tv Natl Security Adviser Bolton on Administration Strategy CSPAN October 31, 2018 1:06pm-2:07pm EDT
hotel in washington, not far from the white house, to hear from white house national security adviser, john bolton. interviewed, to be the moderator expected to be the hamilton society cofounder and aei director of asian studies, daniel blumenthal. later, we will be at the white house itself. taking part of an event on america's workers at 2:30 eastern, all ahead of a rally this evening. we will cover that tonight at 7:00 on c-span 2. [murmuring] >> good afternoon, everybody.
if you would take your seats, that will be wonderful. does everybody hear me? ,y name is gave scheinman executive director of the alexander hamilton society. i'd like to welcome members of the press, students, alumni, and ahs for what will be a lively conversation. we are being broadcast live on c-span. please turn your phones to silent or off, if you haven't done so already. third, to members of the press, this is a conversation, and our erstwhile host will do a q&a. but if members of the press can hold their questions until the end, we will be sure to leave a few minutes for the press to ask questions while everyone is still seated.
finally, to our students, mr. bolton has agreed to do a photo at the very end. so when we disperse, please come to the stage so ambassador bolton -- the alexander hamilton society is a nonprofit international organization that fosters constructive debate on issues in american economic and -- and more prosperous place when the united states is willing to lead. they recognize that our true friends and most reliable partners in the world are fellow democratic nations and they appreciate the commitment needed to maintaining the moral authority and material strength on which that commitment rests. our student led chapters across to country, seeking identify, educate, and launch men and women into the --
critical issues. over 10,000 students attend our close to 40 college campuses annually, and even at a young age, upper reaches of u.s. government. to learn more about what we do, please come up to me or other members of my staff, or visit our website. to saywe begin, i'd like one word about the attack in pittsburgh over the weekend. i'm sure that many of you have been touched by this tragedy. friendy member, a close of mine was among the victims. anti-semitism is not only the world's oldest hatred, but also a genocidal one that seeks the complete destruction of the jewish people. the attack on the synagogue was an act of terror that struck at the heart of what makes america so exceptional, the right to practice one's religion freely without fear of her seclusion. we are blessed that our -- fear of persecution.
we are blessed that -- whereas in other countries, like china, iran, or burma, or even the so-called islamic state, murdering outlaws and murdering those who exercise it. -- not afforded to most in the world. thenderstand how far ripples of this american exceptionalism can reach, i can only point to an alumnus of our organization. whoung iranian dissident started an online gofundme campaign that has thus far raised almost $1 million for the synagogue. [applause] at a difficult time for our country, it is stirring to not only see the outpouring of support, but the defiance that evil will not win. it is commendable to see that the nation's national security today's, the topic of
conversation, recognizes how critical freedom of worship is to the national security of the united states. americae from the nss, remains committed to pretending america's first freedom -- to protecting america's first freedom, religious freedom, the gift of god to every person. so while i suspect the conversation will delve on some of the more traditional issues and threats to american security and leadership, no nation that threatens the united states does not also threatened that first freedom. before i introduce our guest of honor, let me introduce my host, director ofal, asian studies at the american enterprise institute, scholar of american security issues, and one of the founders and visionaries behind the alexander hamilton society. finally, it is my honor to welcome ambassador john bolton.
this is a lesson for our students, that even at the highest level of national foreign-policy roles, you remain either a secretary or assistant. ambassador bolton has served under -- for nearly 20 years of public service. he has just recently returned from a trip to russia and he later --, and wreath at -- murdered in 2015. and a longtime member of the ahs board of advisors, traveling to a number of -- with that, thank you for your service to the country, to the president, to the hamilton society. gentlemen, the stage is yours.
