we find out as john bolton talks to. 0. I. Still both and thank you very much for talking to al jazeera well thanks for having me glad to be with you so some call you a whole some see you as a patriot some say even your war monger what term would you use to describe yourself well i dont much like Bumper Sticker terms to begin with ive always tried to formulate come on to the american way isnt it. Not not in policy circles ive always tried to formulate policy with regards to safeguarding american interests around the world and and thats what ive done for a long time all right now would you concede that you made some serious errors of judgment while safeguarding american interests around the world while advocating for some of the wars in the past are associated with the well you have to be more specific im sure ive made my share of mistakes over the course of my professional career but let me examine all the specific then i mean in an interview november 20th 2002 you said quote we are confident Saddam Hussein has hidden weapons of mass destruction and production facilities in iraq that was wrong you can see that was a a massive error in judgment well that was a recitation of what we thought our intelligence showed in substantial part it was due to the declarations that Saddam Hussein himself made in the field of chemical and biological weapons in particular so im not asking you to go back and explain why you said what you said i think were all very familiar with the history of the iraq war but my simple question is it was a massive error of judgment was it not no it wasnt if you want to listen instead of talking ill try and explain it to you ok Saddam Hussein self made declarations about his capabilities. In the area of chemical and biological weapons he stated in disclosures to the United Nations weapons inspectors that he had large stockpiles of chemical weapons manufacturing facilities and the like the the mistake that the u. S. And everybody else made. Was in believing what saddam himself said if you look at the analysis after the war of the Rob Silberman commission they pointed out that at the time of the the actual invasion of iraq in 2003 there was really no dissent from the proposition that saddam had these chemical and biological weapons capabilities in fact i remember hans blix who was the head of the Commission Former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency sang to saddam well look you declared these weapons in the early 1990 s. And now you say that you destroyed them all wheres your verification record she said this isnt the jam i dont think anyone would have a different take perhaps recollection of what happened and how the world viewed some of the claims that u. S. Officials are making to the u. N. Security council that many will unconvinced that enough evidence was that suggested iraq ill really use id be glad when they dont i dont really believe that were going to get. Whatever what i would do and what i was the most. Whatever whatever the reals and everybody who disagreed with Saddam Husseins own assertions about his chemical weapons capability at the time of the invasion of iraq in 2003 i dont think youll find any serious scholar knowledgeable in the area who wouldnt say that saddams claims were correct there were a lot of in fact countries. Felt iraq did not have enough weapons of mass destruction evidence thats why they didnt back the invasion but again my my point is not so much whether i mean its fine if you want to tell viewers that while saddam said it and your job was simply to believe it but my point is lets not go to that of course all right well do you have let me put the question this way do you have any regrets about your role in an invasion which one of the principle bodies of International Law as you know the Un Security Council did not backed in authorize it didnt find weapons of mass destruction and as you know sadly killed a lot of americans and a lot of iraqis a north of 1000000 human beings died in that do you have any regrets about that. Well i think your your figures are grossly inaccurate in the fact that the Security Council didnt authorize it is relevant the United States like every other member of the united his own all the countries it was fair and right and inherent right of individual and collective selfdefense which we exercised Saddam Hussein was a threat to International Peace and security theres no doubt about it and one can argue this out for as long as you want and im happy to do it for the entire half hour we have because i remember a very important your stand you brought it up i didnt bring it up its very important what you what if you have any regrets at all that the world im explaining my answer to thank you that the world is a better place with saddam not only out of power but executed after a trial by his fellow iraqis that didnt solve all the problems in the region thats for sure others have cropped up from iran and elsewhere but the fact is that there was not going to be International Peace and security in the middle east until the belligerent Saddam Hussein regime left the scene so no regrets the only regret i have is that in 2011 barack obama imprudently withdrew all American Forces from iraq i think that well you regret not have one of the whole nation well let me finish my explanation here that led to the subsequent destabilization of the regime that in part contributed to the rise of of isis it was after all the iraqi regime that invaded kuwait in 1990 and set off this entire chain of events that was an active and vocal aggression by Saddam Hussein even though he was expelled from kuwait with massive military