海角大神

When John Bolton was asked in a 2016 interview in the highbrow Octavian Report what he considered 鈥渢he top threat to global order,鈥� the uber-hawk did not quickly respond that it was Iran.

Nor did he finger North Korea.

Instead, the foreign-policy iconoclast that many would place to the right of a Dick Cheney or a Donald Rumsfeld said that for him the main threat was the withdrawal of the United States from its position of leadership and from 鈥渧igorously asserting its interests鈥� around the world.

Under President Barack Obama the US had accelerated this retreat based on 鈥渢he mistaken impression 鈥� that if the US is less assertive, less visible, less present in the world that there will be enhanced international peace and security,鈥� Mr. Bolton opined. 鈥淚 think exactly the opposite is true.鈥�

The condemnation of a weakened America with its implied argument for an aggressively nationalist foreign policy was to some extent the intellectual鈥檚 version of 鈥淎merica First鈥� 鈥� the worldview that would help carry Donald Trump to the White House and form the basis of President Trump鈥檚 first year of foreign policy decisions.

Now as the piercingly intelligent and fiercely uncompromising Bolton prepares to take the helm of the White House national security apparatus as the president鈥檚 third national security adviser, Washington is in an uproar.

The majority thinking among Democrats and many Republicans alike is that Bolton鈥檚 replacement of H. R. McMaster, who frequently clashed with the president, coupled with the nomination of the hawkish Mike Pompeo to follow Rex Tillerson as secretary of State, portends the most single-mindedly aggressive and nationalist national security team since at least President George W. Bush鈥檚 first term.

Most foreign policy experts consider Bolton 鈥� whose go-to solution to national security challenges tends to be the military 鈥� the exact wrong choice to guide an impulsive and brash but untested president at a particularly dangerous moment in world affairs.

But others, even if not happy with the choice, see reason to hope that the glimmers of foreign-policy realism Bolton has exhibited 鈥� plus the moderating influence of less-extreme voices around the president 鈥� will prevail.

Iran, North Korea, Russia

For those who are cringing at Bolton鈥檚 rise, it鈥檚 above all the international context that makes Trump鈥檚 hawkish shift of his national security team so frightening. In the coming weeks the president will determine the fate of the Iran nuclear deal, is planning to sit down to talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, and must decide whether or not to renew arms control negotiations with Russia.

鈥淭he president has three humongously important decisions coming up in a very short span of time, and John Bolton has a very stark and aggressive prescription for each of them 鈥� and none of which involves much if any diplomacy,鈥� says Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association.

Like Trump, Bolton believes fervently that the Iran nuclear deal, Obama鈥檚 signature foreign-policy achievement, should be scuttled. Going farther, he has said US policy on Iran should be regime change. That view harks back to Mr. Bush鈥檚 Iraq war 鈥� for which Bolton, at the time in charge of the State Department鈥檚 weapons of mass destruction nonproliferation efforts, was perhaps the administration鈥檚 loudest cheerleader.

On North Korea, Bolton has publicly stated his support for Trump鈥檚 decision to sit down with Mr. Kim 鈥� but only because what he predicts will be fruitless talks can make way quickly for the preemptive military strikes on the North鈥檚 nuclear installations (and, yes, even regime change) he says are the only solution.

As for arms reduction talks with Russia, Bolton is a strident critic of Obama鈥檚 New START accords and has said that rather than limiting its own arsenal, the US should just allow the aging arsenal of an economically weakened Russia to deteriorate.

鈥淚n each of these cases,鈥� argues Mr. Kimball, 鈥渋f the president followed Bolton鈥檚 prescription it would lead to war and to foreign-policy disaster for the United States.鈥�

Benefit of strategic vision

Yet even if no one seems to doubt that the hawks have landed, there are nevertheless some voices suggesting that there could be distinct benefits to Trump鈥檚 overhaul of his national security team.

Some analysts (and even some generally horrified foreign diplomats) are holding out hope that Bolton will be able to give some order and intellectual underpinning and strategic vision to the president鈥檚 unpredictable actions. Others assume that a Secretary of State Pompeo 鈥� a former House member from Kansas who has built a close relationship with Trump as CIA chief 鈥� will know how to develop a strong relationship with Congress and to represent the administration鈥檚 policies effectively, something Mr. Tillerson never did.

