The more things change the more they stay the same, goes the old saying. It certainly applies to John Bolton who moved from the Fox News crowd of extremists to the more centrist crowds elsewhere in the domain of audio-visual media.
That’s
not the case, however, when it comes to the print media. In this domain, John
Bolton has remained in touch with the old crowd, from where he continues to
preach his old gospel of hardline war mongering. He did it again, writing an
article under the title: “Biden should use Raisi election for Iran course
change,” published on June 19, 2021 in The Washington Examiner.
Bolton’s
first paragraph is a single sentence that seems to bolt right out the mirror in
which Bolton must have been looking. Look what the sentence says: “Iran’s
hard-line mullahs left nothing to chance in Friday's presidential election.”
Replace Iran with America, also replace mullahs with Bolton, and you get this:
“America’s hard-line Bolton leaves nothing to chance…” It fits like hand in
glove.
Did
Bolton meet his match with the advent of Raisi? Or is Raisi’s hawkish
temperament a reflection of what the Jewish propaganda machine has been infusing
into America’s politico-journalistic circles where the pastime is to go
hysterical predicting what will happen, and be proven wrong even when their
predictions concern their own backyard. In fact, this scene plays itself without
fail each time that a newly appointed justice to the Supreme Court votes
contrary to the crowd’s predictions. Despite all that, however, these people
remain undaunted, believing they can expertly predict what a foreign leader
will do when he gets in power. That’s what Bolton just did, not thinking of the
consequences to his credibility.
To make the point that “the spectrum of
Tehran’s leadership has ranged from hard-liner to extreme hard-liner,” John
Bolton cited the example of Rouhani being a hard-liner and not the moderate he
was thought to be, whereas the newly elected Raisi will prove to be an extreme
hard-liner. But how does he know that? He knows it, he says, because The New
York Times has reported on this subject.
Apparently,
the Times said that in a remarkable admission, Mr. Rouhani “suggested” Iran
duped the Europeans while negotiating with them. In fact, while talking with
the Europeans in Tehran, the Iranians were installing equipment in Isfahan,
said Hassan Rouhani, according to The New York Times. Thus, by creating a calm
environment, the Iranians were able to complete the work in Isfahan, whatever
work that was … a baby-formula factory or a uranium enrichment installation or
what?
Unfortunately
for Bolton, when you read that passage as he wrote it in his article, you
realize that he quoted the New York Times, which itself quoted what the
translator had translated of what Rouhani was reported to have said. Looking at
this piling of hearsay on top of hearsay, you’ll conclude that Bolton’s writing
reveals the shakiness of the New York Times assumptions about Iran. In fact, these
assumptions were based on the interpretation that someone did of the
translation from Persian to English, of words that Hassan Rouhani may or may
not have uttered. Look closely at the quote, and you’ll see that the Times has
in the same breath asserted that the Iranians “duped” the Europeans and that
Rouhani’s words only suggest that Iran has duped the Europeans.
In
any case, whether Iran did or did not dupe the Europeans, the fact that Rouhani
has preferred to achieve — in a calm environment rather than a violent one — whatever
the Iranians were doing in Isfahan, is proof enough that contrary to what
Bolton says, Hassan Rouhani is a moderate human being.
Seeing
that Bolton has gone through enormous troubles to paint a distorted picture of
reality, we wonder what it is that motivated him to do so. Fortunately, it does
not take us long to figure out that it all comes down to his passionate opposition
to the Iran nuclear deal. Here, in condensed form, is a compilation of the
passages that speak to his position on the subject:
“Resurrecting
this deal is a priority for the Biden team. There is little doubt that the
limiting constraints on what Biden is prepared to give away are the negative
domestic political consequences for surrendering. Whatever minor modifications
may occur to the deal, Iran will insist that key provisions and understandings
remain unchanged. Don’t expect international inspectors to get any more access
than the levels they now enjoy. Biden isn’t contemplating clawing back critical
concession that Iran be allowed to enrich uranium to reactor-grade levels”.
Having
understood that repeating the old advice the same old way will not lead to
success, but eager to achieve the same old goals, John Bolton has decided to
convey the old message using a different approach. In short, he decided to play
out the principle of the old wine in a new bottle.
What
Bolton says now that’s different from before, is that he called President
Biden’s ideas a surrender to the ayatollahs, and warned that this will not sit
well with the American public. Of course, he does not believe this will scare
Joe Biden, but he gave it as free advice anyway, hoping that enough people will
hear about it and be motivated to tell the White House, they oppose returning
America to the Iran nuclear deal.
This
is a shot in the dark that John Bolton himself believes has almost zero chance
of hitting the target. And here is how he expressed his pessimism:
“If there is any chance Biden might be dissuaded from his crusade, Raisi’s election provides him an excuse to back away. Don’t hold your breath over he will avail himself of the opportunity”.