losses in 1901 he had not learned his lesson sadly and he was supporting a terrorist. Terror around the region and go home or it will leave us to draw their conclusions on the in 2015 in an op ed for the New York Times you wrote to stop irans bomb bomb iran do you still believe in bombing iran today. You know i didnt write that headline i know some people dont appreciate this but authors dont get to write the headlines for their op ed pieces i would never written a headline that way and i havent written an op ed for the New York Times since then since i think its quite worded what i said my point and i did not quote mr. The family i was going to because its so you does your level coal for the bombing of iran if thats your position i dont know you you you quoted the headline and im explaining to you that the headline was written by the neuron i may have you have a cold you obama is not on yours. Im sure if youll stop for a 2nd ill get to explain what i did say in numerous speeches television and radio appearances and that is that at that time and subsequently the ayatollah his regime was doing everything they could to advance a Nuclear Weapons program and a Ballistic Missile program that threatened their neighbors in the region in europe and ultimately the United States and i believe that because of threat posed by Nuclear Weapons in the hands of a rogue state like iran that we needed to have a much tougher policy does that all of a fluid bombing iraq im sure youre going to let me finish and i just know you are that if we came to as a way to answer your question with all due respect you know that. Thank you that that the use of force could not be ruled out and that the ayatollah is needed understand that please also the question do you think it will do you advocate the bombing of iran today no i dont advocate the bombing of iran today and the reason for that and im sure youll let me give a reason wont you yes please go ahead no thank you ok well thank you very much the reason is that somebody and i dont know who it is has caused a number of detonations at the Natanz Nuclear facility at the parchin facility and at other the soul of these that the government of iran. Self. Has have caused substantial damage to its Nuclear Program now i dont know who it is but i think theyre doing a service to mankind and peace and security in the region the regime of the ayatollah has is a threat its a threat to its neighbors and its a threat global do you think iran should have been bombed back in 2015 when you were giving those t. V. Interviews you mentioned no end because thats not what i said at the time and the fact is over a long period of time around he lied to the International Atomic Energy Agency lied to the International Community lied about its nuclear and Ballistic Missile activities and by this pattern of deceit made substantial progress towards the a strategic objective of getting deliverable Nuclear Weapons i think thats unacceptable and i think that as a matter of basic selfdefense people who fear what could happen when a regime that extreme gets the worlds most destructive weapon that were entitled to take steps to protect ourselves and to prevent it from happening so why do you think so so many people have misunderstood you then if ive understood you correctly are saying you dont advocate bombing iran and you didnt advocate bombing iran in 2015 among those people who seems then to have misunderstood you is the u. S. President himself who in a june 21st 2019 interview when asked if his advisors were pushing him into military action against iran and said quote if it was up to him bolton would take home the whole world at the same time why do you think youre so misunderstood. Well i think the president has his own problems with cognitive ability that was one example of it and you know i cant i cant judge why other people dont read and take seriously what i say or it was not what i had to say id be happy for you to take any quotation that you can find from something ive written or something ive said and id be happy to discuss thank you very much well weve got lots of quotes for thank you for agreeing to look at them for us. Right now 2 years after the u. S. Withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal embarks on the policy of maximum pressure on iran iran is now resumed uranium enrichment as im sure you know its restarted Centrifuge Research and development and expanded its stockpile of nuclear fuel as we sit here today do you think sanctions of work. I think theyve had a crushing effect on the Iranian Regime and in terms of what they were knowing him but i also know they are working on because might be a rainy one you want and im sure youre going to let me finish this and more or maybe ill just continue you know and hope that you know ive you know to hear me if you if you will answer the question the last thing about its an icon that i see i am answering the question what when you interrupt in the middle of a sentence i think thats hardly fair do you think thats fair i think its fair if youre not if youre drifting off with you would you address whether you say you know what i call it a lateral i suppose well youre a big believer in unilateral action on the stand but theres income buyers is there that i want to you just want to just ask the question and give the answer to that life i think the view is of much hey you answer but answer the question so that might. Work so well please answer the question did not do you think its its impacted and reined in irans Nuclear Program know its impact on the regime or its stability all popular or economy i dont believe i dont believe