[applause] mr. blumenthal: good afternoon, happy halloween. i see most importantly, you've kept your mustache despite the unrelenting pressure. it sells a lot -- it shows a lot about your spine. there wasn't much more to do. mr. blumenthal: i thought that since we had so many students generic careerre advice question. things have changed so much since you entered the field. what do you think has fundamentally changed, and what are some of the promises for our students, some of the challenges you didn't have to face? amb. bolton: i started as a lawyer. there is no better way to get
into foreign policy then to do something else for a long time. for those interested in international affairs, this is a better time than there has been before. much didn't used to be alternative between simply joining foreign service in the state department or joining the military and serving a post overseas. now i think american business is so international that you have a much better have a variety of career choices. i think where the government still fails is in not encouraging and allowing movement back and forth between the government and private sector. i think this would enhance both the government and private sector, if there was more movement back and forth, but it is a very hard culture to cancome, and not one you reverse overnight. but from the perspective of all kinds of
international issues, the opportunities today are broader for younger people. mr. blumenthal: in terms of government service, a lot of people, i think, don't know about this about you, the aeadth of experience, being lawyer in the justice department, being involved in the first gulf war and writing the national cease-fire resolution and moving on to the george w. bush administration. what has changed the most about government since you last been in? amb. bolton: i think it is gotten more bureaucratic, more sclerotic, harder to get things done. it is depressing to see the makinglty we have in decisions, even complex decisions, seeming to me in days gone by were decide more rapidly.
and to me, the number of things that require coordination, that prevent rapid, effective decision-making, has become more and more difficult. i think another related issue is how hard it is for people from the outside to come into the , the excessive nature of the so-called ethics checks. the kind of investigations people have to go through. if you were designing a system to encourage -- to discourage people from coming to government, you would do it exactly this way. that risks building up a priestly class of people who only serve in the government, particularly when it comes to policy. so, i believe that the virtue of ,merican society, historically has been fluidity, flexibility, the ability to move geographically between jobs. and to the extent that you wall the government off from the rest
of society, you make a mistake. mr. blumenthal: are there any fixes for this? amb. bolton: i think part of what needs to happen is a togress that is more willing allow for the executive branch to make decisions and increase flexibility and reduce bureaucracy. they give the president greater authority to move budget levels around within departments and even between departments. i don't think that is very likely to happen. but if you'll recall, in federalist number 70, alexander hamilton says the characteristic of the executive branch was decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch. does anybody think that sounds like our federal government today? it certainly doesn't sound like congress. this is a real problem, internationally and domestically. to thementhal: moving on national security strategy and your role in implementing it,
one of, i think, the great innovations or transformations nationalthe initial security strategy, to actually and russia as revisionist great powers and say we are in an era of great power topetition, and we are going compete more vigorously. ,nd of course, iran has also was also mentioned as perhaps a regional power. out,ave you seen that play and what would you like to do to carry that constitution more vigorously forward? -- that competition more rigorously forward? forget northdon't korea as well. i think the most important thing is to think strategically to begin with, to understand that other powers in the world have their own plans, have their own interests and are implementing them. we are simply observing something and occasionally running into a problem.
that havecountries interests that are fundamentally adverse to ours that we have to deal with. that's not to say we don't seek areas of cooperation. i think nobody is looking for ceaseless competition. but to believe that history has ended, as people said about 30 , that geopolitical conflict has disappeared, that we are purely in an era of economics, is all fundamentally wrong. and i don't want to say that we are back in the 19th century. we might be back in some century before that, with far more to theweapons available parties involved. and unless you are prepared to protect the united states' interests by having our own strategy to deal with countries whose adverse interests become more and more apparent, we will suffer one setback after another. i think being able to think in
those strategic terms is critical, otherwise you do nothing but ad hoc reaction to one event after another. mr. blumenthal: in terms of difficult political questions, i think you raised some of this in your last trip with russia, when you informed them of our content to leave the imf. but the question of china and russia getting too close, or casting them, as they both are strategic competitors, i think that is a fact. but i think you mentioned to the russians that we should talk about china. occasionally, press reports are correct. mr. blumenthal: i just wanted to check. reported was that you mentioned to the russians, who obviously weren't happy, that we should perhaps talk about the china threat. amb. bolton: you know, if you look at the geography and , and inhy of east asia
