Get Adobe Flash Player to see this content.

About This Video

Who's Calling the Shots?

Title:

Who's Calling the Shots?

Published: Fri, 31 Jul 2009

Description: John Bolton on U.S. foreign policy decisions

-

Automatically Generated Transcript (may not be 100% accurate)

" with -- ambassador thanks having an indictment welcome to the web that are usually your daughters of big webcam action on the level of right as an as a young Morgan Stanley analyst and I think that's all it does work on the current. This is -- that right here this what's happening. You obviously you -- very critical of George W. Bush so it's of his foreign policy so you're critical of Obama I take it seriously injured not partisan about this. I am equal opportunity offender what are the things you said about bush -- the end of his administration which still encourage him to have made you an ambassador. Doing the things the -- critical of them after the fact well I frankly reasons was critical in Iran North Korea Middle East where because he had moved away from the policies that he tried to file during much of the first term thing or consistent with the reason he probably wanted -- Haven't you think he moved away what do you think that the way from the that he become a different kind of -- move -- the current events moment but that he did have a different president later mr."

" I think in the second term especially in the last two or three years say he listened essentially only the secretary of state rice says many of his other advisers were gone. For whatever reason Vice President Cheney is influence was diminished and Secretary Rice for reasons that I'm sure she'll explain when she writes her book. Was basically channeling the State Department white boy that changed on the part of the president feels that. I think the administration changed in the second term for a lot of reasons. But I think it primarily because the composition of the advisers was different certainly the circumstances were different. But the the one thing I think the most important ball was that he completely dominant role of Secretary Rice. Well he was always very close to her as a -- primarily Soviet colleges so. But she -- further influence and other areas as well what -- in the second term especially the last few years was that she simply -- absorbed by the State Department so all of those policies that had been there all along we're now being transmitted by -- in a way that secretary -- had not been so effective and transmitting and the president listened -- who who is calling the -- Obama equally -- ultimately that's right but I must say six months into the administration's very hard to figure -- their national security decision making works authorities very fragmented these legions of special -- is very hard to know who's really in charge -- Hillary Clinton influential in terms of -- this position at -- Doing a good job as secretary of state I think she is influential because of who she is much like secretary Powell is influential for that reason. But it's hard to see where she's making her particular mark in policy terms the -- what's going on this week for one thing you have George Mitchell and Robert Gates in the Middle East. Now are those two words the people to have in the -- in that place and we have Mitchell shuttling back and forth from Syria Israel to Egypt back and back again yeah. But also National Security Adviser James Jones is is there for three days there's another holdover from the bush -- well as a as a media indirectly he was in military and the Bush Administration. But I think that's part of the Obama effort to put pressure on Israel on two fronts one to not to attack Iran militarily not to attack its nuclear weapons program number one number two. To stop all settlement activity in the occupied territories is however George Mitchell someone -- can -- of coverage to the president made this a priority early in his administration to get some kind of mideast agreement. Is this. Easy bitten off more than he could you at this time. In this part of the world yes I think he has not having anything to do with senator Mitchell you could have Mother Teresa and that there'll that would make you wanna try. Well the reason is that on the other side of the bargaining table from the Israelis the Palestinians. Are real disarray they've got Hamas a terrorist group in charge of the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Authority which is basically the Fatah faction. Unable to could. -- even the West Bank so there's really no counterpart. On the negotiating side for the Israelis to deal no Arafat -- mean who had some power at the time over right exactly -- this is this is obviously very difficult negotiation. The Palestinians need somebody who can make commitments and following through that that's so what -- it without even tried it would not even get involved in the process -- I wouldn't say you ignore the process but I think you have to be realistic you're not gonna have real progress until there's some entity on the Palestinian side that really reflects the the possibility of of those properties and individuals engage should not even Jones should not even be. Deployed at this point to do this. Well I would not have appointed a special envoy to fill the Mitchell position I think if there's anything as secretary of state should do it's this this goes back to Kissinger who invented shuttle diplomacy. It if people say it takes up too much of the secretary's time naming an issue that's more important. I -- obviously is a focal point this is really United States permission if it ever decide to take action against Iran. Do we have to -- we have to check that off. I don't think it'll ask permission I don't know that Israel's made a decision whether route to attack Iran's nuclear program. But if and when they do make that decision I think as the saying goes they will inform us not consult -- you have said that Israel's do not believe Iran. Can be a nuclear program or that can have a nuclear program. But they can't. Well they've got a nuclear program the issue is whether you can trust the Ryan's under this regime in Tehran to have a peaceful nuclear program. And I think the answer to that is no given. Twenty years of deception of the international community and what they've been pursuing Hillary Clinton is that we're not gonna wait forever you know at some point we're not gonna be mr. nice guy. And try to negotiate drug -- despite diplomatic relationship at some poorly. There will use other -- she she has said that that is reflective. Of a trade in the Obama administration to act as though the world began on January the twentieth you know. Before he came into office the Europeans had been at this negotiation for over six years six years of failure. So you have to ask yourself what is the exit strategy from a failed negotiation I'm not sure the Obama administration has articulated that yes let's say -- was in charge here now and the president you're sure your foreign policy what do you do battery. Iran is not gonna be talked out of its nuclear weapons program if we had been working more effectively in the second bush term to help. Assist the dissidents which we've now seen in the streets of Iran then sent. And there we strike military answer installations very targeted as you say -- point. And that encourages the dissidents to kind and the government's gone based on horror. Initiative and going after the -- I think it's more complicated -- what I'm reacting to really is the assumption that if we're Israel. Attacks the uranium enrichment facility at times that somehow. The nation war rally around Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that is not true. What about what it look we've seen that Twitter -- is some people called it we've talked began talking about the Internet the power of the Internet and get things going on line. Twitter. I know that sounds funny. But bringing down the regime -- 140 characters or less than the idea that story has been dissidents take if we see what's happening in Iran won't that eventually we were over throws. The government I think it'll be a major factor look authoritarian -- totalitarian regime stay in power by isolating their opponents mass communication over the Internet Twitter and all the rest of it. Prevents that so -- take military action which you'd have tremendously negative repercussions when we see already in progress of things and probably bring down the government. But we have no idea how long that will be there were riots and demonstrations in revolutions in Europe in 1956. Who is another 25 years before. The Soviet empire fell a long before then Iran will have nuclear weapons and -- Sobel others in the Middle East Egypt Saudi Arabia Turkey. Proliferation it will be even more dangerous than just on haven't Bom we're burning a lot of money from China with who've been a part of the world the president this week. -- you know spoke he spoke with representatives from China. He spoke about China and the importance of that will."

