'US Negotiated With The Wrong People In Iran': Ex-US National Security Adviser John Bolton | Times Now Digital Exclusive

John Bolton, former US National Security Adviser, criticised the US’s approach to the Iran conflict, asserting that the Revolutionary Guard operates independently of political leaders.

Former US National Security Adviser John Bolton spoke to Times Now Digital as the US-Iran conflict flared again — the fighting resumed even after a ceasefire and a US-Iran memorandum of understanding had been agreed. He argued that Washington’s diplomacy was built on a false premise, that the Revolutionary Guard now acts on its own, and that Donald Trump is trapped between the war and the price of petrol at home.

Bolton: I think the memorandum of understanding was never going to work. I never really thought it had a chance, and there’s one critical reason. It has many defects, but the critical one is that the political leaders and diplomats the US was negotiating with don’t have control over the Revolutionary Guard. The US and Israeli strikes back in February, March and April really decimated the regime at the top levels.

The Supreme Leader died and had to be replaced by his son. Nobody honestly knows if the son is alive, or if he’s conscious most of the day, or what his situation is — he’s not been seen in public since he was made Supreme Leader. The only rational explanation for Iran’s contradictory behaviour is that the Revolutionary Guard does what it wants to do. If it wants to close the Strait of Hormuz, if it wants to attack commercial traffic in the Gulf, it’s going to do it regardless of what the political officials are saying publicly or negotiating. In effect, the US negotiated with the wrong people, because the civilian officials simply don’t have control over the people who have the weapons.

Bolton:Improvising with each passing day is most likely the case. The attacks, beginning on February 28th, initially seemed to be an effort at regime change, which I’ve supported for 20 years. But it became clear that the necessary preparations beyond the military strikes had not been made. To this day it’s confusing what Trump’s objectives are. When he agreed to the ceasefire and then the memorandum of understanding, his focus was not on strategy in the Gulf — it was on getting the price of gasoline down for the American consumer.

Bolton: Trump is in a problem of his own making, because his war aims were not clear and he didn’t take into account the effect the war would have on global energy prices — the price at the pump for American consumers. Iran’s military capabilities, while badly damaged, were not totally obliterated. That meant the regime had the opportunity, which it took, to close the Strait of Hormuz. Why he didn’t prepare for it in advance is another unanswered question.

It was well known — we talked about it in his first term — that one Iranian response to a regime-change effort would be to close the Strait. And yet Trump seems surprised. Our June inflation figures showed a drop because gasoline prices had dropped, as predicted. Today they’re going back up because the war has broken out. That’s the trap Trump is in, and he doesn’t know how to get out of it.

Bolton: Trump has been pretty clear he doesn’t want American boots on the ground. That may not apply to small elements of special forces — units used to destroy anti-missile batteries, radars, drone or fast-boat launch sites. But a larger ground force, I don’t see happening. I do think we can defend commercial traffic in the Gulf and through the Strait with some confidence, but it is going to take military force.

Bolton: He watches Fox News and other channels a lot, and he reacts to what he’s hearing, often making decisions without consulting his advisers. In the first term, we tried to keep the train moving on the tracks. In the second term, he’s surrounded himself with yes-men and yes-women who don’t say, “But Mr President, have you thought of this?” They just say, “Yes, sir.” That has gotten United States President Trump into trouble. It’s not good for the country, and he doesn’t seem to realise it.

Bolton:That’s a good question, and I don’t know that there’s a good answer. We’ve just seen the tragic death of Senator Lindsey Graham, who, I think, had Trump’s ear, particularly on Iran and Ukraine. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is probably the single most important voice within the administration, but it depends on the issue. On Ukraine and Iran, you have Vice President Vance, Jared Kushner, and others doing the negotiations. There’s no systematic process in the second term. In other administrations, the National Security Council helps the president think things through and hear different points of view. With that mechanism not functioning, in many cases it’s whoever talked to Trump last.

Bolton:In the first term, Iran was a major issue because of its nuclear weapons programme. Trump withdrew from the 2015 Obama nuclear deal, which I think was clearly the right thing to do. My position for decades has been that the only path to lasting peace and security in the Middle East is to change the regime in Tehran. That was essentially Netanyahu’s view too, and he made it known to Trump. But Trump never accepted regime change as a US policy objective. I don’t know what Netanyahu would have said in the second term that was different from the first. So there’s some new factor that accounted for Trump taking military action against the nuclear programme in June 2025. I think the steps were correct, but it’s hard to say what caused him to change his mind.

Bolton: He’s never been much of a supporter of NATO. He came very close to withdrawing at the 2018 summit, but he goes back and forth. He basically doesn’t understand the alliance — he thinks it’s a scam where Europeans get American protection without paying for it, and that’s not how NATO functions. The 2026 summit in Ankara turned out better than many expected, but I don’t think he’s fundamentally changed his mind. A 2027 summit could be just as much of a crisis. That’s the problem with Trump — he’s not consistent, he has no overall strategy, and people have trouble keeping up. Is he pro-NATO today or negative on NATO today? That’s hardly the way to run an alliance.

Bolton: Russia would definitely take advantage of a US withdrawal or a substantial reduction in our participation, and that would endanger the Europeans primarily. They understand that — it’s why they’re spending more on defence, trying to convince Trump to help in Ukraine, and keeping him involved. They feel relatively happy after Ankara. But that just tells you where Trump was during the summit. It doesn’t tell you where he is today.

Bolton: Here he seems more inclined to help Ukraine than before. In Ankara he said he would license the technology of the Patriot anti-missile systems so Ukraine can produce them on their own. That only comes after a couple of years — you can’t snap your fingers and begin production overnight — but it was a plus for Ukraine and a signal to Moscow. Ukraine has shown real expertise in drone and counter-drone technology, now on the ground as well as in the air. Trump seems inclined to let that keep going, which is one reason the Europeans thought the summit came out so well.