John Bolton’s Middle East: Reluctant Warrior, Closet Pacifist
“The mullahs would retaliate. But things would be much worse if they had the bomb: Many argue that Israeli military action will cause Iranians to rally in support of the mullahs' regime and plunge the region into political chaos. To the contrary, a strike accompanied by effective public diplomacy could well turn Iran's diverse population against an oppressive regime. Most of the Arab world's leaders would welcome Israel solving the Iran nuclear problem, although they certainly won't say so publicly and will rhetorically embrace Iran if Israel strikes. But rhetoric from its Arab neighbors is the only quantum of solace Iran will get….”
Thus spake the foreign policy expert that even a Republican-controlled senate refused to confirm when nominated by George W Bush for U.N. ambassador. His name? John Bolton.
He supported the Vietnam War throughout college. After graduation in 1970, and in the best tradition of the most vociferous Neocon hawks, he declined to serve in Vietnam, instead joining the Maryland National Guard. In that, he carried on a great tradition of many hawkish patriots. He is still looking for a new war in someone else's backyard, just like the other one he supported (but only if others’ kids were on the firing line) but refused to fight. Maybe at heart, that is, in the closet, he is a pacifist.
He is, however right in his assertion that many (if not most) Arab leaders secretly would love for Israel to solve the "Iran problem". Except that it can't: the Israel of myth is still strong, but its reach is not that effective beyond its immediate neighbors- it has never really faced a stubborn enemy except in southern Lebanon. That did not turn out as expected.
Cheers
mhg
Comments