the case of russia, you have the case of a country with a huge landmass. substantial mineral resources, large population. to the south, a country with landmass, short on resources and a large population. so, one has to ask the russians, will that situation exist without them being in a potentially difficult position. this question of looking, for example, at the case of intermediate range nuclear capable ballistic , our estimate is somewhere between 33% and 50% of china's missiles fall into that category. none of them can reach the united states. our issues with countries on our southern border. y'reia's interests, the
than ours are, and it is something russia should take seriously and we should take seriously. you see anyal: do evidence of those great powers cooperating too much? i wouldn't: exaggerated. in many respects, they are on the other side of some of the most important transactions, which necessarily means that while their interests appear to coincide, fundamentally they don't. russia is an exporter of hydrocarbons and china is a major importer. russia sells advanced weapons systems and so far, china buys them. have complete confidence that they are doing to the russians the same thing they do to many american products and businesses, stealing their intellectual property, copying it and duplicating it, and soon, they will sell the same items for less than the russians. mr. blumenthal: -- true
innovation, i think, but the other danger, of course, is it china, russia, and iran -- russia and iran obviously do if three of but those powers actually start to cooperate more, and i don't think we see too much evidence of that, but is it a concern? mr. blumenthal: i think one of the strategic links -- amb. bolton: strategic links really do coincide in various respects. it is important in dealing with north korea and dealing with iran. although the proliferation threats are more important, they have significant ties to the strategic threats as well. one day, history will tell us exactly how much of the contribution china and russia
made respectively to the north nuclear weaponan and ballistic missile programs. we have a certain amount of evidence and we can speculate. a lot of these problems of initiallyion derived from great power competition, the nuclear capabilities, for example, of india and pakistan, going back to cold war days, stemming from russian/chinese rivalries back then. knowe case of pakistan, we what we've learned from the libyan nuclear weapons program, that the weapons design that the great proliferator entrepreneur was selling around had a chinese markings. so there's a lot of commonality between the liberators, the rogue states, the regional threats and what they derived over time from those global powers. that is anhal: important point. that is anthe
important point. so much of the north talks about north korea's own strategic forces and threats to employ them against south korea and japan, but the proliferation threat, i imagine, has not gone away. in terms of global proliferation , how much difference do you see now from when you were last governor in charge? amb. bolton: i think the risk of proliferation in proliferation markets remains high. that is pandemic in proliferation itself, as each new power gets nuclear capability. others who have hostile interests grows mathematically. so the effort to stop proliferation, to stop north korea's nuclear program, is not just to do with the threat of theh korea, but onward, threat of nuclear technology and
actual nuclear weapons, and to stop iran before it gets to that point, has implications not only for the middle east, but what iran's capabilities are and the risks they were transferred to the future. mr. blumenthal: the national defense strategy, obviously a corollary or documented national security strategy, really prioritized. secretary mattis said china is thatnd away the competitor we have to shape the military to face and compete with and stop them from doing things we don't like. russia was also up there. they put terrorism further down. what do you think of that? amb. bolton: i think because it is a strategy paper, you ought to look primarily at the strategic level. i think the importance of all , written before i joined the government and i'm perfectly content to leave as written, because i think they were well done, is the ability ofplan over a longer period
time. as the cliche goes, the urgent crowds around to port. -- a lot of reason to believe that in many respects, it has become more difficult to find that the dangers are continuing wherew, the perfect storm terrorists get weapons of mass destruction, that threat remains. of threats has grown. there are no threats, we can say, from great powers who existed in the short time in the 1990's after communism collapsed. then, although people perceived it, and it is not true now. so there is a range of threats from the more particular competitionthreat, and everything in between. that's why there is such a
strain on resources and budget, to correct for eight years of understanding, dramatic understanding under obama, still very difficult to do -- dramatic pending under obama, still difficult to do to get the military whole again. for theenthal: -- coming fiscal year and the last one, but now there's talk about going back down after that and how seriously we should take that talk, and if you are satisfied with where the military budget is heading. amb. bolton: the president's guidance is that everyone will aggregate.in the some of the howls of outrage are coming from various parts of the government already. it is a fact that when your national debt gets to the level -- iturs is, th existentialan
