John Bolton on Iran – Regime change or military force!
Ian Brockwell
March 21, 2007
John Bolton, the former envoy to the United Nations, who despite being rejected by the Senate, was given the job by George Bush during a Congressional recess, has made the headlines again with his latest remarks on Iran.
Bolton, who was forced to step down as envoy to the United Nations because the Senate still wouldn’t back him, was quoted as saying “I believe that ultimately the only real prospect of getting Iran to give up nuclear weapons is to change the regime”. When asked how this should be achieved, he replied “By the force of the Iranian people themselves….But if the alternative is a nuclear Iran, as unpleasant as the use of military force would be, I think the prospect of a nuclear Iran is worse”.
It was interesting to note that he said “getting Iran to give up nuclear weapons”, as if they already had them, even the “dubious” intelligence reports haven’t made that claim yet. But Bolton has a habit of speaking first, and sometimes thinking later, and gives the impression of containing a lot of anger inside. He has been very critical of Kofi Annan, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations in the past, and the organization itself. When making his comments about Iran, he was also quoted as saying it was time to contemplate regime change in Sudan.
According to Bolton, there seems to be just two choices in dealing with Iran, changing the regime (with or without the help of the Iranian people) or using military force to effectively achieve the same result. There is of course another choice, but a “peaceful settlement” does not seem to be an option that Bolton is prepared to consider. It may be of interest to note that the title of a book he is writing is called “Surrender is Not an Option” and this tends to enforce the image he has of being diplomatically inflexible.
Iran maintains that the uranium enrichment is for nuclear power plants, and such a plant is currently being built with Russia’s help. But what if Iran really is planning to create nuclear weapons, should we be surprised? Iran have made no threats to attack anyone, unless they themselves are attacked, and the only two countries that frequently talk of doing this (Israel and the US), both have nuclear capabilities. Perhaps, if Iran was to obtain these weapons as well, it would act as a deterrent and create more of a balance in the Middle East.
No one wants to see more countries taking the nuclear path, but it seems very hypocritical of the US and Israel to make Iran a special target. Is the world so certain that nuclear weapons are safer in Israel’s hands than Iran’s? And which country is the only one to ever use a nuclear device so far?
It is a little worrying that people like John Bolton seem so obsessed with the desire to change any country that is not like their own and are unable to understand the cultures that have existed there for thousands of years. Throughout history people have changed the destiny of their countries when they felt it was time to do so. This would have happened in Iraq, it may happen in Iran, and it did happen in the US (Independence). Maybe we should allow other countries to fight for their own freedom, in their own time and give them the pride and satisfaction of achieving this for themselves? The US achieved great success after gaining their independence, so the formula seems to work!
Bolton, who was forced to step down as envoy to the United Nations because the Senate still wouldn’t back him, was quoted as saying “I believe that ultimately the only real prospect of getting Iran to give up nuclear weapons is to change the regime”. When asked how this should be achieved, he replied “By the force of the Iranian people themselves….But if the alternative is a nuclear Iran, as unpleasant as the use of military force would be, I think the prospect of a nuclear Iran is worse”.
It was interesting to note that he said “getting Iran to give up nuclear weapons”, as if they already had them, even the “dubious” intelligence reports haven’t made that claim yet. But Bolton has a habit of speaking first, and sometimes thinking later, and gives the impression of containing a lot of anger inside. He has been very critical of Kofi Annan, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations in the past, and the organization itself. When making his comments about Iran, he was also quoted as saying it was time to contemplate regime change in Sudan.
According to Bolton, there seems to be just two choices in dealing with Iran, changing the regime (with or without the help of the Iranian people) or using military force to effectively achieve the same result. There is of course another choice, but a “peaceful settlement” does not seem to be an option that Bolton is prepared to consider. It may be of interest to note that the title of a book he is writing is called “Surrender is Not an Option” and this tends to enforce the image he has of being diplomatically inflexible.
Iran maintains that the uranium enrichment is for nuclear power plants, and such a plant is currently being built with Russia’s help. But what if Iran really is planning to create nuclear weapons, should we be surprised? Iran have made no threats to attack anyone, unless they themselves are attacked, and the only two countries that frequently talk of doing this (Israel and the US), both have nuclear capabilities. Perhaps, if Iran was to obtain these weapons as well, it would act as a deterrent and create more of a balance in the Middle East.
No one wants to see more countries taking the nuclear path, but it seems very hypocritical of the US and Israel to make Iran a special target. Is the world so certain that nuclear weapons are safer in Israel’s hands than Iran’s? And which country is the only one to ever use a nuclear device so far?
It is a little worrying that people like John Bolton seem so obsessed with the desire to change any country that is not like their own and are unable to understand the cultures that have existed there for thousands of years. Throughout history people have changed the destiny of their countries when they felt it was time to do so. This would have happened in Iraq, it may happen in Iran, and it did happen in the US (Independence). Maybe we should allow other countries to fight for their own freedom, in their own time and give them the pride and satisfaction of achieving this for themselves? The US achieved great success after gaining their independence, so the formula seems to work!
Print
Email
