 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Today, we will be talking about the dismissal, or in his own words, resignation of U.S. National Security Advisor, John Bolton. And to talk more about this, we have with us Prabir Prakash himself. Hello, Prabir. Prabir, so Bolton has a, like, as we know, has a horrible record even among the Republicans and the Republican administration, whether it be North Korea, whether it be Iran, whether it be Venezuela. He's been the leading advocate of war in the administration. What are your, what is the initial response on this development? Well, you know, I think fundamentally we should not expect any major change. Trump has been doing what I would call breathing hot and cold over the war scenario continuously. He threatens annihilation. Remember, he threatened to bomb North Korea out of existence. He has made similar statements against Iran as well. He has had various hawks in the administration, Pompeo is another one. Mike Pence is the vice president, is not much better. So he has surrounded himself with a lot of hawks in the administration and the same time backing off from outright war. So what Trump's policies are is not going to be settled by who his advisors are, or who the National Security Advisor in this case, Bolton is. The problem that Bolton always had is that he has never in his life been inconsistent. He's always wanted war and more war. So he, if you talk about the horsemen of apocalypse, so he's always been one of the horsemen as it so in that sense, Bolton going may appear to be something which is good. But I think fundamentally it doesn't change the dynamics in the United States at all because President Trump's belief is that he should ratchet up the pressure that go in a final negotiations with his counterpart. He believes that all of them have single point counterparts who can deliver whatever he wants and he is the ultimate negotiator. Now that scenario works as long as the television reality show, and don't forget that's his really claim to frame. It's not that he built up a huge business empire. He really built up his brand by doing the television reality show, the apprentice, and that's what gave him shall be said ability to sell different things after that, including the Trump brand image. So if we see all of that, I think the policy that we will see from Trump is that ratchet up the war shall we say scenario, ratchet up the pressure on the other side, whether it's Iran, whether it is the Hezbollah, whether it is Afghanistan, the Taliban, all of it and then back off from an outright war. But the risk in all of this is that a small mistake by either side can actually cause an unintentional war as well because once you've raised it to that pitch, it may not be under your control as you believe. So this is also the China shall we say the trade war that's going on. So all of this is really more than his advisors. It's really the hallmark of this is Mr. Trump. And as we know, his foreign policy to his internal policy seems to be done on Twitter. And he doesn't seem to at the end of it follow anybody's advice. And that I think was clear from when he went to see the have his meeting with North Korea. Bolton was at the same time was sent to Mongolia. So I think that that has been that has a clear indication that Bolton was the way out. And finally, whether he has resigned or offered to resign and been sacked. This is a matter of detail, which is only importance shall be said to the United States population and certainly not of any interest to the rest of the world. Right. And also, how do you see this in the context of the larger US imperialist policy itself? So on the one hand, we know that that it is something which actually is say common to both the Democrats and the Republicans. And in fact, some Democrats even expressed a disappointment that Bolton, a steady man, steady hand was actually dismissed. So how do you study war? So how do you see its implications, for instance, on say situations like maybe the in West Asia, where there's Hezbollah, there's Israel, there's Palestine. So how do you see that playing out? You know, it's very clear that Israeli relationship with Mr. Trump is not changing because of Bolton. Bolton may have been additional factor in the Trump equation, which is outright opposition to Iran, Hezbollah, and other forces, including forces within Syria itself. But the and complete support to Israel and Netanyahu. This was basically the Trump policy. This is not a Bolton policy. This is essentially a Trump policy. It's also being led in the White House by son-in-law Jared Kushner. So all of this is not likely to change. So I think that is a constant in the situation. You can see this just after Bolton has been fired. We have Netanyahu saying that he's going to take over officially larger and larger parts of the West Bank. And this is what we have always been saying that this is essentially slow and creeping grab of the West Bank, which was de facto right till now. Now, according to Israeli law, Netanyahu is going to make it de jure as well. But as far as not as far as international law is concerned, but Trump has already given his consent to any violations of international law. And on the question of Jerusalem, the occupied territories, all the United Nations resolution, Trump has essentially said he doesn't observe or believe in any of them and that he's going to back Netanyahu and the Israeli government whole hog on this. So that is completely constant and it really doesn't depend on Bolton or anybody who occupies the national security advisers post. So I think that part of the equation isn't going to change. Will Trump bring about a reconciliation or Trump actually going for a reconciliation with Iran? Will he actually meet Rouhani and come to an understanding? That is the big question in West Asia at the moment. And it does seem that Trump is trying to make peace overtures to Iran. But the point is Iran seems to have calculated that United