threat to the society and has consequences. we can has to be that constrain government spending in ways that allows us to spend on the priorities we need to. so i think that in the budget omb is crafting right now, you will see significant cuts not in the entitlement programs, but because the spending problem is in the discretionary spending. the entitlements, and in a few years and that problem will have to be addressed, but right now you can have significant impact on both the deficit and national debt i cutting government spending on discretionary programs. mr. blumenthal: what do you think that will do to the defense budget in four or five years? amb. bolton: i think in the near term, it will flatten out, without question. i think the president and defense department have put a lot of emphasis on things like procurement reform and finding
ways to reduce costs across a wide variety of areas. the reagan years, when there was a big defense buildup, there was not so much emphasis on cost cutting, taking costs out. i think that is the difference. so while the budget may not be in an upward curve, the effect of spending the money will increase. let's switchl: gears a little bit. you had, i imagine one of the biggest changes you've had to address is the cyber world. you said some things that i outk have a new strategy about a new approach to cyber. i feel like the last administration was too defensive. can you say more? deterrencehink about in the cyber world? just recentlye've published the first comprehensive federal government cyber strategy, but even before
that, we issued a directive which is classified. mr. blumenthal: therefore you can't say much? amb. bolton: therefore, i'll only say the really good parts. [laughter] it effectively would reverse the obama administration view on cyber operations. the was a case of reducing oncedural restrictions undertaking offensive cyber operations. that doesn't mean it's a no holds barred environment, there is still decision-making , andels that we go through i think very carefully protected channels. but the gridlock, the inability to do anything effectively has been eliminated, and i think that is critical. because i think that if our
adversaries can take steps against us in cyberspace and feel no consequences, no pain or no cost, they have no incentive to stop attacking us in cyberspace. is not toive here have unrestricted cyber warfare the objective is to create structures of the terms, to make our adversaries understand that if they engage in offense of cyber activities themselves, aey will bear disproportionate cost. so they will think harder before they watch a cyber operation to begin with. two, i think we need to think about it in asymmetric terms. a look at us in asymmetric terms. here's the cyber battle space over here and here's everything else. responded to a cyber attack with a non-cyber retaliation and they need to understand that, too. so the point i can make publicly
is that we are prepared to undertake -- we are right now operations inber terms of defending the integrity of our electoral process and the overall integrity of our information technology systems and our adversaries had better understand that. mr. blumenthal: do you see any adversary reaction so far? think it is too soon to tell. i think part of it is getting the word out that this is not the obama administration. you think they would figure that out by now, but it never hurts to stress your brand. and if somebody notices something has gone wrong, they'll say the good old days are gone. mr. blumenthal: final question from me. what is the role, the executive director mention the relationship of liberty, that religious liberty and -- of religious liberty and laying a
wreath at -- itselfntrinsic good in and in your view for national security policy? amb. bolton: it is obviously a critical element, which is why it is in the strategy. i was one of the original members of the commission on international religious freedom when it was established in 2000. so to me, it has always been an important part of policy. so i think you have to look at it as part of the objectives that america seeks. we don't and should not disguise, and should not apologize for what our system does for freedom around the world. we've got a lot of allies who are not in the same position we are. that is not a value judgment on them, but a question on their own development and choice. reale've got to keep the objective in mind here, which is to protect american interests
and those of our friends and allies around the world. mr. blumenthal: i was kidding before, i have a final question. amb. bolton: i know how this works, i've done it before. [laughter] mr. blumenthal: we are in a great power competition. you are a staunch reaganite, information campaigns, strategic information operations were so key. we don't really have the capacity anymore. we believe there -- do you believe there is a need for something like that? not suggesting new bureaucracy, but some kind of capacity that they can go to the diplomatic level rather than tactical? i think it is absolutely critical. i think it is sad commentary on the last two administrations, how much our capabilities have atrophied and i think we have to think long and hard about how to restore that. , i've been in the
agency for international development, the state department of what used to be the arms control and disarmament agency. it, ims of where to put would put it in the state department, where it should be. but this is a case where congress needs to work with the administration to make some pretty fundamental changes in the structures we have now. mr. blumenthal: we are going to open it up to a few questions. .here is a big crowd out here we will keep the press for last. i think that is what he said. if you can ask a question so we can get everybody's questions in. mr. ambassador, thank you for being here. -- arizonath the state chapter. of the policies -- not going to war has itself
