secure after the withdrawal than we were before the withdraw, you said that abiding, changed in that answer in a way. what do you mean? he said, when he was helping to confirm you at the state department, to anyone. my disagreements with you that you had to competent? i wish you were ambassador. i was you were dumb to get a better shot at you. you're competent and honorable. what do you think the president meant by the now president meant by the i think i took it as a compliment to sort of a backhanded compliment to be sure, but the look i, i've been on the opposite side of joe biden on almost every major question. in foreign policy for a long time and i think that was a recognition. we disagreed and they didn't have the usual politics of personal destruction issues. they could go after me on so they had to try something else. i don't think he's going to appoint you had national security adviser anytime soon. perhaps the top objective in your, in your book, as regards afghanistan, you make clear as to prevent the potential resurgence of isis just tell us what you

think isis k actually is because we had cause isaac's finance minister omens lucky while on the program who negotiated actually with biden in the bus, he claim that it was trumps. a mother will bombs, li, like a, was nuclear bomb that was dropped by tremble. and i've got a son acted as a recruitment sergeant for isis. but his that i says, writes is, kay, this is complicated, these different terrorist terrorist groups. terrorist factions don't have the identity cards that they can show. i'm al qaeda isis, kate, i'm this people drift back and forth. i think the, the main threat right now of regrouping terrorist in afghanistan is al qaeda. i think a kid is never really left. i think they've been embedded with taliban in their exile across the border in pakistan for the last 20 years. and i think al qaeda will take advantage of renewed taliban control to recreate the sanctuary, the or base area that they use. the afghan stand before isis is

a new phenomenon. but look in iraq and syria. it was an offshoot of al qaeda and isis k, which is the acronym for the isis affiliate claims to control the tip. roughly the territory about gas stand is just another manifestation that the tragedy at the mosque. you mentioned a similar bombing occurred a few weeks ago. i c k 2 credit for both masks, isis k, obviously fanatic. sunni terrorist group, but there's rivalry between isis k and taliban. but i could say rivalry. today i could see a coalition between them tomorrow this, this is, this is a changing environment in afghanistan. obviously, just a couple months ago they were an exile across the border. now they're in control and carnival. i expect to see there to be further developments,

but i think it's hard to predict. but what i would say is that this potential for congregating terrorist from ad arctic areas around the world toward a more hospitable government in afghanistan, i think it's something we should all be worried about. i mean the taliban obviously say they're sworn enemies with ices k and you seem to say that they'll kind are embedded within it. we've had the taliban on this program. there are defect negotiations going on between nature of governments and the taliban. you mean they're kind of negotiating with them more or less? well, i think there's the danger that look there's, there's a big question whether there's a new modern taliban leadership or whether it's the same old crew that governed afghan to stand in the late 1990 s. i think it's still early to make a final conclusion, but i think the early evidence is not very encouraging that moderate forces have somehow taken over with taliban. and i think it's one of the reasons why the by did

ministration has been hesitant to unfreeze afghan assets, turn them over to taliban to resume humanitarian assistance until we find out whether there's still a terrorist group as they seem to be or whether there's something else the europeans through the european union have jumped in a little bit early. i think they may come to regret that a lot of money. they seem to be giving. i mean, some might say it was after all the united states and britain that were trying to overthrow outside of syria. and that meant that of course, alliances were made with groups affiliated. i said ok and are in syria. and i mean, everyone knows the u. s. history and the history with the merger dean isn't this another case of a terrible blowback that isis k is actually a kind of descendant of british and u. s. policy and serious in 2011? well, i don't think so. i mean, i think what happened in to take it back to the iraq syria theater is that

after brock obama withdrew american forces from iraq in 2011. because really what could go wrong? everything? everything was taken care of. that's when ice. this arose in western iraq and eastern syria and we had to go back in to counter this new threat are more virulent form of al qaeda. so i hardly think that it was in reaction to our withdrawal that we saw isis arise. i think it was the spread of this terrorist mentality which was of course, the thing to read. of course one can say that then it's still a descendant of u. s. u k policy, because we invasion of iraq. i mean, i the, i the way with them. i, maybe it all goes back to british imperialism in 1000. everything does an huh. know that this is more recent. go with the 2001 war, i should. i mean, before we leave afghanistan, i should just quickly, you have warned that

