http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/?s=al
<http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/?s=al&promo_code=41DC-1>
&promo_code=41DC-1
Bolton: State Department Leftists Have Defeated Bush
Tuesday, December 25, 2007 6:41 PM
By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Article Font Size
<javascript:setActiveStyleSheet('default');>
<javascript:setActiveStyleSheet('largeFont');>
"I think we are very close to a decision point," John Bolton says. "And if
the choice is between nuclear Iran and use of force, I think we have to look
at the use of force."
Resistance by partisan "shadow warriors" at the Department of State has
limited the president's options and is bringing us dangerously close to a
military showdown with Iran, former Bush administration official John Bolton
told Newsmax in an exclusive interview.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice initially had planned to provide
significant aid to the pro-democracy movement in Iran, as a means of giving
the president more policy options, Bolton said. But resistance by the State
Department bureaucracy crippled the programs and rendered them ineffective.
Editor's Note: Get your copy of "Surrender Is Not An Option" FREE, go
<http://shop.newsmax.com/shop/index.cfm?page=products&productid=549> here
now.
"[T]he outcome has been no overt program of support for democracy and no
clandestine program to overthrow the regime," Bolton said.
"This is a classic case study why diplomacy is not cost-free. If we had been
working on regime change effectively over the last four or more years, we
would be in a lot different position today," he added.
The State Department emphasis on European-led negotiations has allowed Iran
to buy time and to perfect the technology it needs to make nuclear weapons,
Bolton argued.
Even if President Bush decided to reinvigorate the pro-democracy programs
tomorrow, Bolton believes we probably don't have enough time for them to be
effective before the Iranians get the bomb.
"I think we are very close to a decision point," Bolton told Newsmax. "And
if the choice is between nuclear Iran and use of force, I think we have to
look at the use of force."
Bolton said that the CIA shared the State Department's opposition to doing
anything overtly or covertly to undermine the Iranian regime, and faulted
Secretary of State Rice for getting "co-opted" by the bureaucracy.
"Secretary Rice has adopted the prevailing view within the bureaucracy,
which have been reflected in our deference to the Europeans and the
exclusively diplomatic approach for four years," he said.
This approach is particularly dangerous because the U.S. intelligence
community has almost always been wrong in its estimates of when Iran could
acquire nuclear weapons capability, Bolton said.
One of reason for the inability to get Iran right is an unwillingness to
talk to Iranian defectors. "Since World War II, the Intelligence community
has disliked exiles and dissidents, claiming they are unreliable because
they have a political agenda. This is just self-blindness," he said.
As a result of such prejudices, "[o]ur lack of reliable intelligence inside
Iran is substantial. Every day the military option is postponed makes it
riskier that we will actually use force but fail to achieve our objectives."
Bolton worries that bad intelligence, coupled to wishful thinking by
bureaucrats who tend to downplay the threat, could lead to strategic
surprise by Iran or North Korea.
"I personally do not believe in just-in-time non-proliferation," he said.
Bolton has long been an advocate of muscular diplomacy.
When he served as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and
Nonproliferation during the early years of the Bush administration, he
frequently crossed swords with arms control advocates who were viscerally
opposed to imposing sanctions on proliferators.
In his recent book, "Surrender is Not an Option," Bolton names one such
official, Vann Van Diepen, who refused to act on direct orders to apply
nonproliferation sanctions.
As Newsmax revealed on December 4, Van Diepen was one of three former State
Department officials who authored the much-disputed recent National
Intelligence Estimate on Iran.
The arms controllers are also trying to rewrite history on North Korea's
nuclear weapons program, Bolton warned.
During negotiations in 2002, the North Korean government admitted that in
addition to its plutonium production reactor at Yongbyon, it also had a
clandestine uranium enrichment program.
For once, Bolton said, "all of the intelligence community agreed that North
Korea had embarked on procurement for a uranium enrichment program."
And yet today, the arms controllers are trying to walk back that conclusion
and "rewrite history" in order to cover-up North Korea's lies and
dissembling, Bolton said.
Bolton also was critical of the Bush White House for not doing more to name
and retain strong conservatives in the administration.
When his nomination to become the permanent U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations was submitted to the Senate, for example, the administration ran a
confirmation battle, whereas the Democrats engaged in a full-fledged
political campaign. "Given that, the outcome was predictable," Bolton said.
The consequences of allowing the shadow warriors run the government instead
of Bush loyalists have been dramatic, since they have succeeded in "turning
the President's policy in effect in a 180-degree U-turn" in North Korea and
other areas, Bolton said.
Bolton said he planned to continue "hawking" his book until Christmas, then
would take off January while he mulled future opportunities.