become the policy to many americans, the policy objective, which has decreased our deterrence level. ,o you think this is an issue and if so, does the administration have plans to fix this problem, perhaps by a ?uccessful display of force are we going to war anytime soon? amb. bolton: to put it in practical political levels, no. [laughter] if i were back in a think tank environment, i'd be happy to have a discussion about that. if i tried to respond to your thation in the serious way your question deserves, the press in this room would be writing stories, every one of which would begin with war. so let's have that chance later. someone else will ask another question. but the point of a
piece-through-strength approach ugh-strength is to avoid getting into a hostile confrontation. it is one reason you need a strong military, the kind of budget the president has proposed. that it also has to do with your diplomatic posture and what you expect, and what you insist on from your adversaries. i think for far too long, we have encouraged the possibility by ourtary action adversaries and their surrogates, because of our weakness. our military weakness and our diplomatic weakness. study from the past week, the imf treaty. a vieweyond question, shared by every nato ally, that russia is in serious breach of , that they had been in breach for six years or more. of thes been the view
obama administration, repeated publicly in their compliance reports to congress and amplified by this administration . most recently, secretary of defense mattis briefing the secretary of nato. but the response of the obama administration to palpable violations of the treaty was to simply keep talking. now, we are at a point in terms of russian violations, where the president has decided we are going to get out of the treaty. said, goodness, can't you just try to bring the russians back into compliance. let's review the bidding on that diplomatically. the american position is that russians are in violation of the treaty. the russian position is that they are not. russiansu bring the back into compliance when they don't think they are out of compliance to begin with? the presidentason made it unmistakably clear 10
days ago that we are going to withdraw from the inf treaty and i think that would be entirely justifiable, if i didn't even have to mention the word, china. i could also mention iran and north korea. the reason is, leaving aside some of the other -- the other successor states to the soviet union, the only other states bound are russia and the united states. our view is that the russians have violated the treaty, they have already withdrawn by their violations. that means there's one country bound by the treaty, and we are sitting in it. if we had successfully launched an effort 10 or 12 years ago to bring china into the imf treaty -- into the inf treaty, we might have stood a chance. but is there a person in this room who thinks china will destroy even as much as half of their ballistic missile
capability to come into a universalized treaty? the diplomatic response to repeated treaty violations, the diplomatic response to other countries taking advantage of not being bound by the treaty obligations, by the obama administration, was zero. so, what encouragement does that give to our adversaries, that says "cheat to succeed." don't enter agreements with the united states to succeed. we have more lawyers per capita at the pentagon than any other defense industry in the world, we couldn't violated treaty if we wanted to. anyone else who wants to sign a treaty with the united states will have to adhere to it or there will be consequences. mr. blumenthal: before i turn to inf, how soon will we be able to build our own cruise missiles? amb. bolton: one of the reasons the inf treaty is a relic of the
, not in violation of the treaty. put them on the ground in europe, then they are in violation of the treaty. it wouldn't take much in terms , atesearch and development some point in due course, giving andll formal notice material breach, then we'd be in a position not to comply with the treaty. as they say,l: we're going to hurt the feelings of a lot of chinese people in doing so. staying with china, how closely intertwined is the national defense strategy as concerns china, along with the economic strategy? leadership seems to be focused of china the vision 2020 plan, more about the economic side then the defense
side. and how much of an alliance approach are we using? it seems on the economic side that by tearing up the tpp, which was mainly an anti-china treaty, we left our out -- our allies a little bit out of the picture. tpp, let's ben clear. hillary clinton said she would get out, too. ofthe two major contenders the united states, neither believed in the tpp. hillary may not have been telling the truth, i'm just throwing that out as a possibility. i think she would have withdrawn as well. look. i think that the tariffs that the trump administration has imposed are really an economic version. the treaty of the tariffs the imfon china, -- treaty. i remember vividly the arguments
made by china, coming into the wto, by making it international norms, pressuring chinese behavior, things would change and they would become a more market-oriented rules-based society. instead, for 20 years, they ourinue to steal technology, discriminated against foreign trade investment, both against systems, andomic donald trump has called them on it, saying you won't get away with it anymore. for all the other disagreements we've had with europe on these economic issues, they feel the same pain from chinese behavior on ip's and technology transfer and watching the rest. -- of china is amazed. what are these people doing? we aren't getting away with it anymore, that's not in our game plan anymore. they are supposed to do this,
