National

The departure of John Bolton, President Trump's third national security adviser, injects still more volatility into U.S. foreign policy, and the choice of his successor has profound implications for U.S. national security interests.

The big picture: Bolton successfully influenced U.S. withdrawals from the Iran nuclear deal, arms control treaties and international agreements, while chipping away at American commitments to multilateralism. But he had become marginalized in the White House as his hawkish approach increasingly clashed with Trump's deal-making instincts.

Context: Bolton ended up on the losing side of a growing list of policy disputes. Reports suggest the final straw came after Bolton protested proposed meetings between Trump and the Taliban and between Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

Bolton had already been sidelined from Afghanistan policy deliberations as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo advanced a deal with the Taliban (though Trump ultimately called off the Camp David meeting on Saturday).

After Iran downed a U.S. surveillance drone this summer, Bolton, long an advocate of military action, argued for a retaliatory strike. Trump approved the strike but then immediately called it off.

While Trump has touted his warm relationship with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un as a pathway to productive negotiations, Bolton condemned reports that the U.S. would consider concessions before North Korea abandons its nuclear program.

Between the lines: Perhaps most consequential, reports suggest Trump didn’t have personal chemistry with Bolton — an insurmountable hurdle in this White House. (Bolton and Trump even offered conflicting accounts of Bolton’s departure.)

What to watch: A key question is how Bolton's successor will figure into administration decision-making.

Traditionally, the national security adviser has coordinated foreign policy across the government and developed policy options for the president. Bolton, however, rejected these functions in favor of a more public-facing and solitary role — often dispensing with interdepartmental meetings and leaving the parts of the U.S. foreign policy machinery out of sync.

Trump could return the position of national security adviser to its more conventional role, restoring a measure of order to the foreign policy process. Alternatively, he could select a candidate who shares his “disruptor-in-chief” instincts or hails from the television commentariat.

Frances Z. Brown is a fellow with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former director for democracy at the National Security Council in the Obama and Trump administrations.

Bolton's exit could reconfigure Trump's foreign policy process

A more traditional successor would improve coordination among government departments.

Former national security adviser John Bolton. Photo: STR/NurPhoto via Getty Images

World

John R. Bolton

Expert Voices

Politics

The <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="departure" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/john-bolton-fired-donald-trump-tweet-a69a3771-2a62-4b15-a643-76f38d0614fb.html" data-vars-content-id="1f65f937-2bbb-4f89-9834-6af3e7b7b5f3" data-vars-headline="Bolton&#x27;s exit could reconfigure Trump&#x27;s foreign policy process" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.axios.com/john-bolton-fired-donald-trump-tweet-a69a3771-2a62-4b15-a643-76f38d0614fb.html" target="_self">departure</a> of John Bolton, President Trump&#x27;s third national security adviser, injects still more volatility into U.S. foreign policy, and the choice of his successor has profound implications for U.S. national security interests.The big picture: Bolton successfully influenced U.S. withdrawals from the Iran nuclear deal, <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="arms control treaties" data-vars-click-url="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/us/politics/trump-inf-nuclear-treaty.html?module=inline" data-vars-content-id="1f65f937-2bbb-4f89-9834-6af3e7b7b5f3" data-vars-headline="Bolton&#x27;s exit could reconfigure Trump&#x27;s foreign policy process" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/us/politics/trump-inf-nuclear-treaty.html?module=inline" target="_blank">arms control treaties</a> and <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="international agreements" data-vars-click-url="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/world/middleeast/us-withdraws-treaty-iran.html?module=inline" data-vars-content-id="1f65f937-2bbb-4f89-9834-6af3e7b7b5f3" data-vars-headline="Bolton&#x27;s exit could reconfigure Trump&#x27;s foreign policy process" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/world/middleeast/us-withdraws-treaty-iran.html?module=inline" target="_blank">international agreements</a>, while chipping away at American commitments to multilateralism. But he had become marginalized in the White House as his hawkish approach increasingly clashed with Trump&#x27;s deal-making instincts.

