this is bbc news. we'll have the headlines for you at the top of the hour, which is straight after this programme. welcome to hardtalk from washington. i'm stephen sackur. the united states remains the world's paramount power. but what does it want to do with that power? well, the looming presidential election will give us fresh answers. on the one hand, there is donald trump, a nationalist, a protectionist, some say, an isolationist. on the other hand, there's kamala harris, the continuity candidate who backs multilateralism and the nato alliance. my guest today isjohn bolton, formerly donald trump's national security adviser, now a vocal critic of both candidates.

is america too divided, too exhausted to lead the world? john bolton, welcome to hardtalk. glad to be with you. it's great to have you. to you, does this presidential election represent an exhibition of american strength or american weakness? well, it doesn't exhibit much of anything that i find very attractive. i don't think either one of the candidates is fit to be president. so i'm not going to vote for either one of them. and i think it portends real trouble internationally for the united states and its friends and allies around the world. i wish we had two completely different candidates, but we have what we have. people watching this, some of them, will be surprised

you say you can't possibly vote for either of them, because after all, you worked for one of them as national security adviser to donald trump, only ending in 2019. so how come you cannot, under any circumstances, contemplate voting for him? because i don't think he's fit to be president. i don't think he understood the nature of the job when he held it the first time. i don't think he learned anything in four years in office. if anything, he's forgotten things that he knew at the time. and i think his performance in office poses real risks for the united states. i'm going to choose my words carefully. but when you wrote about trump in his first term and your work with him, you called him, quote, unfit, erratic, stunningly uninformed. you said his mind is nothing more than an archipelago of dots, and yet you worked for him for 17 months. what was that all about? well, i thought when i took the job that, like every other president before him, trump would be disciplined by the gravity of the responsibility and the implications of decisions he took on national security issues. and i found fairly quickly that i was simply wrong about that.

he was not disciplined. but i also felt, given that i had been fortunate enough to have considerable experience working in the government on national security issues, that i ought to try the best i could for as long as i could, to give him my advice on the issues that we faced, and so i lasted 17 months. and i have the distinction of being the longest—serving trump national security adviser. mm. now, of course, donald trump's not here with us, but i guess if i were to ask donald trump about you, he would say that he was bitterly disappointed with you, that he found stuff out about you that he really didn't like because after you left the white house, he says he fired you, you say it's more complicated than that. i resigned. it's not complicated. well, it depends who you believe, doesn't it?

but anyway, he said bolton is a, quote, disgruntled, boring fool who only ever wanted to go to war. and that last bit is really quite important. trump clearly saw you as the epitome of a neo—con, whose ideas were simply outdated. well, i don't think that he nearly had the intellect to make the conclusion that you just made. trump said, and told me, that he watched me on fox news for many years, where i don't think i was shy in offering my opinions, and i talked to him any number of times before the election, after he became president, discussing international issues. so, if he didn't know what my beliefs were, you know, there isn't much more i could have done to explain them. and it's typical of trump, the way he deals with people who have resigned his administration, and some of them have opinions that are even stronger than mine, like rex tillerson, former secretary of state, former ceo of exxon,

who called trump a moron. i guess what i'm getting at with trump's reference to your desire, quote, only ever to want to go to war is that trump has taken the republican party, the party that you've been in all your adult life, that you love so much, he's taken that party in a very different direction. he is about nationalism, about america first, and about ending america's commitment to foreign wars. he is, in many people's view, an isolationist. well, i think he has isolationist tendencies, but he has no philosophy. he doesn't do policy as people understand that. and when foreign leaders or members of the press try to put order in his thinking, it's like trying to connect random neuron flashes.

you can do it. you can try and connect the dots. but he doesn't connect the dots himself. but there is something important here. you know, when it comes to policy on china, for example, you and he had a fundamental fallout when it comes to current huge policy decisions facing the united states, the ukraine war, the future of nato. you and he are on entirely different pages. and my point to you is that the republican party has moved on from john bolton's ideology. well, i think you're fundamentally wrong about that. i think the battle for the soul of the republican party remains. i think, in congress, although people are intimidated by trump for political reasons, the centre of the party in both the senate and the house is very much a reaganite peace—through—strength party. i do think the virus of isolationism partially represented by some of trump's positions has spread. well, it's notjust trump.

