Bolton: Israel Must Bomb Iran
Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton addressed a crowded room at the American Enterprise Institute today, saying that “the use of force is required” to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and predicting that he didn’t “think that Israel [would] hesitate to act preemptively.”
At a panel discussion titled "Should Israel Attack Iran?", the Bush appointee pulled no punches in criticizing his former boss, arguing that President Bush should have struck at Iran’s nuclear capabilities when he had the chance:
I had once thought the Bush administration would [bomb Iran] before it left office because it liked to say that an Iran with nuclear weapons was unacceptable, and I used to think that when the President said ‘unacceptable’ that he meant ‘unacceptable’... It’s a difficult mission. We can do it better. That’s why I thought we should do it.
Bolton justified his stance by pointing out the regional implications of a successful Iranian nuclear weapons program:
Once Iran gets nuclear weapons, we are in danger on a worldwide basis... Iran isn’t the end of the problem. The real difficulty with that analysis is that Saudi Arabia will get nuclear weapons, probably Egypt, probably Turkey, possibly others. So within a five to ten year period, you’ll have half a dozen nuclear countries in the Middle East... almost guaranteeing a nuclear exchange at some point or another.
Bolton also argued that the failure of the international community’s efforts to contain Iran was another reason for a pre-emptive strike, noting that “the other options have failed, are failing and will fail.”
As evidence, he pointed to the three U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding sanctions on Iran, opining that they have to this date made “no material impact on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.” The former ambassador to the U.N. further said that future sanctions would prove to be similarly ineffective:
The prospect of sanctions in the future is illusory...The combination of Russian and Chinese action in the Security Council on any hypothetical fourth resolution would end up watering it down just like the first three.
Bolton conceded that an Israeli strike would likely lead to an overwhelmingly negative reaction from within the Obama administration, saying that he didn’t “think it will be at the level of military force against Israel. But I think that it will cause a very dramatic break in the relationship between the Obama administration and Israel.”
Other panelists hesitated to go as far as Ambassador Bolton, who at one point contended that “the ideal outcome is regime change.”
Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, cautioned that striking Iran’s nuclear weapons capability would instantly legitimize Iran’s nuclear weapons program. “An Israeli strike is a lousy scenario for the U.S.,” he said.