" You gonna have to -- and the rest of the interview we. It's like that let you make the rest up that's that we you know we ran out of -- gonna tell him with its we're saving money it's the bad economy. That's how it -- anyway."

More Videos From FOX News

New North Korea Missiles

New North Korea Missiles

North Korea fires four new missiles, but should U.S. be worried?

Video|Thu, 2 Jul 2009|More from Latest Video
|north koreafound at0:04, 1:04, 2:24, 2:58, 3:49

and they've told me for the chinas or one of Biden won North Korea fall part of all -- refugees pour into China. But the alternative this -- to let North Korea to continue what it does. Build up its nuclear program for Japan to going to full scale panic and do its own nuclear program and now I'm not trying to -- one of its -- you know but it's not so friendly neighbors would nuclear weapons and that seems -- Worse than having the refugees I don't.
For more missiles North Korea had just shot off four more missiles they are short range missiles but is this a preview of what's to come and
didn't have enough fuel to go anywhere so just went back to North Korea this time. When he loved to be the finalists in the communications -- captain -- North Korea to find out what -- about. Well that's why I wish we had boarded the ship I mean I -- you can never tell with the north Koreans -- always a risk it was a bait and switch but I have a feeling that it had something they didn't want us to know about and now have to find another way to get it out of North Korea you know event six party talks about agreements have had all that we've been at war for fifteen years. What do they
the short term. But frankly compared to the threat of a nuclear North Korea and the implications for China the nuclear Japan and the the other threats to its own stability. I would think there's a
think that possibility exists I think the Chinese are acutely aware that North Korea is an embarrassment to them they they fear the reunification of the peninsula. A reunited Korea I think we can convince them that that's really not as much you worry as a continued nuclear North Korea .
what's the worst case scenario for this weekend I have North Korea within reason -- they say they blew us off the map of the the next worst case scenario but. But terms --
I think. Fundamentally they recognize that that if they were to attack South Korea particularly if they were to use chemical or biological weapons the retaliation would be unbelievable. Secretary Colin Powell when he was a civilian after he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Used to say to people that if North Korea ever attacked the south with chemical or biological weapons that we would turn North Korea into a charcoal for cat. And I think even they understand.
Iran's Missile Threat

Iran's Missile Threat

How should the U.S. respond? Amb. John Bolton weighs in

Video|Mon, 14 Jul 2008|More from World
|North Koreafound at4:28

under President Bush is not going to use military force. Against Iran's nuclear program I think the president has just given up on that possibility. So that puts the pressure on Israel to come do its own decision. And just as they struck that North Korea reactor in under construction in Syria last September. They thought that that Iran was really close to having nuclear capability I don't
Not Focused Enough?