He said he eventually planned to join one of the Republican presidential
campaigns, but hadn't yet chosen his candidate.
Excerpts from the interview:
NEWSMAX: Do you think we are heading for war with Iran.
JOHN BOLTON: I think there is little doubt that Iran has mastered the
Science and technology it needs to enrich uranium. That means that the time
and the manner in which it acquires a nuclear weapons capability is entirely
within its discretion. It's only a matter of resources, and with oil at 90
dollars a barrel plus, Iran doesn't lack for resources. That means that if
the president follows through on his view that Iranian nuclear weapons are
unacceptable then we are at a decision point very quickly on whether to use
military force.
My preference would be regime change in Iran. I think there is a real
possibility that the different democratic regime would make the decision
that pursuing nuclear weapons is not really in Iran's interest. But that's
nothing you can turn on or off like a light switch. So because of the wasted
time allowing the Europeans to try to negotiate Iran out of nuclear weapons,
I think our options are very few. And if the choice is between nuclear Iran
and use of force, I think we have to look at the use of force.
NEWSMAX: Why do we have so few options now?
BOLTON: Because by deferring to the EU 3 these last four plus, almost five
years. we have limited our ability to do other things to see if we can get
effective sanctions at the Security Council. I don't think sanctions are
going to have a chance of being effective any longer. Especially not UN
sanctions. And this long period of time has put Iran in a much more
favorable position. It's a classic case study why diplomacy is not
cost-free. If we had been working on regime change effectively over the last
four or more years we would be in a lot different position today.
It's not just the nuclear program. It's Iran's support for terrorism in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, the Gaza strip, including their activity
particularly against our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. So if steps are not
taken soon, Iran and other nations in the region will draw the conclusion
that we are not serious about stopping Iran's nuclear program, we are not
serious about stopping Iranian support for terrorism and they will draw the
appropriate conclusions, all of which will be negative to American interest.
NEWSMAX: Why hasn't [Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice] done anything to
help the pro-freedom movement in Iran? Why has the $75 million program to
help the pro-democracy movement had so little impact?
BOLTON: I think there is enormous bureaucratic opposition to doing anything
overtly or covertly from both the State and CIA bureaucracies. And as on so
many other issues, I think, Secretary Rice has adopted the prevailing view
within the bureaucracy, which have been reflected in our deference to the
Europeans and exclusively diplomatic approach for four years.
NEWSMAX: Do you think she is convinced we can do nothing to help the pro
democracy movement? After all this was her program.
BOLTON: This is completely inexplicable to me. On the overt side she
announced it with great fanfare, but as we can see with the recent
resignation of the head of the program at the State Department, it has gone
nowhere. The argument that identifying Iranian Diaspora groups as being
linked to our program makes it disadvantageous for them is belied by the
statements of many of these groups who say 'we need the help and we're
pleased to have it.' But the outcome has been no overt program of support
for democracy and no clandestine program to overthrow the regime. So in
effect, we have been doing nothing for getting on to five years now except
deferring to the Europeans
NEWSMAX: So this leaves us basically with war, or a nuclear armed Iran--
BOLTON? --Or regime change, if we have the time. The problem is we likely do
not have the amount of time that would be required. If we only had been more
active over the past several years we might not be faced with the unhappy
alternative of having to use force.
NEWSMAX: How do you see this scenario developing? How do we get to the point
of using military force? What happens next?
BOLTON: I think we are very close to a decision point. There are all kinds
of estimates of when Iran will actually have a nuclear capability. They are
all based on assumptions. So if some of those assumptions turn out to be
wrong, the Iranians can have the weapons capability much earlier than the
estimates would lead you to believe.
I personally do not believe in just in-time non-proliferation. There's too
much of a risk there that intelligence and analysis can be wrong by
understating the threat as well as by overstating the threat. Moreover the
Iranians are obviously aware of the risk they run and I think every day that
goes by gives them more of an opportunity to harden their existing
facilities such as at Natanz, the uranium enrichment facility, or to build
completely alternative facilities of which we have no knowledge. Our lack of
reliable intelligence inside Iran is substantial. That doesn't make me feel
better; it makes me more nervous. Time is working against us. Every day the
military option is postponed makes it riskier that we will actually use
force but fail to achieve our objectives.
NEWSMAX: I've just written a book called Shadow Warriors that talks about
people in the CIA and the State Department who have attempted to undermine
the president's policies. Do you think the $75 million that Condi announced
to help the pro-freedom movement in Iran was undermined by people who don't
agree with the policy?
BOLTON: I don't think there is any doubt of it. There are many people at the
State Department who simply don't like the concept of regime change whether
done through pro-democracy groups or done clandestinely. They especially
don't like a program that could be said to undercut the European efforts of
diplomacy. I think the failure of the $75 million program sends an enormous
signal through out the bureaucracy that resistance can work. This is going
to have negative consequences not just for the situation in Iran but for a
range of other policy issues around the world.