look at whatjd vance has been saying... let's hang on. ..about a whole host of foreign policy issues. let's hang on here. we'll get to jd vance. but i think trump is an aberration. i think he's, in star wars terms, a disturbance in the force. mr bolton, how can you say that when donald trump's control of the republican party is as complete as one could imagine? and i think when he departs from the scene, possibly if he's defeated in november, or in four years, if he wins, his influence will begin to decline. because not having a philosophy, he has nothing left to pass on. now, the problem of isolationism does exist with other people, and that battle will remain to be fought. but it will not be because of trump. do you acknowledge that it is indeed your policy — that is, the policy of people like you, dick cheney, donald rumsfeld, all working for george w bush, a policy developed after 9/11, which saw massive us force applied in afghanistan and iraq — do you not recognise that that and its failure is the reason why donald trump says what he says today and why it resonates with so many american voters?

well, i don't know that donald trump knows why he says what he says today or if he'll say it tomorrow, if he said it this afternoon. and as for whether it resonates with american voters, if you look at the arc of the debate during this election campaign, foreign policy is almost nonexistent. but what i'm getting at is whether you accept any responsibility with the failure of your approach to foreign policy making, responsibility for the isolationism that is abroad in america today. i don't think the policy has failed. ithink we... you don't think it failed in afghanistan and iraq? not at all. the united states went into afghanistan in 2001 after 9/11, it ousted the taliban from power, it eliminated much of al-anda, and for the years that we stayed until the summer of �*21, there were no terrorist attacks on the united states emanating from afghanistan. that's success.

the failure in afghanistan is donald trump's and his misbegotten decision to negotiate with the taliban, who could never be trusted to adhere to their agreement. and then the failure ofjoe biden in carrying out trump's policy. so the hundreds of thousands of deaths in both those theatres, the hundreds of billions of us dollars spent, and the fact that the taliban is in power in kabul today, the fact that iraq is a deeply unstable country where militias opposed to the united states hold sway in many parts of that country, none of that counts as failure to you? well, i think you have to look at different parts of what happened, analytically. in military terms, afghanistan was a complete success up until the time of withdrawal. you can't say my policy failed when the policy was abandoned. certainly, there were considerable expenditures for nation building

in afghanistan that were likely wasted, but they formed no part of my desire or policy in afghanistan. let's not get stuck on the past. the past matters because it resonates through the present. but right now, perhaps the most important theatre where you part company with donald trump is ukraine. you have said that you believe if trump is re—elected, ukraine will be, to use your word, toast. what exactly do you mean by that? i think that trump has already said he would get zelensky and putin in a room together, and he would solve the problem in 2a hours. he's blamed zelensky for the war. so when they get in that hypothetical room, they won't solve it in 2a hours. that won't be trump's fault, because it's never trump's fault.

and i fear that he will conclude fairly quickly that it's zelensky�*s fault, and that that will give the russians a very substantial victory. do you think the american people want to continue to fund ukraine's war effort as they have in the past? i mean, joe biden really struggled to get the last $60 billion package through the us congress. do you think, whoever wins the next election, there is the popular will to continue that kind of assistance? i think it depends on who the leader is and how they make the case. i think there's been a problem in the united states, and indeed, the west as a whole, ever since the collapse of the soviet union, when you may recall, people were proclaiming the end of history, that there were no more threats, that we could cut defence spending and have a peace dividend. that was very wrong. and the united states is still paying for that complete misapprehension of what happened then. if the case is made to the american people that ukraine is in america's vital interest, i think

they will respond. but we've also got to overcome the appallingly... why do you think that? i mean, we're seeing some pretty extraordinary things happening day by day. we've just learned in the last few days that north korea has sent, it's believed, around 12,000 troops to fight alongside russians on the front lines inside ukraine. that appears not to have shifted the dial at all when it comes to the united states�* discussions of how much effort and assistance to give to ukraine. you're not listening to what i said before. there is almost no discussion at this point in the presidential campaign, and i think that's a big problem. it's also the case that biden has appallingly conducted our aid to ukraine, not done in a strategic fashion, not done with an aim to win, but stringing out debates in public over a protracted period of time. do we supply atacms? do we supply abrams tanks? do we supply f—16s?