a taliban victory in gobble gives them potential access to 150 nuclear weapons. what do you mean? that was miscoded from a, from an earlier interview. what i have said was, i worry that the take over by taliban in afghanistan could provide aid and comfort to radicals in pakistan. pakistani taliban itself, other terrorist groups that the pakistani government created along with extremist in the inter services intelligence director and other parts of the pakistani military if those extremists took control in pakistan. and then that government would have access to the country store of nuclear weapons. and so did you make that point in when you are a national security advisor and what no one listened to you, the potential for absolute catastrophe. i did make that point several times. i thought it was a compelling reason to keep american, a nato forces in afghanistan. obviously that was not persuasive. donald trump and

wouldn't have been persuasive joe by. well, it's not necessarily meaning a continued occupation. it could mean other policies, but clearly that's a terrifying prospect. i should just because we got a trial here of julian assange. good. coming up. you appointed. richard grinnell is i right. yours who took over is acting national security advisor. when you know i didn't appoint 8. richard grinnell worked for me in new york and he was the spokesperson for the u. s. mission to you. and when i was you an investor, will you ever privy to this thing about grinnell and trump organizing in the san pardon deal if he revealed his sources as news to me? well, i have to go to the actual bombing of syria that you are a national security advisor at the time. so some might say that also emboldened, i says al kinder in syria, cause you a defacto defending isis elk. adrian, syria, what did you, what do you, how do you look up on that attack on siri or in 2018?

we certainly weren't defending isis or, or anyone else way would have it. well, they would be wrong to see it that way. what happened was the syrian government used chemical weapons, probably chlorine based against civilian targets in and around damascus. almost exactly one year earlier in april 2017. the syrian government had done the same thing. us had responded militarily and clearly assad had not been deterred from engaging and that kind of conduct again. so this was actually started my 1st day in office, april 9th, 2018. it was a busy week, but the british, the french came together with us. we did another retaliatory attack in response. i don't think that deterred aside either. but to me it was, it was evidence that the danger of the anarchy we saw in syria with the presence of ryan forces,

has coming over from lebanon to support the sad regime. the accumulation of terrorist forces in and around england was a compelling reason to keep us and nato forces in northeastern syria, just another place. trump wanted to withdraw from. so this was part of the complex a dealing with in to trump administration to maintain stability, which was then us interest rather than withdraw and see a return either to terrorist control or iranian back control. yeah, you didn't mention, you mentioned the regional allies, they didn't mention russian troops. you don't think it was compelling when mad dog matters from the pentagon, said if that missile strike killed russian soldiers, it would have meant war with moscow. i don't know when, when that is said that, but i can it's, it's in the heat. it's in the context of that joint chiefs of staff chairman joe dunford, called his russian counterpart shortly before the strike in syria,

as he had done the year before to to say, look, you've seen what's happened here with this chemical weapons attacked by the assad government and just want you to know that we're not going to sit idly by so that you know, you need to look out for your russian forces. we understood fully and i think that's what madison is saying. that if we were not careful that there might be a collateral damage, which we didn't want. this was not in any sense, aimed at rush was aimed at the assad regime. all be that you said the putin was lying about it, not be a chemical attack. you also say in the book that actually did. that's right, that was the russian position. and that was incorrect, isn't it all? the evidence indicates. yeah, obviously, very controversial. but you do mentioned in the book with antonio gutierrez, who slammed the strike for not having un security council approval. he was being ridiculous kind of symptomatic of the fact, the lack of authority of the you in secret general in the you. and now you famously

