British daily newspaper The Guardian published an article two weeks ago about John Bolton, 71, the Trump Administration’s national security adviser, which they titled: “Is John Bolton the most dangerous man in the world?”
The article’s author puts forward the idea that Bolton has a vision that necessitates the United States to wage a war that enforces its “superiority” towards the rest of the world.
And the ideal war that would achieve this goal of American superiority is a war with Iran. A point of view that Bolton has held for two decades.
Since taking his duties in US President Donald Trump’s administration as a national security adviser, recently (since last April), Bolton has spared no effort to fuel the US’s position on Iran, leading to this escalation.
The danger of the man is that he knows what he’s doing.
“He’s a seasoned bureaucratic infighter who has the skills to press forcefully for his views,” The Guardian wrote.
Through, first: undermining the option of diplomacy in favor of the use of force in various ways. Secondly: stressing that the US would not abide by any agreements that would prevent use of force from the US.
Bolton’s book (nearly 600-pages), “Surrender Is Not an Option,” (2007) reflects his doctrine that attack is the best way to defend the US. He practiced this while working at various administrative levels in the Reagan and George Bush Sr administrations.
But his influence really came when he assumed the post of Undersecretary of State for International Security and Arms Control at the beginning of the first Bush administration. This allowed him to attend meetings for the National Security Council and be in direct contact with the US President, who nominated him as the US delegate to the United Nations in 2005 in his second term.
During this period, Bolton played an influential role in the use of force against Iraq and establishing the idea of overthrowing regimes by external force. And he was constantly inciting against North Korea, Iran, Libya, Syria and Cuba, or what is known to the conservative right as the “axis of evil”.
He has never hid his absolute bias towards Israel. He also succeeded in urging the Bush administration not to sign the Biological Weapons Convention, and is known for encouraging the “anti-International Criminal Court”. Although he wasn’t convinced with the UN’s role, he accepted Bush’s appointment as a US delegate to it in 2005.
In light of his experience in using force and permanently refraining from US involvement in anything that promotes universal peace, Bolton has succeeded since he took up his job as a national security adviser to Trump to push him and his administration towards a climax between many parties in the Middle East.
And to put the United States in confrontation with many international powers. In this regard, The Guardian columnist says “Bolton has been successful in moving the United States toward his desired outcome with Iran.”
Or, in other terms, pushing the US administration to practice escalation and extremism in an international context that has other desires in dealing with these outstanding issues between the parties.
The man’s policies have been described as “hell”.
It is unreasonable that the US administration be dragged into opening up tensions and bowing to the doctrine of exercising absolute power, without cooperating and appreciating the current global balance of power with the rise of India, China and Russia, away from the European ally, etc, and more importantly the growing tiredness towards this “foolishness” in dealing with international affairs.
In this sense, Bolton is a threat to the world today.
This danger exceeds the US toward the international arena. The author of the article indicates that: “…Bolton is on a fast track, seemingly aware that Trump’s time in office may be limited.” Therefore it is necessary for him to invest in his presence.
So will Trump bow to this dangerous man, or get rid of him?