the fact is that if it turns out that north korean troops are in ukraine, this will be a graphic demonstration of the new axis between china and russia with outriders like iran and north korea. this is something the american people should have their political leaders debate, which is not happening now. and i believe, as they have in the past, that when the american people are confronted with the reality of threats in the world and told what needs to be done to protect the american way of life, they will respond. but you have to have that debate. some have speculated that donald trump has reasons to be particularly friendly toward vladimir putin, that there is something that we don't know about his relationship with vladimir putin. you know trump well, you've watched his policymaking on russia at first hand inside the white house. do you believe there are things we cannot understand about trump and putin? i think trump likes

authoritarian figures. i can't explain it. i'm not a shrink. i'm not going to get into psychoanalysis. but i think it's pretty clear from his reaction to them. i didn't see anything in my 17 months in the white house to indicate any russian leverage or compromising material or collusion. if i had, i would have remembered it and i would have reported it. if you think ukraine could be toast with a trump victory, what about nato? well, i think it's very likely trump will withdraw from nato. i think this would be a catastrophic mistake for the united states. but i don't think trump understands collective defence. i don't think he understands how alliances function. i think he basically thinks we're providing military protection for europe, forjapan, for south korea, and that these ungrateful people we're protecting don't pay enough. don't pay enough. and i think... and i think... donald trump might say to you, "john bolton, you don't understand how to use "american leverage. it's only by me telling europe that if "you don't front—up more money to pay for your own defences, "then i'm going to walk away "from defending you from the russians. "it's only because i did that that finally a substantial

"number of nato member states, that is, 23 now out of 31, "have finally upped their game and are spending at least 2% "of their gdp on defence." he might say that, but it would be... well, it would be true. ..not for the purpose of strengthening nato, but as an argument to weaken it. he would then go on to say, "and besides, the europeans "have screwed us on trade deals, and they took natural "gas from nord stream from russia." there will be any number of reasons why he doesn't like nato, because he fundamentally doesn't approve of the concept. and i will say, i think it's quite likely the united states is going to have to go from spending roughly 3% of gdp on defence, which is where we are now, back to reagan era levels of 5% or 6%, which means the europeans are going to have to go up to 4%, which they will find trouble doing. and by the way, there's one important point here.

as we speak, germany has barely made it over the 2% mark, but their trajectory is back down again. let's move very briefly from europe to asia. you are a very vocal supporter of taiwan, a frequent visitor to taiwan. do you believe a trump presidency would give taiwan the sort of support you believe it needs as china ramps up the pressure on the island? no, i'm very worried for taiwan if he becomes president. on any number of occasions in the oval office, sitting behind the resolute desk, he would take out one of his sharpie pens and he'd point to the tip and he'd say, "see that? that's taiwan." then he'd point to the desk and say, "that's china." that's his view. which leads you to conclude? taiwan is potentially toast. there's an awful lot of toast in your vision of a trump presidency. i'm very worried. let's talk about the middle east. you have, in the course of this conversation,

suggested to me that you think trump is unfit to be making us foreign policy. and yet, it's interesting to me that when it comes to the mideast, you and donald trump are on entirely the same page. both of you appear to believe that mr netanyahu and israel should be given licence pretty much to do whatever he wants in this battle he is now fighting on multiple fronts in the middle east. right. that's what trump says today. i hope he says it tomorrow. it would be nice to have a little consistency, and i'm glad he's taking my advice this time. yeah, but i guess people watching and listening to this might think, "geez, ifjohn bolton and donald trump "are on the same page on the middle east, then almost "certainly that's the wrong page." they can think whatever they want. just unpick it for me a little bit. you are now suggesting that you believe mr netanyahu should go full tilt to continue the war in gaza, continue the war in lebanon and launch strikes against iran's nuclear

capability? well, i think israel has the difficult problem of confronting a multi—front war against an adversary that has been allowed to build up capabilities for far too long, and is in imminent danger of iran acquiring a capability to deliver nuclear weapons. so how it gets handled and in what form and in what sequence is a difficult question for israel. see, i'm just mindful that donald trump, when you left his service, he said, you know, you were "a boring old fool who wanted nothing but war". sounds to me like, on this front, you just want all—out mideast war. well, what i want is the terrorist threat of hamas destroyed, which is a threat to israel, a threat to civilisation. i'd like to see the terrorist threat of hezbollah destroyed for the same reason. and i'd like to see the anti—proliferation objective of making sure that iran never gets nuclear weapons. and i think netanyahu is

capable of carrying that out. do you not understand, as i heard from a former member of iran's nuclear negotiation team, that if israel launches strikes, tries to hit iran's nuclear capacity, there's no question that iran will try to rush through the final phase of weaponisation of its enriched nuclear material? look, they may have weaponised enriched uranium already. nobody really knows because there's no access to the weaponisation capabilities. and it's a lot easier, actually, to get nuclear weapons for iran simply to send a wire transfer to the central bank of north korea and have the north koreans load a few warheads on a transport plane and send them to iran directly. let's now get to what many people may be puzzled about in this entire conversation, because you began by saying, "i can't vote for either candidate." we've now primarily discussed donald trump and why you differ with him. let's turn to kamala harris. she offers continuity. she offers steadfast support for ukraine and for nato. there are many other conservative republicans who say they cannot vote