the regime was honoring the Nuclear Agreement to begin with there are a number of violations that that i think youve been way out on the record of the i am vienna and we know in particular that the regime blocked i. A. E. A. Access to a number of sites that they felt they should have access to and we know from the israeli raid which uncovered extraordinary records about iran Nuclear Weapons activity that the entire agreement was based on lies by the regime that it never had a Nuclear Weapons program and that it would continue in that vein so you know i think its a mistake to say we know with certainty what exactly ron was doing during the time that the Nuclear Weapons deal was in effect. Because i think much of what they were doing we didnt have visibility. Do including possible cooperation with north korea which of course also has an illegitimate Nuclear Weapons program when the United States withdrew from the dio in may of 2018 many people say that u. S. Sanctions will not be effective it wont have. It wont put pressure on iran in fact i think the Popular Support for the regime in tehran is at the lowest levels didnt since the revolution of 1979 and i think the ongoing destruction of this program that were seeing now shows that the their efforts to continue to advance towards Nuclear Weapons have never been given up iran has never made a strategic decision to give up its Nuclear Weapons program so with all due respect i let you go and didnt interrupt you this time but you didnt answer the simple thank you and i asked you which was how did it curb the irans Nuclear Program you talk about Everything Else possibly what will leave that i dont we have other questions to cover i think well leave it for the audience and let me ask you about the war in syria if you think it was a mistake to perhaps apply back. A group like the white p. G. The Syrian Kurdish group which has substantial ties according to the testimony of the u. S. Secretary of defense Ashton Carter he confirmed to the Senate Armed Services committee that the y. P. G. Has substantial ties to another Kurdish Group im sure youre familiar with the p k k which as he admitted is the u. S. Considers a terrorist groups should the u. S. Be arming one group linked to terrorists who bomb shopping malls in turkey to try and constrain isis. Well if i had been involved at the beginning in developing the strategy to go after isis i would not have chosen the approach that the Obama Administration did choose but when the trumpet ministration came into office it in here did that strategy when i when i joined the white house and hear that strategy as well and i think it was strongly held view in the correct view of many people that the kurds had lived up to their side of the bargain in syria that they were directing their activities against isis that this was not a situation where they were aiding the p. K. K. In turkey that was the understanding that was reached with them initially and its an understanding that we felt strongly about but we also felt strongly that we should not abandon those Kurdish Forces syrian kurds who had helped us to go after the isis territorial caliphate so with that who are present has aired we already have you already have an answer the question i mean do you think it was appropriate is that should i understand your answer is yes its answer really and if they start you can keep saying that and your viewers will make up their minds ive given you the answer if you want to ask the question again id be happy to show this or did you ever object to that policy when you came in he said the administration knew what an inherited that from the Obama Administration just curious to do have a man. The Main Objective of the policy was the destruction of the isis territorial caliphate and the neutralization isis strength in Eastern Syria and western iraq i think that objective was desirable the vehicle that we were using one of the vehicles we were using was the wife. As i said before as i was answering your question a moment ago they had directed their activities against isis which is what they were originally asked to do and were not providing. The assistance we had given them to the p. K. K. In turkey how do you see the gulf crisis and the split about schools within the region has that opened the door for more iranian influence. Look i think that if if i could wave a magic wand over the g. C. C. Members i would i would see the differences among them result. I think that these differences are real its not its not something that some outsider is going to fix for them i think that if that if there were closer cooperation if there were a stronger front against the main threat to peace and security in the region which is the ayatollah isnt care ron that everyone would be better off but but this is something i dont i dont believe that the United States can influence i think the the gulf arab states will come to their own resolution in their own good time i hope its sooner rather than later but i have a quote for you i hope you were misquoted on this occasion february 28th 2018 you wrote an opinion piece for the wall street journal in which you advocated a 1st strike on north korea saying its perfectly legitimate for the u. S. To respond to the current necessity posed by north koreas Nuclear Weapons by striking 1st so do you still believe the u. S. Should strike 1st against north korea assuming that it was misquoted that i wasnt misquoted i wrote the i wrote the article and it was a basically a justification for preemptive action if we decided to take it met many people argued there was no basis for it and this was a this was a this was