President Biden has made the COVID-19 crisis and a post-Trump return to national unity and traditional democratic ideals his top priorities. From vaccinations to stimulus to schools, Biden is seeking bipartisan compromise while showing a willingness to use executive authority and bare Democratic majorities in the U.S. House and Senate to implement his policies. Republican leaders are navigating deep party divisions over if and how to move beyond former President Trump.

Politics & Policy

The Trump administration announced Friday that it will not spend some $230 million in stabilization assistance that had been slated for U.S. civilian programs in Syria. The State Department said the cut would be more than offset by other contributions from international partners.

The big picture: A U.S. military partnership with the Syrian Democratic Forces has liberated most of northeast Syria from the so-called Islamic State. Following clearance  operations, stabilization programs provide de-mining, electricity, health, water and critical service delivery essential to relieve the devastation left in ISIS's wake. Even with foreign contributions, the U.S. spending cut presents real risks.

It is certainly a welcome development that, according to the State Department, partners including Australia, Denmark, the European Union, France, Germany, Italy, Kuwait, Norway, Taiwan, the United Arab Emirates  and Saudi Arabia have offered to help. But more efforts are needed. 

First, to ensure that ISIS is permanently defeated and civilians are willing to return home, stabilization assistance must be channeled toward the goal of establishing inclusive, stable governance in eastern Syria. That, in turn, requires U.S. leadership.  Instead, by cutting its modest civilian engagement, the U.S. risks ceding its (already limited) ability to shape governance outcomes in Syria.

Second, the proliferation of stabilization actors on the ground raises the risk of inefficiency or gaps. The State Department also noted that some partner funds are being directed into U.S programs. Such transfers present legal, organizational and accountability challenges; if included in this group, there would be particular complexities of U.S. stabilization program managers overseeing, for example, Gulf state monetary contributions. 

Close management will be needed to ensure stabilization investments are prioritized and channeled to advance the goal of a stable, inclusive eastern Syria. Instead, Friday's announcement signals a de facto ceding of U.S. oversight.

Most broadly, the stakes for getting stabilization right are high: ISIS could still reconstitute itself in Syria or neighboring Iraq, further exacerbating the massive human suffering and displacement across the region.

The bottom line: As the U.S.' own stabilization assistance guidance notes, effective stabilization must work toward a defined political objective. Funding contributions from  partners won't be enough to compensate for an absence of U.S. political commitment and leadership.

Frances Z. Brown is a fellow with the Carnegie Endowment’s Democracy, Conflict and Governance program and a former director for democracy at the National Security Council  under the Obama and Trump administrations.

U.S. cuts to Syria stabilization funds jeopardize a fragile recovery

The U.S. will also cede influence in shaping the long-term political outcome.

his picture taken on August 16, 2018 during a guided tour by the Russian Forces in Syria, shows a Russian army convoy driving in the East end of Aleppos industrial zone. 

A Russian army convoy driving in the East end of Aleppo's industrial zone, on August 16, 2018. Photo: Andrei Borodulin/AFP via Getty Images

Syrian Civil War

The Trump administration announced Friday that it will not spend some $230 million in stabilization assistance that had been slated for U.S. civilian programs in Syria. The State Department <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="said" data-vars-click-url="https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2018/08/285202.htm" data-vars-content-id="2c03a862-cc6d-4381-874a-fae0c2082347" data-vars-headline="U.S. cuts to Syria stabilization funds jeopardize a fragile recovery" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2018/08/285202.htm" target="_blank">said</a> the cut would be more than offset by other contributions from international partners.The big picture: A U.S. military partnership with the Syrian Democratic Forces has liberated most of northeast Syria from the so-called Islamic State. Following clearance operations, stabilization programs provide de-mining, electricity, health, water and critical service delivery essential to relieve the devastation left in ISIS&#x27;s wake. Even with foreign contributions, the U.S. spending cut presents real risks.

China is becoming the most formidable rival America has faced, and the risk of confrontation with Russia, North Korea or Iran still looms. Authoritarians are rising, the chaotic Afghanistan exit revealed the limits of U.S. power, and the pandemic, climate change and other critical challenges continue to pose grave threats.