said it can demolish a whole lot of flaws in new york. it doesn't make any difference. i think the organization is grin locked in its political institutions. sad say largely a failure. if we had gone to the security council, i think we almost certainly would have faced a russian and chinese veto, that the administration had not gone for security council approval in 2017. and i did the british nor the french felt there was any need for security council approval. so i think we were well within our rights said to conduct the strike with without reference to the security council. can master boldness, stop you that more from the 27th national security advisor of united states up to this break? ah,

it's open also. so most basic, but i see you back believe go. he did. who bought? i bought off the dial tomorrow. a couple of these on your voice, but i know from politicians to athletes and movies. does the musicals does it seems every big name in the world has been here this year? hope a bazooka. this goes to school. ah, what do i see? and when you get the call, when you finish with give me a glover miss, pull the keys, she said basil makes dreams. come true. every one who falls in love with people like what me these people learn from their own experience. how vulnerable a business is to the bank. so you push my business over the age,

pushes me right to the bankruptcy. now i realize we will go. this isn't just the back that may be involved in this is the concept. see, funds is the lawyers. these people have got one of their stories at a walk kind of whistle blower. tell people's marriages have broken up, lost their family homes. it is spectacularly devastating for people's lives. we have committed suicide, but left behind, nor the explicitly state that it was the constant intimidation and billing by buying coff resource that late them to i took the spring. it's obscene. these people up north salt. ah, welcome back. i'm still here with the full, the u. s ambassador of

u. n. and the 27th us national security advisor, john bolton, quite a lot of us subsidy to the you and i know that under trump you got out of unesco. biding took you back in. did you advise of national security adviser that some of that us subsidy to the u. n. g we reduced, i've long felt based on my tenure in new york is un ambassador and other positions . i've held that the u. s. money is, is wasted in many respects. misspent in many respects and my overall reform proposal for the un is to abolish what are called assess contributions, which are essentially mandatory. the u. s. pays around 2022 percent of the budgets and most agencies i make all contributions from national members of the you and i'd make all. busy contributions, cibola, but i mean, there must be people all over the world, arguably that would agree with all this. why did you get nowhere with all of this, the notion to make contributions, voluntary, unfortunately didn't have agreement all around the world. but i think if they did,

it would be like a su nami, sweeping through the halls of the un. i'm in the un security council, of course, rather fi than the u. s. a. j. c. b o. a. what prospects do you think? i mean, what's the delay since biden go back in of the iran nuclear deal? i know you're, you're an opponent. i don't know whether you think you think the option is to attack iran militarily. i'm not sure what your view is of iran u. s. relations in by the administration for all. busy public purposes remains committed to trying to get back into the deal and to get to run back into the deal . i think the deal is fatally flawed when it was agreed and 2015 has gotten any better with age. i think the regime and cheiron is committed to getting deliverable nuclear weapons. it's never showed any evidence, whatever views your views are well known about what, what should the policy be now, the best step forward given how unpopular the karen regime is inside afghanistan is

to find ways to, to, to split the top leaders in the revolutionary guards and the armed forces and to reflect what is the widespread view among the population out? plenty of places where there aren't western reporters reporting, how unpopular the regime is and see if it can't be overthrown. give the government of the people of iraq using the tile about. i thought it is quite popular enough chemistry. iran is obviously taken maybe a 1000000 refugees there, and iran is mean linked to their talks. i mean, obviously they're new f can talk. so happening in most can agreement and ron is the unpopularity the regime in iran. i think that is that it's only through regime change in iran that you're going to get a strategic decision. they're not to pursue nuclear weapons. but obviously the last time there was a successful regime change by the u. s. was against the democratic lead mazda deck . bonnie saunders fond of talking about that. isn't that how you got into this mess?