the explanation why there was my own preferred outcome in respect to the north korean Nuclear Weapons program is the elimination of north korea by reunifying the Korean Peninsula sensually under the government of south korea i think thats the surest way to avoid the threat of north korea and also to do best by the Korean People so that they do advocate ever to the Trump Administration 1st strike on north korea or ever in your very long illustrious korea. A military attack on north korea. Well look i make the same point about north korea that i have about iran when you see a rogue regime like that threatening the United States and its neighbors we have to consider whats necessary to protect innocent civilians and i write in the book i quote the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Joseph Dunford who said was unthinkable to him is to leave residents of the United States at risk of an attack from north korea i think if we acted. More decisively earlier we wouldnt be at the state we are now where both north korea and iran over these past years have grown much more dangerously close to having a deliverable Nuclear Weapons capability its not just the threat to the United States its its its a threat to many others which is why the priority of preventing Nuclear Proliferation has always been very high on my agenda right that i once again say you are you using very vague and general terms that youve advocated more Decisive Action let me repeat the question which i feel has been with the onset have you advocated the mere economic pressure would be an example of that. No choice called that do you advocate them in did you have advocates a military strike on north korea i said no before and i think the transcript or are you snape will demonstrate that what i was saying was looking at the broad range of policy options you cant rule it out if youre going to protect innocent civilians you cant rule it out do you believe in International Law which you know upholds the very american and international values of of equal rights and justice and accountability for all. Bumping it up old something look im a po when it comes to leak the whole theory im a positivist and i think that much of what passes under the description International Law is is analysis dreamed up by walk professors with a different kind of agenda i think countries that undertake International Obligation should meet their obligations we had this discussion a few moments ago you are perhaps recall that and i think that if there were more attention to holding countries accountable for their commitments in International Agreements wed all be a lot better off without academics firas ing about International Law so who holds countries to account but as you said if some of the victims of the week not everyone has a superpower live on the citizens of a superpower who stand up for that i dont know who. You know i believe in sovereignty and i believe in democratic sovereignty and i dont believe that that theres anybody else who can hold the us accountable i think within. The life on this earth that our Supreme Authority is the constitution of the United States and that anything other than our higher than that so does not leave then the relationship between countries. Down to the principle my says right that the strong through the Bilateral Agreements or ability to negotiate on that 2 agreements get that way. Over others. No i dont think it means that at all you want you want to have a half hour discussion of International Law im raring to go except i think were going to cut me off here in about 30 seconds but i think youve youre really. Boil the surface of it thank you so much well let me that ask you about if you have any regrets this is not my feelings this is to quote the a. C. L. U. Do you have any regrets about threatening the International Court of justice judges and prosecutors with sanctions something the a. C. L. U. Said quote the National Security advisers trying to intimidate judges and prosecutors by treating them like drug traffickers i think i think the i. C. C. Is illegitimate i believe that for many years and ive written about that at great wanted perhaps your quote needs you know you well you didnt mind quoting the a. C. L. U. So when you referred to it in a tweet of june 16th 2020 saying please see the a. C. L. U. Statement on my upcoming book release is the a. C. L. U. Only worth quoting when it defends your book and not when its defending the rights of what it says all victims of torture in afghanistan who require i dont i think. You know this is been interesting and weve had a half an hour than our promised and glad to do it i think you polled people who normally disagree with you when they do disagree with you concerning you proves how strong your own point is thank you very much john bolton that i. Counting the costs cold war true could the u. S. Break calm calling spread to the dollar on the verge of another currency shock turkey at war in libya and syria and president putin hope to kick start the economy this year but how will he pay for his big plans. Counting the cost on aljazeera. The. Hello im Barbara Starr in london these of the top stories on aljazeera e. U. Leaders have met for a sir today in brussels to discuss the blocks long term budget members are divided over a multibillion dollar Coronavirus Recovery Fund designed to pull europe out of its deepest recession in decades neve barker reports. Out to 857000000000. 00 the questions confounded e. U. Leaders for days and deepened all divisions within the plonk it wont help nations notice the frugal for austria denmark sweden and another lins the wealthy in