Amb. John Bolton discusses the ‘ObamaBomb’ with Secure Freedom Radio

The distinguished John Bolton joins the show today and it’s not one to miss. Bolton’s vast national security and foreign policy expertise are brought to bear in his analysis of the Iran deal, nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, and even a special reference to Bruce Springsteen… Enjoy.

Find Audio File Here

FG: Welcome to Secure Freedom Radio, this is Frank Gaffney, your host and guide for what I think of as an intelligence briefing on the war for the free world. We have a very special treat in store. My colleague Jim Hanson, the Executive Vice President of the Center for Security Policy, caught up with Ambassador John Bolton, the former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Undersecretary of State for International Security Policy. He is a man who has commended himself to the security of our country, authored a marvelous book on the subject, “Surrender is Not an Option” and gives us a critical analysis of what President Obama has done with the so-called ‘ObamaBomb’ deal. Here’s Jim Hanson and Ambassador John Bolton.

Jim Hanson: Welcome to Secure Freedom Radio, this is Jim Hanson, Executive Vice President of the Center for Security Policy, sitting in for Frank Gaffney. We have the extreme pleasure this segment of being joined by Former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations John Bolton. He was also Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, and he is currently a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Welcome, Ambassador.

John Bolton: Glad to be with you. Thanks for having me back.

JH: Well, we have a monumental deal in front of us that has been sold to the public as a way to stop the Iranian government from its goal of a nuclear weapon. Have the Iranians changed their minds? Is this actually a change in policy, or are we being sold a bill of goods?

JB: Well, I think we are being sold a bill of goods by the President. I have compared this to an American diplomatic ‘Waterloo.’ The Iranians have achieved every one of their most important objectives, particularly unfreezing tens of billions, maybe hundreds of billions, of assets and getting relief from economic sanctions. And in return they have only given up the most trivial, easily reversible concessions on their nuclear program. The fact is that there is simply no evidence, and certainly the Obama Administration has not produced any, that indicates Iran has really made a strategic decision to reverse thirty plus years of policy where they have been seeking nuclear weapons. I think Iran is nearly certain to violate this deal based on their past performance, probably already is already violating the deal. We don’t have adequate measures to detect these violations, and the agreement’s so-called enforcement mechanisms really, I think, will become objects of derision in the very near future.

JH: Folks, we’re talking here on Secure Freedom Radio with Former Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton. You seem particularly skeptical of the idea that the Iranians will comply, and I think that’s justified. If they did comply with the deal, the best we get is eight to ten years of relief, at which point they are pretty much unfettered in their path to develop a weapon. What then should we do? Now, you’ve made some fairly muscular calls, as you are wont to do about what we could actually do. Is there a path to militarily at least slow down their program enough to make it worth that fairly significant risk?

JB: Here’s the choice that we face, and we faced it for quite some time, I’d say at least seven or eight years. And the choice is between a nuclear Iran, on the one hand, and all of the consequences that means in the Middle East and around the world, or using military force to stop it. The president has, as usual, posited a false choice. This deal is not going to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, and if the deal collapsed and Iran went on its way, it would still get nuclear weapons. It’s a very unpleasant choice to have to talk about military force. Israel has had to answer that question twice before in its history, and in both cases has struck nuclear weapons programs in the hands of hostile states – Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007. And that’s really the choice we face. Now, you know, this is not being belligerent. After all, the President of the United States, Barack Obama, has said repeatedly all options are on the table, which is a code phrase for the use of military force. The problem is, nobody believes the president. The Iranians don’t believe him. The Israelis don’t believe him. I don’t believe him. So, it’s pretty clear that during the remainder of his presidency, no matter how many times he says all options are on the table, there is zero chance that the U.S. will use military force against Iran. That’s why the spotlight is on Israel. If you don’t like Iran’s behavior today, imagine what it will be like once they get nuclear weapons. And the alternatives that many people talk about – bringing sanctions back into effect, reviving the ones we have and adding to them – is delusional. The Europeans are lined up for very lucrative trade and investment agreements. The pressure on the European governments to make this happen is overwhelming, and as I paraphrase Bruce Springsteen in an op-ed on Sunday, these sanctions are going boys, and they aint’ coming back.

JH: [Laughing]. If the boss says it, it has to be true. Now, it seems President Obama has put some roadblocks in the path of Israel taking any military action previously, and from a lot of folks’ understanding of the deal as its currently laid on the table, it seems like we’re required, the United States is required, to bodyguard Iran’s nuclear program. Is that another attempt to put a perhaps physical or human shield factor into stopping Israel from taking action?

JB: I think that what we’ve committed, at least as I read the document, is to provide the kind of security to Iran against terrorists stealing their nuclear technology or in some sense learning from them. And we’ve discussed similar kinds of protections with others, including the former Soviet Union under the Nunn-Lugar Program. I think that’s bad enough. After all, Iran is the world’s central banker for international terrorism, and the notion that we’re protecting their nuclear program against other terrorists is ludicrous on its face. But I don’t think this necessarily, as I read the language, requires us to defend Iran against a potential Israeli attack. But I will say this as well: This is a lengthy, complicated document. I’ve read through it, and parts of it several times. I need to read through it again about three or four more times before I will feel comfortable that I totally understand it, and beyond that, I think that it is absolutely essential that Congress, in its sixty day review process, stand up on its hind legs and say, “We want every side deal, every codicil, every understanding, every wink and nod, whether they’re written down or not, anything in any way related to this deal, that the president has committed to.” Because it may well be that there are verbal understandings, written side deals. Who knows what there is in addition to the ones already that are already mentioned in the deal itself between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency? I’m just worried that the four corners of the deal itself don’t contain all the critical provisions, and I just think Congress and its committees have to insist on this. No compromise on it. They need to see it. I think the American people should see them, too.

JH: That would be a breath of fresh air, and the Senate performing its constitutional duties to advise and consent, as you mentioned, would be helpful just to illuminate all of the side deals and other things you mentioned. One thing that has been brought up recently is the possibility that this deal may violate the provisions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Now, that is an actual treaty that is a legitimate piece of legislation, or treaty with the force of a federal statute. Is there a possibility that this executive action, which Obama purposely avoided making a treaty, may in some way, shape, or form run afoul of the actual signed treaty, the NPT.

JB: I think Iran’s conduct for the last thirty years has been in violation of the NPT, so the agreement would simply be a pimple on the body politic of what Iran is already doing. I mean, fundamentally, there has been a lot written, I’m sure there will be more written, about this legality and that legality, and just speaking as lawyer, none of this has to do with law. This is about power. Iran’s got it, and it’s going to get more when it get nuclear weapons, and we’re standing back and doing nothing, or waiting for Israel to do the job for us. That’s the reality, and until we address that, until we recognize that we are allowing Iran to become a nuclear weapons state threatening the region and the world, and it doesn’t stop with Iran. Other countries in the region have seen the course we are on. We are already in the opening stages of a nuclear arms race, Saudi Arabia looking to get nuclear weapons, Egypt, Turkey, perhaps others. So then in a relatively short period of time as these thing go, five or ten years, you could see half a dozen nuclear weapons states in the Middle East. That is what the president is allowing to happen.

JH: Well, that would be a disgrace and for a man who came to power with an avowed goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons, I think one of his legacies may well be, as you just mentioned, proliferating them across one of the most volatile regions in the world. Thank you very much, Ambassador. We have been talking with John Bolton, former United States Ambassador to the United Nations, about the dangers posed by President Obama’s Iran deal.