Iran war: John Bolton why even he opposes the Trump campaign.

For the last 20 years, there has basically been one person in Republican politics who has been known as the hero of the Iran war.

For years, even decades, John Bolton has been advocating regime change in Iran, and for America to take military action to do so. Bolton served as the US ambassador to the United Nations under George W. Bush and, later, as Donald Trump’s national security adviser in his first term.

The collaboration with Trump was short-lived, however. He did not leave the administration on good terms and has been a the critic of Trump since. Even he has been charged and Trump’s Justice Department for mishandling classified documents. Despite that history, it’s still puzzling to hear one of America’s biggest critics of Iran abandoning the Trump administration on this war. How did Trump lose the biggest Iran war hawk in the Republican Party? And why?

The following is part of my conversation with Bolton, edited for length and clarity. There’s more throughout the episode, so tune in Today, It’s Explained wherever you find podcasts, incl Apple Podcasts, Pandoraand Spotify.

You have been known as one of America’s most prominent advocates for the military conflict in Iran for decades. But in recent weeks, you have emerged as one of the fiercest critics of the Trump administration’s actions and the way it is conducting this war. I wanted you to pass me by for your criticism.

What I support is the regime change policy in Iran. And I have had that opinion for many years because I don’t think there is any chance for the current government to change its behavior in two important areas.

It is not going to stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons, which threatens Israel, the United States, in fact the whole world. And it will not give up in its terrorist activities, its support for terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Shia militias in Iraq and conducting terrorist operations around the world.

We have decades of evidence that their behavior will not change. So when you are faced with that kind of threat, risk, and behavior will not change, the alternative is to change the regime. I think the administration is at its weakest since it took power in 1979. The economy is in shambles. Young people are, they can see they can have a different kind of life. Two-thirds of the population is under 30. Women have been largely dissatisfied since the death of Mahsa Amini. The tribes are not satisfied.

The conditions are ready for a change of government as a successful policy. And the question is, what role can the United States take? And here, I think Trump has misplayed his hand from the start, unfortunately.

Well, Trump initially did nothing to prepare the American public for the necessary steps to effect a change of government. Usually, when a president takes a big step like Trump, you explain it to the American people.

You make the case for why it is in our national interest to seek regime change, to avoid the threat of nuclear weapons, to avoid the ongoing threat of terrorism. You don’t have to say anything about your specific plan. You don’t have to talk about time, but you have to be respectful to our citizens and argue that this is in their interests. I think he could do it. I think there is a very compelling case he didn’t.

Yeah, that didn’t happen.

Parallel to that is that you need to organize Congress, certainly on the Republican side, to get their support, but on the Democratic side as well. I think there are a number of important steps that Congress will have to take, instead of leaving them in the dark. It doesn’t mean they would necessarily agree with you, but at least you’ve made your case to them and it’s part of making it to the American people.

Another aspect in which Trump failed was to consult with allies. Normally, you try and build an international alliance before the war starts, not after. And obviously he didn’t. I mean, we have a very close relationship with Israel. I think our military planning and preparation has been seamless as far as I can tell.

But there are many others, not only NATO partners, but the Gulf states in the region that are obviously affected by this, our partners in the Pacific, Japan, South Korea, and others who get a lot of oil from the Gulf.

As far as we can tell, he did not make any preparations for the opposition inside Iran. No coordination, no effort to see what they are going to do, no effort to support them, provide resources, money, weapons if that is what they wanted, telecommunications, no coordination at all.

There is a feeling that they want to do this in about four to six weeks, not necessarily the timeline that a complete change of government might take. Is it your position that if they’re not ready to see that all along, they shouldn’t have started this in the first place?

All right. Four to six weeks would be a good estimate for the Pentagon’s initial campaign. But military action alone never led to a change of government, or at least it would be a fortunate event if it did. This must come from within Iran. It is the people, the opposition, the tribes, the youth, the women who should think about how to achieve it.

And it’s clear that they were very threatened in January when the government killed 30 or 40,000 protesters, and shot them in the streets of Iran just for opposing the regime. That needed to be considered.

I have heard you say in other places that Trump is not a strategic thinker. From your point of view of someone who was in the White House, who was trying to plan strategies with the president, what are the results of that lack of strategic thinking?

Well, it makes it very difficult to implement to achieve a certain goal. One thing Trump has done in his second term is eliminate the National Security Council decision-making process, which I will be the first to say is not perfect. But it’s a way to get all the different opinions of the agencies and departments to try and gather the facts that will allow the president to make a responsible and well-informed decision.

I hear from you that we should see the lack of planning that has been evident in this war due to the change or collapse of the process from the first Trump administration to the second.

Yeah, I mean, making Marco Rubio secretary of state and national security adviser is another piece of evidence there – with all due respect to Marco, these are two completely different jobs.

I don’t blame anyone in government except Trump. He thought he was being pressured by the NSC, that somehow we were trying – I speak for all these other members of the Cabinet – that we were trying to force him in one direction or another.

It is clear that every NSC member has his opinion, but it is a conflict of views that can benefit the president so that he can see which is the strongest case, what is more in line with his wishes, what is the best plan, all these things I think are generally promoted by the debate. If you don’t have a lot of discussion or not enough discussion, you don’t get the benefits.

The administration would argue that Iran has been fundamentally weakened militarily, that their leadership has been uniquely removed, that they have precipitated a succession crisis. Is that the goal of the change of administration?

No, not at all. There are reports that the government has chosen a new secretary of the Central National Security Council held by Ali Larijani, who was killed a few days ago. And this guy is reported to be a former activist of the Revolutionary Guards.

So if he is the new secretary of the National Security Council, that is an indication that he is probably tougher than Larijani. To the extent that the government can rebuild, and that is a matter of getting the oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz. I have no doubt that they will return to the assertive nuclear weapons program and the ballistic missile program, and reorganize the terrorists who make them.

I think if you are going to pursue the goal of government change, you must know what you are getting into and be determined to work to achieve it. And if you don’t think you can achieve it, then don’t start. Try something else. And obviously Trump hasn’t done many of those things. And that is why he is in the conundrum he is in now.

Today, It’s Explained publishes video programs every Saturday covering important issues in politics and culture. Sign up for Vox’s YouTube channel find them. New episodes of Today, It’s Explained come down every day of the week Apple Podcasts, Spotifyor your favorite listening app.

If you enjoy our reporting and want to hear more from Vox journalists, subscribe to our Patreon at patreon.com/vox. Every month, our members get access to exclusive videos, live streams and chats in our newsroom.