States is not a party with whom you can actually hold negotiations and expect good faith agreement. So they are saying if you want to show good faith, go back on your sanctions. And on that basis, then we can negotiate. Trump's understanding is that comes at the end of the negotiations and not before. So he has reset the negotiating framework by abrogating the JCPOA, which he's pulled out of. And now he says we'll start from scratch. That I don't think is a basis for any agreement. So yes, maybe there are some backroom negotiations going on. Maybe Bolton was trying to scupper them. Maybe there is already some agreement between the two sides and the Trump's, shall we say, ages. So all of this we need to see. But at the moment, whether the Iran, United States equations will be reset and will Bolton's departure help that we do not know. And it depends a lot also in Iran, who at the moment are saying that how can we have negotiations with the United States after they are back to an agreement. So what agreement can we have with a party like this? I think that question Trump is not able to solve to the satisfaction of the Iranian side, such that a negotiation can take place. And coming back to the US actually, so like we, like you mentioned, there's been a complete in some senses collapse of the traditional establishment. And now foreign policy, domestic policy, all that is actually in some senses begun revolving around the Trump persona, which makes it actually very difficult to calculate what his end game is or where the direction is. So what are your observations? We cannot predict individuals. And there is an element of uncertainty when individuals chart out courses, which do not necessarily follow from a larger discussions within the administration inside and outside. So you don't really predict an individual, you can predict more accurately a collective. What is clear in the United States, we do not have a collective at the moment. And whatever is being done seems to be done at the whims and fancies of its chief executive, namely the president. Having said that, we also need to register that United States is also losing significantly economic dominance over the globe. But it still has military dominance. It still has financial dominance. Military dominance in the sense it is still much stronger than any other power. Unfortunately, for the United States, that really doesn't matter. The question that matters is, can they really go to war and subjugate the other side? And clearly at the moment, that is not possible. You can at best destroy a country like the United States destroyed Iraq. It destroyed Afghanistan. And it's threatening to discuss Iran. It destroyed Libya. And perhaps also we should bring Somalia into that list. But its ability to control the aftermath of the military intervention or the military aggression that it did in Iraq and Afghanistan shows that that doesn't really give you long-term dominance in changing of those countries in your interest. Afghanistan, it looks like that the United States will have to finally negotiate its exit. It's not negotiating Afghan peace. So the trade war with China, this is a long-term reset. I don't think we are going to see a reapproachment on the issue of trade. And I think we are in for a long period in which the United States tries to disengage economically from China or get China to disengage from the rest of the world because of the threats of sanctions and therefore retard its progress. Because the more China progresses, the more the disparity with the United States comes up. The China is actually improving its infrastructure, improving its educational levels. The people who are working there, lot more science and technical institutes are producing graduates. The human power is tilting more and more in favor of the Chinese. So given all of that, how much can the retarded becomes a question? But this is a long-term reset. Trump may have made it much more about him. But I don't think these policies are going to change in the near future. I think it's a really, shall we say, something which is a different trajectory we are going to see in the world on economic and military terms, vis-à-vis China and Russia. But at the same time, in West Asia, I do think Trump has more maneuverability because they don't have that much of a larger stake except his support to Israel. And that's why the Israel-centric part of the West Asian policy locks himself into, locks Trump and the United States into a certain network boundaries. But on the question of China and also the question of Russia, I do not think it's only a Trump issue. As you see, as you know, Trump wanted to have some kind of equation with Russia. That hasn't really worked because that's in the United States long-term interest to try and isolate Russia and China from Europe. Failures? Yes. Europe and Russia, I think, are trying to come together. I also see that China is not as much of an outlier. Iran is not as much of an excommunicated party as the U.S. would like to think about. So some re-approachment in the European continent is taking place. And I do think that the Russian, the American policies of trying to isolate these two countries can hold in the long run. But the short run, it is clear that there is, this policy is a bipartisan one. And if you talk about the security establishment, they're fully on board with this policy. That is not a Trump issue. That's a much longer term issue. And Venezuela, Latin America is also similarly a long-term issue that the U.S. would like to control as per the Bondo doctrine. They are really going back to the Bondo doctrine that that's their sphere of economic and political influence. And therefore, any independence by any country will then be ousted, that government will be ousted by any means. That seems to be also a consistent policy that Trump to Obama and whoever becomes the U.S. president is likely to follow. Thank you, Praveer. That's all we have time for today. Keep watching NewsClick.