Two suicide bombings in Afghanistan's capital, Kabul, on Monday morning killed at least 25 people, including journalists, police officers and emergency responders. The Islamic State has claimed responsibility. 

Why it matters: Over the past year, Kabul has faced a surge of large-scale attacks, and Afghanistan’s National Unity Government has struggled to improve security throughout the country. Although President Ashraf Ghani has offered to enter peace negotiations with the Taliban, these bombings underscore that the Islamic State poses its own grave challenge to the country's stability, just as President Trump has reportedly called U.S. support into question.

Monday's attacks appear to have been designed to specifically target journalists and emergency personnel. At least nine journalists are confirmed dead, as well as at least four police officers. The blow to Afghan journalism is noteworthy, as the burgeoning independent media is now the country's second-most trusted institution (behind only religious leaders).

The attacks come before two milestones in Afghanistan’s democratic development: parliamentary elections, slated for October, and next spring's presidential election. They also follow another Islamic State–claimed attack last week at a voter registration center that killed at least 60 — an apparent effort to discredit the electoral process and sow ethnic violence.

What to watch: First, whether Afghanistan's deteriorating security will have a further chilling effect on the upcoming elections. Second, whether Trump’s new national security team will shift positions on Afghanistan. U.S. leadership has emphasized enduring American support for the Afghan government consistent with the administration’s new South Asia Strategy, but reports broke on Monday that Trump wants to “get the hell out of ” Afghanistan. The only certainty is that Afghan journalists will continue to risk their lives to report the news.

Frances Z. Brown is a fellow with the Carnegie Endowment’s Democracy and Rule of Law Program and a former director for democracy at the National Security Council.

ISIS Kabul bombings target journalists, government ahead of elections

The attacks come before two milestones in Afghanistan’s democratic development.

Friends and relatives of Agence France Presse Afghanistan Chief Photographer Shah Marai Faizi gather at his burial in Gul Dara, Kabul on April 30, 2018.

Mourners at the burial site of AFP Afghanistan Chief Photographer Shah Marai Faizi, who died in Monday's bombings. Photo: Andrew Quilty/AFP via Getty Images

Afghanistan

Two suicide bombings in Afghanistan&#x27;s capital, Kabul, on Monday morning killed <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="at least 25 people" data-vars-click-url="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/world/asia/kabul-bombing-photographer.html" data-vars-content-id="33e1e2ab-a2c4-4633-b2b9-88699e4a3b66" data-vars-headline="ISIS Kabul bombings target journalists, government ahead of elections" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/world/asia/kabul-bombing-photographer.html" target="_blank">at least 25 people</a>, including journalists, police officers and emergency responders. The Islamic State has claimed responsibility. Why it matters: Over the past year, Kabul has <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="faced a surge of large-scale attacks" data-vars-click-url="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/27/world/asia/afghanistan-kabul-attack.html" data-vars-content-id="33e1e2ab-a2c4-4633-b2b9-88699e4a3b66" data-vars-headline="ISIS Kabul bombings target journalists, government ahead of elections" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/27/world/asia/afghanistan-kabul-attack.html" target="_blank">faced a surge of large-scale attacks</a>, and Afghanistan’s National Unity Government has struggled to improve security throughout the country. Although President Ashraf Ghani has <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="offered" data-vars-click-url="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-taliban/afghanistans-ghani-offers-talks-with-taliban-without-preconditions-idUSKCN1GC0J0" data-vars-content-id="33e1e2ab-a2c4-4633-b2b9-88699e4a3b66" data-vars-headline="ISIS Kabul bombings target journalists, government ahead of elections" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-taliban/afghanistans-ghani-offers-talks-with-taliban-without-preconditions-idUSKCN1GC0J0" target="_blank">offered</a> to enter peace negotiations with the Taliban, these bombings underscore that the Islamic State poses its own grave challenge to the country&#x27;s stability, just as President Trump has reportedly called U.S. support into question.

Stories

Bolton's exit could reconfigure Trump's foreign policy process

U.S. cuts to Syria stabilization funds jeopardize a fragile recovery

ISIS Kabul bombings target journalists, government ahead of elections