Detailed Interview with John Bolton on VOA; From the Impact of Sanctions to Zarif's Claim about Trump

John Bolton, former National Security Advisor of the United States, discussed various topics in an interview with Siamak Dehghanpour from VOA Persian, ranging from the impact of sanctions on the Iranian people and the Islamic Republic to Zarif's claim about Trump's intention to meet him. Bolton served as National Security Advisor from 2018 to 2019 and was the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations from 2005 to 2006. He was also the Director of the Office of Weapons of Mass Destruction and International Security at the State Department from 2001 to 2005. Below is a summary of this exclusive interview: Q) As some experts have suggested, can the easing of sanctions against the Islamic Republic be presented to the American public as assistance to the Iranian people? A) I don't think the sanctions are being effectively enforced. I see this as a problem because the Iranian regime has been able to circumvent sanctions since 2015. The nuclear agreement ended with the U.S. withdrawal. They have managed to survive the pressures, and now with more concessions from the Biden administration, the regime has found a way out that it does not deserve. Therefore, when they talk about lifting additional sanctions or unblocking assets if a certain agreement is reached, people should understand that the money being discussed goes into the regime's pockets. The Iranian people do not benefit from it. So, I think saying that lifting sanctions is in favor of the people or the economy is not correct. Keep in mind that the Iranian economy is in very bad shape right now. Sanctions are only one of the reasons for this situation. The main reason is really the economic mismanagement by the Ayatollahs. Q) Don't you think the sanctions have harmed the ability of the Iranian masses to organize and live as a middle class? A) I think the main reason for the poor economic situation is the impact of years of economic mismanagement, especially in the oil sector, where there is not enough investment, while the Ayatollahs have pocketed most of that income for themselves and their friends. This is why there have been significant economic protests across Iran in the past five years, as people's lives have become very difficult. And this is primarily due to macroeconomic mismanagement. Q) The U.S. Treasury recently sanctioned Shahram Pour-Safi, a member of the IRGC, for his role in extensive plans to kill you and others, including another U.S. official. Do you feel safe? And what impact do you think these sanctions will have? A) Right now, I am under the protection of the U.S. Secret Service, just like when I worked in the White House. We don't have anything better than this. So, I feel completely safe. I think Americans need to have a better understanding of the fact that the Ayatollahs are targeting American citizens, including people who have previously served in government and were simply doing their jobs on behalf of the United States. Moreover, the regime is targeting Iranians abroad in the U.S. and Europe. And this is the other side of the repression they are currently carrying out inside Iran. Shahram Pour-Safi and the criminal charges against him mean that he will probably never leave Iran. But I think it is very difficult to say whether economic sanctions will have any effect on any of the IRGC mercenaries. There is no evidence of a reduction in the IRGC's activities internationally. Therefore, it is unclear whether the sanctions, whatever the outcome, will necessarily impact their activities. Q) Reports indicate that Iran's crude oil exports have doubled since late last year, reaching 1.6 million barrels per day. Do you think the Islamic Republic is coming out of isolation? A) I think most of it has been achieved through sales to China. Obviously, this is one of the reasons China has been able to increase its presence throughout the Middle East. I believe any income that reaches the Iranian government is a lifeline for the ruling regime. I think it is terrible for the Iranian people because it enables the continuation of repression, which had somewhat subsided after the killing of Mahsa Amini, but is now returning with the same intensity as before. Q) You recently stated in a report to the U.S. Senate about the "Women, Life, Freedom" movement that "the movement is winning." In your opinion, what role do the opposition forces of the Islamic Republic play in the current state of the movement? A) The opposition is broad and has affected every part of the country and every economic class, and I believe the coalition of women opposing the Ayatollahs' government is politically very significant. The "Women, Life, Freedom" movement poses a direct ideological challenge to the Ayatollahs, who claim to speak on behalf of God and that women must wear a specific type of clothing. Therefore, when women say they do not want to be bound by this dress law, they are challenging the regime, not just regarding what they wear, but they are challenging the very foundation of the Ayatollahs' government. An unavoidable reality is that all generals and military commanders, and all IRGC commanders, each have mothers, most have sisters, wives, and daughters, and they hear the stories from them every night. This is a consequence that I think is not well understood, but its political impact on the Ayatollahs' regime is very significant. For this reason, I believe the Islamic Republic is now weaker than it has been at any time since 1979. Q) Recently, Mohammad Javad Zarif, the former foreign minister of the Islamic Republic, claimed in a Clubhouse speech that you