11 hours ago
1
NPR's Steve Inskeep talks with John Bolton, a national security advisor in President Trump's first term, about the prospect and risks of pursuing regime change in Iran.
A MARTÍNEZ, HOST:
President Trump did not make a case for a war with Iran in his State of the Union speech. Yet the U.S. seems close to war, so what is that case? Our cohost Steve Inskeep called an advocate for regime change. John Bolton is Trump's former national security adviser and also a Trump critic who was indicted by the administration for his handling of classified information.
STEVE INSKEEP, BYLINE: I want to begin with the events on the day of the State of the Union speech. Secretary of State Rubio briefed congressional leaders about something. Democrats came out of that meeting saying the president needs to make his case to the nation. And then the president gave his speech and did not really make a case for regime change or anything else in Iran, although he mentioned the topic. What do you read out of all of that?
JOHN BOLTON: Well, I don't think Trump has necessarily made up his mind, either what his objective is in a possible use of military force or what the quantum of that force would be. I think decisions could come fairly quickly if the talks in Geneva between the U.S. and Iran on discussions about their nuclear program don't produce anything, which is what I expect will happen. Then you could get a final Trump decision pretty soon.
INSKEEP: That is why you think he would not have made the case for war, because he's not sure he wants one?
BOLTON: Well, I don't think he really understands what the case is. I'm not sure he appreciates the significance of what he's about to do. I mean, I'm totally in favor of regime change. But I think you can't just announce it in one speech and then expect that everybody will line up behind you. I think this is a political mistake he may be about to make, but it's typical of the way he proceeds.
INSKEEP: What do you mean by that? Do you think he doesn't understand the need to get the country behind him?
BOLTON: Well, I think his fundamental mode of operating is everything is a deal. It's transactional. It's not based on national security considerations or policy, as we normally describe that term. So, you know, deal, a strike to vindicate his red line against the ayatollahs for killing their - 32,000 of their fellow citizens who were protesting, overthrow the regime. They're just all kind of fungible cards in his mind. And I say that as somebody who has supported regime change in Iran for a long time. This takes preparation. I think there are a number of things we could do militarily to help destabilize the regime, and I hope that's what he's thinking.
INSKEEP: Let's put on the table, as you said, that you have advocated regime change for a long time. Do you think it would be easy to do?
BOLTON: Well, I don't necessarily think it would be easy. But I do think the regime is at its weakest point since it took power in 1979. And if there were ever a moment to try and help exacerbate the instability in the regime, destabilize it and help bring it down, I do think it would be now. There's no question here of U.S. boots on the ground. There may be some special operators in country. We may do this together with Israel. But the fact is the Iranian regime is a threat to the United States. This is a regime that needs to be overthrown.
INSKEEP: Is this something that really can be done without boots on the ground by an external force?
BOLTON: Well, I think the role that military force from the U.S. and perhaps from Israel itself could accomplish is to cause the regime to fragment at the top. We could do that by destroying the instruments of state power in Iran - the Revolutionary Guard, the Basij militia. I think it's pretty clear that the 12-day war, waged primarily by Israel but with one day of participation by the U.S. against Iran's nuclear program last year, destabilized the regime.
The reaction of the Iranian people was quite interesting. Their conclusion was that if the regime couldn't even protect its crown jewels, the nuclear and ballistic missile programs, it couldn't protect itself. And if it can't protect itself, its days are numbered.
INSKEEP: How could an operation like this go wrong from the U.S. perspective?
BOLTON: Well, it could be that Iran has more air defenses than we think. I don't believe that's the case. But I also think that with Israel involved, that would go a long way toward making sure that there are no air defenses. And we don't have unlimited time. There's reporting by Reuters and other news sources that Iran is very close to signing a deal with China to get anti-ship missiles from China. The Iranians are not sitting around waiting to be targets.
INSKEEP: I'm thinking of a couple of other ways it might go wrong. The United States drops a lot of bombs, fires a lot of missiles, blows up a lot of things, but the government is still there at the end. Another way it could go wrong, I suppose, is Iran retaliates, kills many thousands of people and disrupts the global economy, particularly the oil traffic.
BOLTON: Well, I think this is why the administration should have been in touch with the opposition long ago. There were credible reports that during the demonstrations last month, we provided 6,000 Starlink terminals for the opposition to use. I think that's a very good thing to have done. And I hope that there have been contacts with the opposition since they're the ones we need inside Iran to be getting people - for example, commanders in the regular army - prepared to defect to the opposition as they see the regime on the verge of collapse.
And in terms of potential Iranian retaliation, certainly the first targets on our list, or in conjunction with Israel, after the air defenses would be Iran's ballistic missile capabilities. To destroy as much as we could both their missile launching sites, their radars, their production facilities. And also, the Iranian navy, to put it on the floor of the Gulf. That really reduces Iran's capability of retaliating. I really think this is the moment.
INSKEEP: Granting, again, that this is a policy you would like to pursue, do you trust this president and this administration to execute it competently?
BOLTON: Well, if the president makes the decision to have the use of military force aimed at the objective of aiding the opposition to overthrow the regime, I have confidence in the Pentagon as long as Trump keeps out of it.
INSKEEP: As long as he keeps out of it. What do you mean?
BOLTON: As long as he doesn't try and second-guess the military, as he has done in the past.
INSKEEP: What do you say to Americans who look back on Iraq or Afghanistan or any number of examples and find that U.S. meddling in other countries has generally gone wrong?
BOLTON: Well, let's start with Germany in 1945. I think our meddling in Germany worked out pretty well, particularly for the Germans. I think our meddling in Japan in 1945 and thereafter worked out pretty well. There's a long history here. I think our overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was a great success.
I think our biggest mistake there was withdrawing under the Trump agreement, then executed by Biden in 2021. And as for Iraq, I think the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, that part of it went extremely well. I think our mistake - and it was a mistake - was to engage in nation-building thereafter and not turn responsibility for creating the new Iraqi government, leaving that with the Iraqi people themselves.
INSKEEP: Ambassador Bolton, thanks so much.
BOLTON: Thank you.
MARTÍNEZ: That was John Bolton, Trump's former national security adviser, speaking with our cohost Steve Inskeep.
(SOUNDBITE OF DEADLY AVENGER'S "SKIT 2")
Copyright © 2026 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. Transcript text may be revised to correct errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
