Bolton's neoconservative supporters relentlessly portray former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage as Bolton's -- and their -- arch enemy, the epitome of all that was equivocating in Bush's first term foreign policy towards places like Iran and North Korea. So I thought it was interesting that in this Post piece today, Armitage wades into the Bolton matter offering the gentlest defense of his old colleague. (The matter in question is whether or not Bolton delayed NATO funds to former East Bloc states until they exempted the US from the ICC). Bolton, who are your real friends? But in all seriousness, some suggest Armitage's public neutrality on Bolton is informed by the fact that he is among those being considered to succeed Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary. We'll see.

There is much Bolton news this morning. Stygius picks up this (UK) Times account of British defense secretary Jack Straw's extreme difficulty working with Bolton on Iran policy:

As a series of new allegations against Mr Bolton put his chances of confirmation further into doubt, details emerged of how a furious Mr Straw told Colin Powell, the former US Secretary of State, that Mr Bolton was trying to destroy a European initiative on Iran’s nuclear programme.

Mr Straw made the complaint after he became convinced that Mr Bolton was the source of an article on the front page of The Times last July quoting an unnamed senior US official who dismissed the initiative as “spring training” and advocated “regime change” in Tehran. The Times has never revealed its source.

A Foreign Office spokesman said last night that Mr Straw had “no recollection” of clashing with Mr Bolton. Privately, however, a senior British official recalled that Mr Straw had been very angry with Mr Bolton, whom he described as “extremely disobliging”.

Other sources at the time told of the Brits' horror that in October 2004, Bolton had basically told the European troika trying to negotiate Iran's abandonment of uranium enrichment, something along the lines of, So, when are you ready to stop this nonsense and prepare to bomb? (That prompted Straw to make this comment to the BBC at the time).

One can't help but believe that a lot of the tension between Bolton and Powell/Armitage would have been resolved had President Bush himself been less equivocating about what his policies toward North Korea and Iran really were and are -- regime change, confrontation, or negotiation to end their nuclear programs? As it was, Bush left a bureaucratic stalemate that is surfacing in the Bolton nomination debate about who really was carrying out President Bush's intended foreign policies toward those countries, Bolton or people like Jack Pritchard.

On the matter of Straw's memory, am told by British friends/colleagues that "no recollection whatsoever" is "standard code" for the Foreign Office for what we in the American press undestand as the non-denial denial. And we can all imagine what a less masterfully British equivocating denial (..."storm in a teacup"...) might sound like. It's pretty clear that Blair's government can't be seen to be weighing in on such a decision as to who their preference for Bush's UN choice would be. But it's no secret that the Blair government is terrified of what Bolton would mean for the UN and their desire for the US to work more strategic issues through that body.

Posted by Laura at April 26, 2005 09:55 AM