by John Bolton;
* * *
Trump often complained that people all over the world wanted to talk to him, but somehow they never got through. So not surprisingly, he eventually began musing about opening discussions with Iran. That country’s Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, gave a series of interviews in New York saying Trump wanted to talk, but that Bibi Netanyahu, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and I were trying instead to overthrow the ayatollahs’ regime.9 If only. Beyond that, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani wanted to talk, Putin wanted to talk, everyone wanted to talk to Trump, but someone was cutting him out. Of course, neither Putin nor Rouhani had made any effort to contact us, and to the extent Zarif and others spoke to the media, they were playing to Trump’s vanities. The latest variation on this theme, perfected by Kim Jong Un, was to criticize Trump’s aides, presumably to convince Trump only he could make a difference. Iran, Cuba, and North Korea all tried it again in late April, and there was every reason to believe the tactic would spread. Such an approach was quite astute, because that’s exactly what Trump thought. What he couldn’t accept was that these adversaries wanted to talk to him to get a better deal than by negotiating with his troublesome advisors. I figured I’d tell Trump that the day I walked out the door, which was getting closer.
In his April White House meeting with Abe, Trump said neither Pompeo nor I had much of a relationship with Iran, and he had no relationship at all with Iran, but Abe did. This is what Trump thought international geopolitics was all about. Maybe that’s how it is in the New York real estate business. In retrospect, these remarks were the first indication Trump had a job in mind for Abe, one that could lead to no good end. This discussion did not go far before Trump, still in the stratosphere over the morning’s excellent economic news, veered off to sideswiping Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell as “that idiot at the Fed” for pursuing higher interest rates. On April 30, however, in a phone call with France’s Macron, Trump raised the idea again, encouraging Macron, who lived for the Iran nuclear deal, to seize this apparent opening in the US position. Trump, almost alone among world leaders, never saw these bids for conversations as weakening our overall position, although others, friend and foe alike, saw them exactly that way. Trump couldn’t stop himself: “I’m a talker, I like to talk.” Grand strategy in the Trump Administration.
* * *
Simultaneously, Iran was gearing up a major campaign against US interests in the Middle East. Iran armed Yemen’s Houthi rebels and Iraqi Shia militia groups with more sophisticated missile and drone weaponry. The Quds Force, effectively the creator of Lebanon’s Hezbollah, was a critical prop for Assad’s regime in Syria, and both Beirut and Damascus benefited from increased military capabilities supplied by Tehran (at least when Israel wasn’t destroying Iranian shipments with repeated air strikes in Syria and later Iraq). Iran also expanded assistance to the Taliban, proving yet again it was an equal-opportunity state sponsor of terrorism, Sunni or Shia, as long as it served Iran’s national interest.10 As a defensive response, the Pentagon increased US military assets in the region, including expediting the deployment of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and its strike force. We issued an explanatory public statement on May 5, which went out over my name.11 This caused tremors in the press, wondering why it hadn’t come from the Pentagon. The answer? Dunford called to say, “Hey, Ambassador, I need some help here,” trying to get the statement through the White House bureaucracy, which increasingly felt as cumbersome as the rest of the government. Dunford said to me a few days later, “We have a saying: ‘In war, sometimes simple things are hard.’ ” I was happy to help. Mystery solved.