NEWSMAX: So the shadow warriors won this round?
BOLTON: I think there is no doubt about it. I don't profess to know
everything that went on, but you can tell when the director of the program
resigns and basically says, 'I can't make it work,' that there is obviously
something badly wrong.
NEWSMAX: How is this Administration's track record on hiring and keeping
conservatives in key positions?
BOLTON: I think it is unfortunately not very good. I talk about this in my
book, about what happens when Presidential personnel doesn't focus on the
very difficult circumstances appointees face within the State department,
which is one of the savviest bureaucracies in Washington experts in
co-opting, seducing or subverting political appointees who try to pursue
policies it disagrees with. And I think in this Administration, it has had
considerable success. I use the example of North Korea, and what's happened
to our policy there. What has happened since I wrote the book is an even
more graphic example of the bureaucracy in effect turning the President's
policy in effect in a 180 degree U-turn.
NEWSMAX: Do you think the North Korean have agreed to talk and to shut down
the reactor because they have sold off the critical elements?
BOLTON: I think they are doing the same thing they did under the [1994]
Agreed Framework. I think they have been planning to cheat on their
declaration and their program and hope they get away with it, which they
will if we don't have an adequate verification program.
And I think this facility [in Syria] that the Israelis bombed on September 6
is an indication of yet another alternative, which is either to clone the
Yongbyon reactor or outsource some of the nuclear weapons program. How
better to hide your North Korean program than to build it in Syria where
nobody is looking!
Just this morning there was a story that it may be harder to shut done
Yongbyon than people thought. Now this will extend into the next year, which
I think is part of North Korea's pattern of slow-rolling the program. But
which also shows something which I and others have been saying for some
time, which is that Yongbyon is at or beyond its useful life. Part of the
reason they have difficulties extracting the fuel rods that are in there now
is that the whole facility is in terrible repair, which means they agreeing
to freeze it or even to dismantle it is not such a big concession from the
North Koreans. They may already have been able to extract as much plutonium
as they were going to be able to. Shutting down a broken facility is hardly
a sign of good faith.
NEWSMAX: There is a lot of dispute about North Korea's uranium program. You
write in your book that the North Koreans talked to our delegation in 2002
about the uranium enrichment program. Do you think that is what they
transferred to Syria?
BOLTON: It's hard to say what they've transferred. There was no sign of
radiation escaping after the Israeli attack [on Syria], which seems to
indicate that they proceeded before there was any actual enriched uranium or
even unenriched uranium there. Otherwise you would see likely release of
radiation.
In my book, I go through this business of what Jim Kelly confronted the
North Koreans with in 2002, and what the North Koreans said in response.
There was no ambiguity in 2002 about the intelligence. In fact, what
happened was that in the early summer 2002, for a change, all of the
intelligence community agreed that North Korea had embarked on procurement
for a uranium enrichment program. That was what was significant. That after
years of disagreement within the intelligence community, they had reached
consensus. And there was no dispute at that time. Nor is there really
dispute about the North Korean reaction to Kelly's trip, that they admitted
they had a uranium enrichment program. It's not just my book. Read Jack
Prichard's book, published by Brookings. He says there was no ambiguity, and
he was there!
I think this is significant, because people are now trying to rewrite
history, to help excuse why the North Koreans are not dissembling when they
say they have no enrichment program. They are trying to lay the groundwork
that there never was a program, so when the North Koreans say they don't
have one it's not another example of dissembling.
NEWSMAX: Would their uranium enrichment program have come from Pakistan, or
would they have had access earlier to the technology?
BOLTON: My guess is in part they had some technology from AQ Khan. But I
think it was more of them acting as a general contractor building their own
program, using AQ Khan for pieces of it, as opposed to Libya, who said to AQ
Khan, you are the general contractor, you create the program for us.
NEWSMAX: It really astounds me the lack of information on the Iranian
nuclear program, and the unwillingness of the Intelligence community to talk
to Iranians, even to Iranian exiles.
BOLTON: Since World War II, the Intelligence community has disliked exiles
and dissidents, claiming they are unreliable because they have a political
agenda. This is just self-blindness.
Not only has our human intelligence capability declined dramatically over
the last several decades, there doesn't seem to be much inclination to want
to build it back up.
Look at Joe Wilson: the best our intelligence community can do is send a
former ambassador to Niger to have tea with officials that say, ' so, what's
up on the uranium front?' That's our intelligence community? Forget
everything else about Valerie Plame. That whole story is unbelievable!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.intellnet.org
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods,
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,'
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