they are supposed to sit back and take it. a lot oft has caused hurt feelings, as dan said, inside china, that we are not a anymore, and iat think it will cause changes in behavior. >> and i meant to say, i am a free trader, like alexander hamilton. that was just to get things going. go ahead. >> you can speak loudly. i have a question on north korea. op-edruary, you wrote an about first strikes on north korea and the justifications for that. i'm wondering how your thinking on that has changed or not, especially if engagement ceases and negotiations are no longer ongoing, what do you think of military options? amb. bolton: you know, i've
written and said a lot of things over the years. and i still believe all of them. but i don't compare things that i say as a free spirit to things i say as national security adviser, because i'm obviously in a different kind of lace and advice, theresident national security advisor, not national security decision maker. president is determined and optimistic that he can see it through. mike pompeo has been working as hard as anybody i know can work on this, and continues to do so. that is the course we are on. if we can get north korea to way,learize in a serious it would be a huge achievement and would warrant donald trump getting the nobel peace prize. mr. blumenthal: i was about to ask, if you were a think tanker,
what would you write about north korea. amb. bolton: use sneaky devil -- you sneaky devil. josh rogan, washington post, thanks for your time and service. next week, the trump administration will impose new crippling sanctions on iran, countries who significantly reduce their imports of iranian oil. the two top countries that are importers, china and india, have said clearly they will not do that. also turkey and russia will not cooperate. will you sanction them, give them waivers, and either way, how do you get iran back to the table to get a better deal than obama did now that the pressure is less? i think the pressure exerted by the sanctions that are already in place and the threat of these sanctions coming back into place has already had a greater effect on iran, even in sanctions with
europe under the security council resolutions. i think that because sanctions ofe imposed over a period years in iran over a gradual fashion and the regime was able to react to them, mitigate the effects and hunker down. when the nuclear deal of effect the sanctions came off and i think iranians said it's a new era. reimposed the sanctions, they weren't ready for it and i think they weren't ready for it now. i think you can see the consequences in the continuing collapse of the iranian currency , and the demonstrations that began before we left the deal in december last year but continue across the country. i think it is a very different environment than before. in terms of how we deal with the specific imposition of the , theions coming next week president said, unmistakably,
our goal is maximum pressure and it will be to drive iranian oil exports to zero. , obviously, a number of countries immediately surrounding iran, some of which i visited last week, some of which are purchasing oil, may not be able to go all the way to zero immediately. we want to achieve maximum pressure but don't want to harm friends and allies, either, and we are working our way through that. i think it is important that we .ot relax in the effort and i think already, we see reduction in purchases in countries like china, that you wouldn't have expected. countries still in the nuclear deal. we've seen chinese financial institutions withdrawing from transactions with iran. we've seen european businesses fleeing the iranian market. most of the big ones were already out. i think the consequences continue and i think that if you
just look at the behavior of the nonnuclear area, you to attack andracy iranian opposition rally in paris, resulting in the arrest of several iranian diplomats, really iranian intelligence agents. you saw in this country, indictments against iranian agents scoping out the israeli targets and jewish targets in yesterday, we saw the danish government announced the arrest of more iranian intelligence officials planning and assassination in denmark. awareness of this regime was not fundamentally changed by the 2015 nuclear deal , but it failed in its foundational premise, that if you could only solve the nuclear issue, everything else would be resolved. i think the pressure is growing and people understand there has to be fundamental change in the behavior of the iranian regime
to get them to come back to the table and that is what they are after. to be clear, when the president , i readimum pressure that to mean "maximum pressure." >> we had a question here. >> my name is aaron o'malley with fox news. if you could say one thing -- o'malley, what is the agenda for the presidents meeting with putin next weekend? paris, thein armistice day celebration, it will be brief. looks like there will be other opportunities. the reason he has sent me twice to moscow to meet with my counterpart on other occasions, is he thinks that despite the political dust in the air in this country about interference , that it isn important to have sustained diplomatic engagement with them. he went to reason
helsinki, why we are still talking about it. tore are a lot of issues discuss. the ins treaty -- the inf treaty, their behavior in the middle east and a range of other it is important that we continue conversation on. , not toa follow-up excess about china, but that is what i do for a living. utin or anybody else you talked to in russia have any reaction that there should perhaps be more talks about a common approach to strategic issues relating to china? amb. bolton: it was a suggestion to have a common approach, rather than what it means to see -- pursuing current its current policies, which in the south china sea, are nearly belligerent in many respects. and in the east china sea, engaging in behavior that is