Iran’s escalation was no ad hoc step by Quds Force field commanders but a systematic ratcheting up of what Iran called “maximum resistance”12 to US pressure. This shift in Iran’s strategy, and its continued enhancement of terrorist groups and other surrogate forces, underlined the risks of any perceived weakening of US resolve, which would lead Tehran to conclude it had the upper hand. Over the next four months, Trump’s erratic behavior made this risk palpable. In the meantime, on May 8, Rouhani announced that sixty days later Iran was prepared to violate four key elements of the nuclear deal, those: (1) limiting its stockpile of low-enriched (reactor-grade) uranium to 300 kg; (2) limiting its heavy-water stockpile to 130 metric tons (with Iran prepared to sell any excess for export); (3) limiting its level of uranium enrichment to 3.67 percent of the U-235 isotope (that is, moving toward higher enrichment levels approaching weapons grade); and (4) prohibiting the Arak heavy-water reactor from becoming a breeder reactor for plutonium, an alternative to enriched uranium for nuclear-weapons fissile material.13 Rouhani, in a parallel letter to Putin, threatened to withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, an interesting twist for a country purportedly not seeking nuclear weapons.14
The four limits Iran was rejecting were central to the nuclear deal. If its nuclear program was truly only civil in nature, Tehran had no need to breach any of the restrictions. The only rational explanation for Rouhani’s threat was to reduce the “breakout time” for Iran to acquire enough highly enriched uranium to begin fabricating weapons. Rouhani’s extortionate demands, and the consequent trajectory toward nuclear weapons, got the Europeans’ attention. This could have been a moment of truth for Britain, France, and Germany, but it wasn’t. They rejected Rouhani’s “ultimatum” for its tone but ignored the substance of his statements.15
At the Pentagon, Dunford said he wanted clear objectives and clear orders if he had to take the possibility of action against Iran seriously. In part, this reflected Mattis’s argument: the National Security Strategy listed China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran as our major threats, meaning, in Mattis’s words, that Iran was a “fourth tier” threat, implicitly unworthy of much attention. Although it had been written before I arrived, I always assumed this meant that these four countries, taken together, represented the “first tier” of threats. In that first tier, Iran may have been fourth, but only because we did not yet believe it had nuclear weapons.
I argued that if the policy was to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, we had to be prepared to use military force. For twenty-five years, people had been unwilling to do what was necessary to stop North Korea from becoming a nuclear-weapons state, and that unwillingness had brought us to the point where North Korea had nuclear weapons. I recounted how Bush 43 had said it was “unacceptable” for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and that I used to say, “I think when the President says it is ‘unacceptable,’ he means it is ‘unacceptable.’ ” I was wrong. That’s not what Bush (or his predecessors or his successors) really meant. We did accept North Korea’s getting nuclear weapons. To avoid that outcome with Iran, we had to keep upping the pressure, economically, politically, and militarily.
Dunford asked if I really thought the Administration’s announced policy of “maximum pressure” would change Iran’s behavior. I said it was almost impossible to conceive of the present regime’s doing so, and that only full-out regime change would ultimately prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. We were likely near our last chance. Dunford said he assessed it the same way. He believed Iran did not think we were serious about using force, either on the nuclear issue or even on defending ourselves against the attacks we now worried about from the Quds Force in the Persian (or Arabian, depending on where you lived) Gulf, the Red Sea, Iraq, and Afghanistan. That is what Dunford meant when he worried Iran would “miscalculate”: Tehran thought it could develop nuclear weapons or even attack us in the region without fear of retaliation.16 Perhaps Dunford and Shanahan were surprised to hear all this, so I said, “It’s not like I have been hiding my views on this over the years,” which they laughingly acknowledged. This was a very useful discussion. Unlike Mattis, I thought, Dunford wasn’t fighting the conclusion; he just wanted to be sure we understood the implications. It was certainly clear to him when we finished that I did. This was at least a part of the “larger discussion” Dunford want
ed on Iran.
During these days, I went to the Hill frequently to brief key House and Senate members, including Mitch McConnell later on May 9, so they knew exactly what we faced. As we were wrapping up, McConnell said, “I don’t envy you your job,” and I said, “I could say the same about yours.” McConnell laughed and replied, “Your job is much harder than mine.”
The history of our inadequate responses to direct Iran’s strikes against US civilian and military targets in the Middle East was fully in the public record, starting with the seizure of our embassy in Tehran in 1979 and the Iranian-instigated 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut (resulting in American, French, and Italian forces being withdrawn from Lebanon), and continuing to the absence of US retaliation for Iran’s attacks via Shia militia groups on Embassy Baghdad and our Basra consulate in September 2018. This long string of passivity, extending to the current day, had convinced Iran it could act with virtual impunity in the region.