i know douglas has a big hero of yours. he actually seeing that one is with the president for sure. i should say we did it with the british, but it was actually most of back who had violated the iranian constitution at the time. and i think it was, it was far more elements of popular opposition to most of the extra work for the shop. and it led to it led to the islamist revolution of $979.00 now, and then it followed it. that's your engaging and a post hoc air go back, found it. now i've, i lived in iran, i got to tell you. and the sanctions didn't affect rich people in iran, your vocal supporter of sanctions. i mean, do you know how many thousands of ordinary iranians men, women and children are killed by u. s. and nature sanctions on iran? you think it's a price worth paying? like madeline albright with the $500000.00 iraqi children. now it says that the

sanctions have never been directed against the medicine or you know, the heights. but the effects are caused by the mishandling of the iranian economy. the corruption among even the mullers themselves who have grown there day and their families grown. you know, the case of you except that are you not shoring up? i mean, cuba is a good example here. you sanction the country you create support for that government, whatever the color that government is, i think cube is a good example. the islands recently been swept by anti regime demonstrations. they're primarily from young people and this is, this is significant in the for you. i already in the streets and it's going to be quiet now. thousands, thousands all over the island. i know in the book, you're concerned about venezuelan help for cuba, the washington tank cpr claims 40000 children may be killed by sanctions on venezuela. why did you not want trump to meet madura? apparently trump expressed a desire to meet maduro and you treated this guy. guido is a president,

is very strange anecdotes in your book about the wedding ring of his wife. you might have to explain that one as another trump project, trump and go, trump had a feeling for authoritarian leaders like bottom your food near to want asian tank chem john non douro is just part of that, that, that a group of people. and i think he decided ultimately on his own, he didn't want to do it. but the, the, the clear policy we had was to support the constitutional process in venezuela. and the duly elected legislature had declared bureaus, fraudulent election, invalid. and therefore, there was a vacancy in the presidency, which one guy know was elected to fill. and we recognize that government, i might say this constitution was written by hugo chavez in his early days. so he always supported chavez. i know ambassador. and that's why i'm a freshman,

but you don't, but it subscribed to churchill, george or maybe trump wants to speak to madura the country with the law, just no noise reserves. why not? as his national security advisor say you set up a meeting like that? kim jong well, maybe not like the kim jong and when obviously yeah, look at the question is what, what is in the interest of the people who venezuela, the interested the united states. and i think we saw very clearly that chavez enduro had driven the country into poverty. they had, they had taken, as you say, a country less is to 40000 people not being killed by us sanctions. look at that. that is, that is somebody's estimate. there's simply no evidence for that. it is the case that the medical system in venezuela over a period of 20 years of chavez bureau rule has been, has been, has been just devastated. and as has the economy more broadly now, i know you are privy to the highest secrecy documents. you must have been because

trump tried to try to take you to go for the book just to check for the 15 letter the 6th time in the any secrets. but all those documents must show that china is headed to become the most economically powerful country of this century. why? why are you against strategic arms limitation treaties given that that would arguably give china close to make more nuclear warheads, more nuclear missiles than even the united states possesses today? well, we, we could talk about the, china's economic future. i think it statistics are inflated to say the least and i think it has enormous internal problems. people don't recognize, but on the strategic weapons issue, what i have said is that i think we have to recognize that we're no longer in essentially a bipolar nuclear world. russia and the united states that was true and cold war days, there were smaller nuclear powers, china, britain, france, others. but in those days, if you are going to have arms control, it was, it was

a bipolar negotiation today. and we read in the newspapers from commercial satellite overhead of chinese construction of hundreds of new ballistic missile silos, which are obviously being excavated to put in missiles carrying nuclear warheads. china's capabilities in the nuclear field are expanding enormously. so what i've said consistently, when i was in the government, the before that and since i've left, if we're going to have new strategic weapons negotiations with russia, china has to be included. it makes no sense whatsoever to pretend that we're still living in the cold war, bipolar nuclear error, except that policy has gib lee move to moscow in beijing together. us name to a policy has moved moscow and b jane closer than ever as you know. i don't think it's us policy that's moving close together. i think they have