taiwan, too japan, others. india and the central asian republics. important to have that conversation, and if you are not speaking with the russians at a senior level, you can't really do that. >> i think this gentleman has been patient. [indistinct] -- [laughter from audience] -- >> that's right! >> anything i can do. , for a big year market change on the oil business, the oil market. prices. how much saudi arabia would play to establish the market
first? second, for the danish operation that was countered by the swedish and danish to establisht first? second, for the danish intellig, do you think that would help you to convince your counterparts in approach take a better or pro-american approach toward iran? to thelton: with respect oil market, one of the things the administration has done that the obama administration did not do is attempt to encourage other producers to alter their production to make up for drops in output from iran. there are chemical differences in oil and refiners have different capabilities, so it has been an interesting exercise. number of cases, we've been able to find purchasers of iranian oil to engage. i think we will have more success there. and that both stabilizes the international price of oil and eliminates the need of countries to rely on iran. terroristf the
behavior of iran, ronald reagan designated iran the first state sponsor of terror. engaged in now is outright terrorism as a state itself. terrorism,onsoring these are terrorist attacks they are planning. so i think our friends in europe take a look at this and i think it makes this unfortunately persuasive evidence for our point that it is not just the nuclear threat of iran. and that one of the mistakes of the iran nuclear deal was that it didn't address the other aspects of persuasive evidence for iran's n behavior, in military terms and in terms of terrorism. >> i want to ask about saudi arabia. the question about iran and your arabia, this is where education at the alexander hamilton society, we have clear
national security interests with respect to keeping saudi arabia coalition innd the the gulf, but we also had human rights concerns. how do you see that balance playing out over time? amb. bolton: we've said the saudily to government, the president has, secretary pompeo has and i have said we expect them to get to the bottom of this. we expect there to be accountability for what happened, which was criminal, without any question. and they have promised to do that. they've got a long way already and we'll see what the next steps are. as the president said, this is a really important relationship that goes back to franklin roosevelt and has significance issue of iran, but in a wide variety of other ways as well. >> one more over here. lisa -- with cnn.
i'd like to follow-up on saudi arabia. obviously, the murder of jamal khashoggi has brought to light h some of the concerns that the u.s. has had with leadership in saudi arabia, not just on human rights, but on yemen and their actions there, and the situation with qatar. in light of that, is there a larger discussion with saudi arabia about the whole actions of saudi arabia and how that relationship is getting go forward? as you said, there are a lot of strategic interests involved, but there are concerns that have not been addressed and now might be an opportunity to have a wider discussion. you mentioned yemen. i think secretary's pompeo and mattis put out a statement on that. i think there are a whole range of issues that we have discussed with the saudis. i think it is important to look
at the records of other countries in the region, many of those not filled with jeffersonian democrats. so you can be upset about the anan rights record of american friend, but that doesn't mean our adversary's human rights record is any debtor. just to recall what jean that inick said about her famous article and commentary, that the possibility of change in the right direction far more present in our allies than some adversaries. mr. blumenthal: we are running out of time, i believe we are 2.5 years left in this term. looking backu say, after a few years as national security adviser. if you achieved three things, what would you call those things? the bolton: getting out of
>> within the hour at the white house, president trump meeting c.e.o.s and representatives signing his pledge to american workers. the companies are pledging to create more jobs. have live coverage of that event 2:30 eastern. days before the midterm elections, republican mcarthur ative tom faces andy kim in district house live from newark on c-span 8 east upper. in west candidates virginia senate race, joe
manchin and morsey. ollowing that in new york 22nd congressional district, claudia tenney faces brandisi,in that debate. your primary source for campaign 2018. >> this week on "washington journal," looking at attleground states, the most competitive races of the midterm elections. york, nesota, new california, pennsylvania and florida. 2018us for a live campaign call-in, during "washington eastern on 00 a.m. c-span. is traveling bus across the country on our 50 capitals tour. during the stof in providence, which sland, we asked
party should control congress and why. >> the midterm elections coming i am a democrat, but basically i would just like to along and dy get everybody work together, instead f this and them and everybody bickering back and forth, we need to work together and put a into our pect back country. i think we've lost a lot of that, learn to respect each other again. would like the democrats to be able to hold the party the fact of -- i am personally a democrat, i'm a voter, most likely all democrats, but i know they able to be that way in congress in a long time. you know, where one outweigh the other one, i ould like to see the democrats win and be the majority. ♪ the state, part