As this latest debate about Iran was on inside the Administration, my view was that the Pentagon clearly had a lot of work to do to make up for Mattis’s lack of interest in confronting its nuclear-weapons program. It was during this period of internal discussions over Iran that Trump was asked by a reporter, “Are you satisfied with the advice you received from John Bolton?” Trump answered, “Yeah, John is very good. John is a—he has strong views on things, but that’s okay. I actually temper John, which is pretty amazing, isn’t it? Nobody thought that was going to happen. I’m the one that tempers him. But that’s okay. I have different sides. I mean, I have John Bolton, and I have other people that are a little more dovish than him. And ultimately, I make the decision. No, I get—I like John. I get very good advice from John.”17 Can you imagine which words the media quoted? White House Communications Director Mercy Schlapp described Trump’s tone as “affectionate,” which I told her struck me as optimistic.
On May 9, we converted Trump’s regular intelligence briefing into a larger discussion of Iran, with Shanahan, Dunford, and Pompeo also attending, along with the regular crew. As we were sitting down in front of the Resolute desk, Trump said, “Congratulations,” to Shanahan, producing a look of confusion, until Trump said, “I’m nominating you as Secretary of Defense,” which brought general approval and handshakes, although the decision was long overdue. Pompeo briefed Trump on his recent visit to Iraq, which inevitably kick-started Trump into enumerating the Bush 43 Administration’s errors: “Worst President we ever had,” said Trump. As was often the case when discussing Iran, Trump raised John Kerry. Trump was obsessed with the idea of prosecuting Kerry for violating the Logan Act, a rarely invoked 1799 law prohibiting private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. Without doubt, Kerry was trying to persuade Iran to stay in the Iran nuclear deal and wait Trump out until 2020, when a Democrat would assuredly win election and revive it. That said, prosecuting him was a nonstarter. The Logan Act violates the First Amendment and, as a criminal statute, is unconstitutionally void for vagueness, but it is still often used to intimidate the unwary. In Trump’s mind, Mike Flynn, his first National Security Advisor, had been unfairly threatened with prosecution under it, which was a fair point, and he wanted to wield it against Kerry. In meeting after meeting in the Oval, Trump would ask Attorney General William Barr or anybody listening to launch a prosecution. I am confident no one ever did any such thing. I tried early on explaining to Trump the likelihood the Logan Act would be declared unconstitutional if tested in court, but I failed utterly. As long as Trump is President, and probably thereafter, he will search for a lawyer willing to prosecute Kerry. If I were Kerry, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it.
Back to reality, Dunford stressed that Iran didn’t believe we would respond to the attacks they were contemplating. Trump answered immediately, “They don’t understand us very well.” We talked about the various military and other options, and sure enough, Trump came back to Kerry: “I’m surprised they’re not calling. It’s because of Kerry [saying,] ‘You’re going to make me look bad.’ We’re going to win.”
Dunford and others, myself included, were surprised how positive Trump was about striking some of the targets I suggested, with Dunford saying, correctly, “You’ve got to be prepared for the next step.”
“I’m prepared,” Trump answered. “Chairman Kim will be watching. You [Shanahan and Dunford] may want to think about building up.”
“That’s why we’re here, Mr. President,” Dunford responded, giving specifics on what would be needed.
Trump did not approve carte blanche, but he did say he wanted the Arab allies to pay for it, a familiar theme.
After we discussed North Korea, Venezuela, Israel, Syria, and a few other topics, the meeting broke. I returned to my office, where several of the others had gathered to carry on the conversation. I asked Shanahan and Dunford if they had what they needed from Trump, and it was clear they knew exactly what Trump wanted, which I saw as effectively a reversal of the Mattis approach.
The Sit Room called me early on Sunday, May 12, to report an oil tanker near the Strait of Hormuz had been hit by some kind of munition and was on fire. Perhaps up to four ships had been struck. I told the Sit Room to awaken Kupperman and others if they hadn’t already. I took a shower, got dressed, and had my Secret Service detail head for the White House. I called Dunford from the car shortly after 5:00 a.m., finding he had essentially the same information as I. I arrived at the West Wing at about 5:20, immediately calling Dan Coats to make sure he was aware. As I was hanging up with Coats, Dunford called to confirm one tanker was on fire and that none appeared to be American owned or registered. I wondered aloud if Iran was deliberately testing the United States by attacking non-American assets. Dunford said he believed goading us was definitely part of Iran’s strategy. It was early, with incomplete information, but a major event was undoubtedly unfolding.