for trump, but in all good conscience, they can vote for kamala harris. why can't you ? well, i think kamala harris is whatjeane kirkpatrick, a former un ambassador for the us, said in 1984, she is literally a san francisco democrat. and asjeane said back in this memorable convention speech, the san francisco democrats always blame america first. i think she represents the left wing of the democratic party. i think she would be even weaker than biden. i think we have suffered dramatically over eight years of the obama administration, and now four years of what is functionally obama's third term. and i think kamala harris would be obama's fourth term. you know dick cheney. i certainly do. is he a friend of yours? i called him a friend up until the last time i spoke to him. i hope we still are, even though he's going to vote for kamala harris. well, you know what i'm going to do next? i'm going to quote to you his very powerful words.

he says, "there has never been an individual who is a greater "threat to our republic than donald trump. "as citizens, we each have a duty to put country above "partisanship to defend the constitution. "that is why i will vote "for kamala harris." are you just being self—indulgent in your refusal to do that? no, of course not. look, i think trump will do enormous damage to the united states. i think he did enormous damage in his first term. i think he'll do more in the second term. some of it may be irreparable, but i do not consider him an existential threat to the united states. you don't? do you not listen to people like the former chairman of the joint chiefs, mark milley, who says that trump, this is according to bob woodward's new book, war, trump, quote, is a total fascist to the core. he is now the most dangerous person to this country's future. do you not listen to these people? i don't think trump has the mental capacity to have a world view that that comprises any kind

of coherent system. i will say again, he will do damage, but not existential damage. do you recognise that between being an ok president and being an existential threat, there's a category of somebody who can do a lot of damage but is neither one or the other? that's my point. i think you should assess the threat accurately and not overstate it and not understate it. i listened to trump's own words, not only on the domestic front as he talked about, literally talked about, deporting millions of people using security forces to do it if necessary. he's also talked about prosecuting his opponents for treason. he's talked about taking revenge on those who he feels have done him wrong. this sounds to me like an america that could become deeply, internally unstable. you know, i'm very much aware of this since i'm one of his targets, so i don't need

to be lectured by anybody. so then why do you sit here with me and say, "you know "what, this is all manageable"? because... how do you know it's manageable? because i believe in the constitution. i believe in our institutions. i believe in the american people. and when you try and look at donald trump versus others who have threatened republics in the past, like in rome, he doesn't compare. he doesn't have the wherewithal. a final thought, and it's taken us back to the big picture of what this election tells us about the state of the united states today. what we see is the most powerful country in the world that's paralysed by internal political division, which is no longer trusted by many of its most important allies, which is losing the battle for influence in the global south, which is seen by many countries around the world to have fundamental double standards when it comes to the application of international law. i would put it to you, as a man who talks about america's power in the world, that america truly has never looked weaker. well, i disagree with that. i don't know how the election will turn out. i don't know how the next four years will turn out.

maybe our critics will be happy with your description. maybe that's the way we will turn out. all i can say... was my description unfair? all i can say to the rest of the world is you're going to miss us when we're gone. the question is, are you going to be gone as the world's predominant power? not if i have anything to say about it. john bolton, we'd better end there. but i thank you very much forjoining me on hardtalk. thank you. hello. wednesday's shaping up to be a fine day across most of the uk with some pleasant

sunshine. however, the morning could look like this, particularly across southern and central areas of england. mist and fog really quite thick in places, but the fog shouldn't last. it will clear later in the morning, and thanks to the position of this area of high pressure and our southerly winds, it'll feel pleasant in that sunshine. and i think the mild air is here to stay at least until thursday. beyond that, somewhat

cooler air will arrive off the atlantic.

live from washington, this is bbc news. the us�*s top diplomat, antony blinken is back in the middle east — urging israeli leaders to work for a ceasefire. meanwhile israel continues to hit lebanon — at least 18 people are killed and dozens injured in a strike near the country's largest hospital. and the former boss of the fashion giant abercrombie & fitch, and his british partner, are arrested on sex trafficking charges. we start in the middle east. us secretary of state antony blinken met with israel's prime minister benjamin netanyahu for 2.5 hours in tel aviv on tuesday. it's his eleventh trip to the region since the october 7 attack last year. secretary blinken told israeli officials that the recent death of hamas

leader yahya sinwar presented a critical moment to end the war.