collaborated with the Mojahedin to instigate the protests of December 2017 to overthrow the regime. What is your response? A) He has a good imagination. I wish I could take credit for that. But it is clear that these oppositions, protests, and expressions of opinion in Iran are completely domestic matters. This is the real expression of what people are feeling in their skin and flesh, and it has nothing to do with foreigners. Q) Zarif also said Trump wanted to meet with him at the White House, but you and Pompeo did everything to prevent contact. Is he right? A) I wish I could take credit for that too. But I will say that a meeting between President Trump and any officials of the Iranian regime would have been a mistake. This is a repressive regime. It is crushing its own people. Its words cannot be trusted, and in fact, I believe that until the regime is overthrown, the world will not be safe from their terrorism or their attempts to acquire a nuclear bomb. Q) In your book "The Room Where It Happened," you mentioned that there were disagreements among President Trump's advisors, including your disagreement with Jim Mattis, the then Secretary of Defense, who told the President in a meeting that the main focus should be on Russia and China, not Iran. You also addressed your disagreements with Rex Tillerson before entering the administration. How much did these disagreements prevent the ultimate goal of the sanctions from being achieved? A) Although I disagreed with Trump on many issues over the years, I thought he was absolutely right when he said during his campaign, "The United States should withdraw from the JCPOA." However, he was not able to do that until 30 days after I entered the White House in 2018. Overall, I think it was the right action. But after that action, Trump himself could not follow a consistent pattern. We did not impose the sanctions as much as we should have. We did not have a long-term plan to elevate Iran to a new type of government and bring it to a new leadership that reflects the true desires of the Iranian people. Therefore, I think we missed many opportunities, not necessarily due to disagreements among Trump's advisors, but due to Trump's inability to adopt a coherent policy. Q) President Trump has denied in an interview with Fox News the claim made in his indictment regarding holding a classified document about a plan to attack Iran. What is your reaction, and do you remember if any attack plan was given to him without the President requesting it? A) The truth is not a deterrent for Trump. So, he can say at some point, "I have a document that constitutes a war plan," and later deny it when it becomes unpleasant. I will just say something that is potentially very sensitive information, which is that the Pentagon is rightly preparing for many different scenarios. The United States has many enemies around the world. We face many dangers and threats. If the Pentagon is not at least prepared at the planning level for every conceivable possibility, it has failed in its duties. I can tell you this because I think it is important for people around the world and in America to know that our military has a great responsibility to defend the country against all these various threats. Q) You served in both the Bush and Reagan administrations. How much has U.S. policy regarding sanctions changed over the past two decades? A) We should go back three decades or more. I think the sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein after his invasion of Kuwait were among the most effective sanctions, but even that did not yield the desired result in convincing Saddam to withdraw his Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Therefore, the need for the First Gulf War arose. I think we have learned that sanctions that are not enforced are not only ineffective but also harmful because they create the impression that we are trying to take action, but in reality, they have no impact. I think we have learned a lot from how Iran and North Korea have circumvented the sanctions imposed on their nuclear programs. And how Russia is currently neutralizing the effects of economic sanctions, I still believe that properly and sufficiently imposed sanctions can have a significant impact. But if you do not impose them, it is clear that they will not be effective. This is a lesson that has not yet been fully learned. Q) Riyadh has invited Ibrahim Raisi to visit Saudi Arabia. Does the warming of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia help the Biden administration reach an informal agreement with Iran and free American hostages? A) In my opinion, a temporary agreement with the Islamic Republic that leads to the release of billions of dollars of Iranian assets is merely a way to assist the regime. I hope this does not happen. Many Gulf Arab countries think that the Biden administration is unreliable and lacks the necessary resolve to stand up to the Ayatollahs. That is why Arab governments have reached this point where they have to preserve themselves. After all, they are living in the region. They cannot just leave. And they are thinking that the United States is not steadfast. Of course, this also means that Arab countries are getting closer to Israel because their assessment is that the threat from the Ayatollahs is, in many ways, more persistent than the United States' resolve to defend them. I think this is an issue that will be discussed in the 2024 U.S. elections, and if the Republicans choose a suitable candidate and we start a responsible campaign, Washington's policy towards Iran could change right after the 2024 presidential election. I think this will lead to other changes in the region.