Not Focused Enough?

'Strategy Room' panel discusses Obama's 'global wave' against nuclear weapons

Video|Wed, 9 Sep 2009|More from Web Originals
|nuclear weaponsfound at0:29, 1:03, 1:57, 4:11, 4:57

Nuclear weapons in general. But what -- my credit on that level one of the interest in pointing and Gordon you've written about this I think you understand this very well what North Korea has gain from the possession of nuclear weapons despite extraordinary. No matter what -- means we provide when you consider that nuclear weapons that given. This backward country and extraordinary opportunity to place and central role in world affairs is clearly due to the fact that nuclear weapons and if you look at Iran. -- political influence in the Middle East has grown large port. Because of the possibility that will develop nuclear weapons so when you consider the cost in the benefits the benefits are so significant compared to the possible costs. That there is no nation having nuclear weapons that has willingly going willingly to say you know what we're going to abandon. Nuclear well -- it willingly noble so what you need is some sort of structure section I -- right it's my -- exactly but even then even with the sanctions I'm saying. Let's assume for the sake of argument that refined all petroleum is we we have some sort section networks probably will but let's assume just for the sake of argument that does work. Why would the Iranians give up nuclear weapons because of that. Even at that -- the case largely because what influence they possess in creating Shia crescent throughout the Middle East is due in no small part to the existence of nuclear weapons of the possibility of nuclear weapons .
the decision that instead of focusing in on rogue nations like Iran. North Korea instead they're gonna focus on trying to read the entire world and this is word multi -- and -- and and I read the entire world of nuclear weapons rather than zero Inman. On any of the bad players the bad guys who are out to acquire nuclear weapons or bolster their programs. 44 and non non peace. Peaceful purposes.
Gordon is that this is your area of expertise Margaret nuclear showdown North Korea takes on a lot that it spoke about -- Have you are you today. I think one of the things that a President Obama wants to do is sort of create this global wave against nuclear weapons . And therefore in the process swamp the North Korea's and the rams and the Syria's of the world. And in that sense it could work if they really devote all their
to be abandoned article mine and constitution which prevents. The development of nuclear weapons -- in Japan says largely because of possible Chinese adventurism. On North Korea can send a missile from Pyongyang to four. So we've got to develop nuclear weapons would that be.
to be deathly afraid of a nuclear Japan. He -- South Korea and a nuclear Taiwan China has every reason in the world to. Nuclear weapons and all of these countries marginalized China's power they sort of make China relatively less important and the Chinese haven't quite figured out that the north Koreans can point their nuclear weapons north and west as well as south and he.
continuing to processes materials and go forward with its program doesn't stop North Korea from doing that. A one headline that was missed by a lot of folks just a couple weeks ago was that there was a ship that was caught going from North Korea to deliver. Some sort of weapons some sort of nuclear weapons type material. Too -- to Iran remember that was just have a couple weeks ago. Absolutely so we know that North Korea's up to no good we know that Iran is up to no good. But here we are focusing on in this world
AQ Khan who was the godfather where the father of and a nuclear weapons Pakistan and we know that Pakistan has nuclear weapons . And -- we certainly hope and keep our fingers crossed that they're guarded sufficiently but that he gets out on house arrest
of faced with a situation where you know Pakistan could splinter the nuclear weapons could end up in the hands of people who would. Could use them. At and have said that they want to use
that China and Russia will undoubtedly. Veto anything that -- in the Security Council -- administration has come to the conclusion that we cannot stop him further enrichment of uranium. As a consequence the view is why don't we have a Japanese solution for an. That is let them develop all of the the thought this up Faisal wrote the material what's necessary for the creation of nuclear weapons just don't build. Don't build a bomb and now that deal I think it's probably the one that's in the works. I'm
diplomacy do whatever is necessary in order to prevent the creation of nuclear weapons in Iran. If that does not happened Israel was left with very few options now what the president of the United States