After a few more calls, I went down to the Sit Room, where the round-the-clock staff was gathering all the available data, and where Kupperman had been since his arrival. We now knew the ships under attack had been lying at anchor in the Gulf of Oman, off the United Arab Emirates port of Fujairah. Information was still spotty and sometimes contradictory, such as reports of explosions in Fujairah itself, which the city government promptly denied and which turned out to be untrue. One ship was likely Norwegian, two Saudi, and one Emirati, and the attacks were by either frogmen who had attached limpet mines to the tankers’ hulls, or perhaps short-range rockets fired from small naval craft. By the end of Sunday, the frogman option seemed the most viable,18 and that was confirmed in subsequent days by US special operations personnel.19
By about 6:15 a.m., I concluded it was time to call Trump. Although this was the second time in two weeks I would almost certainly be waking him up (the first time being the April 30 uprising in Venezuela), I decided to go ahead. I briefed him on what we knew, and he asked, “What should we do?” I said we would continue gathering information, be alert for other possible attacks, and start thinking about what a military response could look like. “But why wouldn’t we know about this?” he asked, still apparently believing we knew everything. I explained, as I had many times before, that we were not omniscient, and that I would keep him posted. (Later in the day, speaking with Pompeo, Trump would wonder again why we hadn’t known of the attack in advance.)
I left messages for Mulvaney, who was at Camp David with House and Senate members on some kind of retreat. I also had the Sit Room contact Embassy Oslo, Embassy Abu Dhabi, and Embassy Riyadh to pulse their host governments and find out what they knew. My tentative thought was that these three governments should call for an emergency Security Council meeting to put the spotlight on Iran. I spoke with Pompeo at about 6:25, and he agreed with this approach. At 7:30, I called Pence and briefed him, having already asked Kupperman to convene a Deputies Committee at 8:00 a.m. to decide how to work on a response, the first of three that day. Several agencies grumbled at being bothered on a Sunday.
&
nbsp; By 8:00, information was still fragmentary. The Saudis, for reasons best known to them, at first denied that any attacks had occurred but later reversed themselves. We were closely consulting with all of our affected allies, watching especially carefully the Iranian disinformation campaigns, which were already under way. At 8:20, Norway confirmed publicly that its ship had been hit, saying there were no casualties and the ship remained seaworthy. Starting at 8:40, I spoke to Dunford three times in rapid succession. By then, we had pictures of a hole in the side of one of the ships, taken by the ship’s crew, which he said was clearly not caused by a drone. Dunford called again at 8:50 to say allies were confirming much of what we had heard, but Iran’s disinformation efforts were picking up, claiming there were seven to ten ships on fire, and that US and French planes had been spotted nearby. Tehran was vying for the chutzpah-of-the-year award, but they knew many around the world were pre-wired to believe them. Dunford and I talked about what to do if the whole thing was primarily just an Iranian influence operation. It was one reason why, through the day, the US government said nothing officially. We were very sensitive not to do Iran’s work for it, saying something that might inadvertently cause or accelerate oil price increases. At 8:57, Dunford called again to say Pentagon officials were recalling an incident a decade ago when Iran tried to lure us into conflict by putting fake mines in front of the Grace Hopper, a guided-missile destroyer. Hopper was a pioneering female computer scientist in the Navy, whose work was central to cryptanalysis for breaking enemy codes in World War II, rising to the rank of Rear Admiral. I told Dunford how Yale rewrote history in 2017, renaming my college, Calhoun, for Hopper, one of Yale’s first female PhDs in mathematics. I asked for a picture of her eponymous destroyer for the college common room, to see how that suited the leftist faculty and students. At least we had something to laugh about on a potentially grim day.