Even some analysts who dislike the Bolton choice say the initial sky-is-falling (or raining hawks) reaction to Trump鈥檚 tweet Thursday evening announcing his choice to replace McMaster may be overstating the martial tilt of the national security team.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 go quite as far in the vein of the conventional wisdom out there in terms of the uber-hawkishness of this team,鈥� says Michael O鈥橦anlon, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy issues at the Brookings Institution in Washington. 鈥淎ctually I鈥檇 say Bolton is the only obvious hawk on it.鈥�

Secretary of Defense James Mattis 鈥減rojects confidence without swagger, I wouldn鈥檛 consider him a hawk,鈥� he says. (Some reports over the weekend had Secretary Mattis confiding in associates that he doesn鈥檛 expect to have an easy time working with Bolton).

鈥淎nd we鈥檒l have to see about Pompeo, but remember it鈥檚 easy to be a hawk when you鈥檙e at CIA,鈥� Mr. O鈥橦anlon adds. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not so easy when your role is to find solutions to the problems you鈥檝e been so aggressive about.鈥�

Influence on expulsion of Russians?

Bolton has clearly exhibited disdain for international organizations (including the United Nations, where he served as US ambassador under Bush) and treaties limiting American power 鈥� a stance that jibes with Trump鈥檚 visceral instincts. But Bolton is a staunch defender of the NATO alliance, and in recent years has argued for a tougher NATO approach to a revanchist Russia 鈥� an area where he would seem to clash with the president.

Indeed some analysts were already seeing a hint of Bolton鈥檚 influence (he won鈥檛 officially step into his White House role until April 9) in Trump鈥檚 decision Monday to expel several dozen Russian diplomats, plus a dozen 鈥渋ntelligence operatives鈥� assigned to Russia鈥檚 UN mission, and to close Russia鈥檚 consulate in Seattle over the poisoning by a Soviet-era nerve agent earlier this month of a former Russian spy and his daughter in Salisbury, England.

In announcing the measures, administration officials underscored that the actions were taken 鈥渢o demonstrate our unbreakable solidarity with the United Kingdom鈥� as well as to impose 鈥渟erious consequences鈥� on Russia for 鈥渋ts continued violations of international norms.鈥�

Looking back over recent decades, O鈥橦anlon says there have been several cases of presidents who either didn鈥檛 take their national security adviser鈥檚 advice or who weighed those of the secretaries of State and Defense more heavily. And especially in the case of Trump, a president who seems to act based on what he sees on television, he says Trump may have picked Bolton more for his aggressive style in frequent TV appearances than for his policy prescriptions.

鈥淭his is a president who seems to know what he likes when he sees it,鈥� O鈥橦anlon says, 鈥渟o he may be bearing down much more on the style he鈥檚 seen Bolton display on Fox TV.鈥�

Indeed Trump recently picked TV talking head and free marketer Larry Kudlow as his new chief economic adviser. But as some economics analysts pointed out, the choice is unlikely to mean that Trump, who recently announced a raft of anti-free-trade measures, including steel tariffs and billions of dollars in trade measures against China, is suddenly buying whole hog into Mr. Kudlow鈥檚 anti-protectionist philosophy.

What Bolton testified about UN

O鈥橦anlon says it鈥檚 clear that Bolton harbors a disdain for international organizations that would bind the US in pursuing its national interests. But at the same time he recalls an experience testifying before Congress on UN peacekeeping in the late 1990s when Bolton, also testifying, displayed an appreciation for some UN work.

鈥淎 member of Congress who was looking for some UN bashing was frustrated when I pointed out cases where UN peacekeeping had been vital and successful, so he turned from me to Bolton,鈥� O鈥橦anlon recalls. The questioner 鈥渦sed kind of a dismissive tone in asking 鈥楧o you agree with Mr. O鈥橦anlon that the UN has in some cases been successful?鈥� but Bolton answered, 鈥榊es basically I do.鈥欌��

The Arms Control Association鈥檚 Kimball says he hopes that when it comes to Bolton that Trump 鈥渄oesn鈥檛 go with every position he presents, otherwise it鈥檚 likely to lead to exactly the kind of disastrous wars [Trump] condemned as a candidate.鈥�

But he says it would be folly to discount the influence of the people the president keeps closest to him on national security issues.

鈥淭hese people are the gatekeepers to the information the president gets, and the national security adviser in particular is supposed to be a fair arbiter of the alternatives presented to the president,鈥� he says.

Bolton was once again on Fox News after being picked by Trump, and he insisted he would be an 鈥渉onest broker鈥� who would present the president with a panoply of options on any given issue. But Kimball isn鈥檛 buying it.

鈥淚 just don鈥檛 see someone with as strong views as Bolton has,鈥� he adds, 鈥渕aking space for alternatives he has so consistently rejected as weakness.鈥