a grown closer. i think that's moscow's choice, and i think it's a big mistake for russia. i think rushes got a lot of oil that it's happy to sell to china. it's got strategic weapons. it's happy to sell china. but i think brush is making a very bad decision by casting its lot in the future for the rest of the century. potentially with china, i think it is in danger of losing over a long period of time control over much of russia, east of the euro mountain. i mean, you've got a country with a huge population and not many natural resources, south of russia, with in that part of a lot of natural resources and very few people that doesn't speak long term strategic stability from the russian point of view. and i would just urge people in russia who are thinking about this issue to think long and hard before they get too close to china. but what would you say if you have that, and we have go to the national security advisor given there is a u. s. s joint strike carrier strike fleet right now,

sailing to china's maritime borders. and even boris johnson is sending their, his aircraft carrier to china. i mean, as a, as the basis increases, the number of troops increase around russia as the navies of nato approach. china. wouldn't you, me advising alliances with china? i very strongly believe. ready that it's not in rushes, long term interest to get closer to china by splitting away from, from the potential for closer relations with the west that we had after the collapse of the soviet union. i think we've lost a lot of time and opportunity and yeah, the way we were in russia tried that. and as we know, the agreement with global job is broken. and we've seen u. s. policy as regards a. iraq, afghanistan, libya, syria. we've seen what nato thinks of relations with russia, a alliance. nato remains a defensive alliance, and i would just say,

and perhaps you and i should discuss this at greater length and in a future broadcast. i think russia's greatest security lies moving west, not moving east. i just got to find the us then, obviously about the cove it pandemic. i don't know what you think the mistakes were by the trump administration, with your writing a day, maybe a sequel to this book about that element. but of course, criticism came for you. why did you abolish the national security council's pandemic response unit, just ahead of the coven virus that killed hundreds of thousands of americans. member. well, i didn't abolish it. i did something really bureaucratically quite a responsible. i merged it with the biological weapons unit of the national security council. and in fact, if you look both the bob woodward's book, if you look at reporting in the new york times, the national security council staff, these very people in early january 2020, we're raising red flags about the dangers of coven. they were doing exactly what

they were intended to do. the problem is not a bureaucratic re shuffle within the n s. c staff. it was tom's on willingness to take proven seriously at the beginning because he worry, it would re, uh, re effect his re election efforts. do you see the, the world without a strategic arms imitation treaty is getting more dangers or less dangers? well, i think it depends on what countries like russian try to want to do with their strategic weapons. i think russia and the u. s. could find in a combination we did when i served george w bush as his under secretary of state for arms control. we signed the treaty moscow in 2002, which reduced the operationally deployed strategic nuclear forces, both countries as possible again. but i think you cannot do that in the absence of having china participate. but do you think germany should boycott nord stream? do i do okay, new say sure. i think work. i think it's

a mistake to become strategically dependent on any, on any particular source of energy. and this is something that ronald reagan warren to europe bad in the 198. john bolton, thank you. and that's for the show will be back on monday when we ask a full, a technical co lead at google about technological class war until then keep in touch by social media and let us know what you thought of john buttons on says to work with. with

oh, driven by dream shapes bankers and those with dares sinks we dare to ask and little small children with what it says. i middle august also a noise to leave you with

a seems present you with the cool got that's 90 percent. there was the other properties was from what fin the but on with that sort of like you with nice seems to them of them when he's got the west. when luck with them. so lucian, what's the zip keeps them from the, from the muse. ok. what does that still the same? i mean it's this global. oh gosh, slippery me as i will continue to one wonderful, scared little square to live on through it. but are one, why do you think that us them, i mean, on i, besides and we still live do

ah headlines for the salad line from moscow. this is our tea and the killing of a long serving british politician is declared a terroristic incident to david amos was fatally starved while meeting his constituents inside the church. he, you challenges its own members state, so about migrant craft out saying violent push back on the borders may actually be illegal at extreme cold or sky high prices and a shipping boom a corresponding division. so once derelicts, town in rushers, arctic, far east, that's being given a boost by cutting edge nuclear technology. it's the 1st city in the world that lives off a flow tain nuclear power plant seriously.