Trump’s New National Security Adviser Is Another Iran Hawk

Robert C. O’Brien sounds a lot like John Bolton.

Robert C. O'Brien, the State Department's lead hostage negotiator, returns to the courthouse on the third day of the A$AP Rocky assault trial in Stockholm.Michael Campanella/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Eight days after ousting John Bolton as national security adviser, President Donald Trump named the State Department’s top hostage negotiator, Robert C. O’Brien, to the job. A former colleague of Bolton’s during the George W. Bush administration, O’Brien shares many of his hawkish views on China, Russia, and, especially, Iran, which has emerged as a central foreign policy concern since Trump left the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration and installed a “maximum pressure” policy on the Islamic republic. 

O’Brien, a defense attorney who advised Mitt Romney’s and Scott Walker’s presidential campaigns before joining the Trump administration, has compared Iran to Nazi Germany and sharply criticized Obama’s deal, which set limits on Iran’s nuclear production in exchange for sanctions relief.

“There is simply no evidence to support the idea that we can trust revolutionary Iran to give up its long-term goal of developing a nuclear weapon and delivery systems,” he wrote in a 2015 National Interest article titled, “Obama’s Folly: The Iran Deal Disaster.” 

“In addition to legitimizing Iran’s now supposedly ‘peaceful’ atomic program,” O’Brien added, “the deal will likely lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.”

A key component of O’Brien’s frustration with the deal stemmed from the “tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief” that Iran stood to receive once the Obama administration lifted its series of punishing sanctions. This financial windfall would be redirected to “Iranian proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad regime in Syria, Shia militias in Iraq and Houthis rebels in Yemen, not to mention Hamas in Gaza,” he wrote, echoing Bolton’s harsh rhetoric about non-state actors aligned with Iran.

Trump has made no secret of his disdain for Obama’s deal, but still voiced support earlier this month for a $15 billion bailout to assist the Iranian economy if it returns to compliance with the deal he spurned. At the G7 summit in France, Trump “seemed open to the idea of a financial bridge for the Iranians,” the New York Times reported. Given the devastating impact of American sanctions, which he reimposed and strengthened after abandoning Obama’s deal, Trump acknowledged to reporters that Iran might need a “short-term letter of credit or loan” that would “get them over a very rough patch,” a departure from his administration’s maximum pressure policy on the Islamic republic. 

Before joining the Trump administration, O’Brien railed against the idea of paying Iran as a prologue to future negotiations. “Look, this regime has been a revolutionary regime since it took power in 1979,” he told radio host Hugh Hewitt in July 2015, when he was still advising Walker’s campaign. “The only thing that’s changed now is that their nuclear program has gone from the underground bunkers to the open. It’s legitimate, and we’re going to give them billions and billions of dollars to further that program, their weapons programs, and allow them to pump that money into their proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.”

O’Brien’s tough talk on Iran will be tested in his new role. On Saturday, the Trump administration blamed Iran for a sophisticated attack on two Saudi Arabian oil facilities that “knocked out more than half the kingdom’s oil output for days or more,” the Washington Post reported. Iran’s foreign minister denied responsibility for the attack. The Houthis, a Yemeni rebel group backed by Tehran’s money and arms, took credit and warned of more in the future. 

When Trump appointed Bolton last year, O’Brien praised him as “certainly the most experienced Republican foreign policy hand of our generation.” Bolton returned the love in a blurb for O’Brien’s 2016 book, While America Slept: Restoring American Leadership to a World in Crisis, which he called “required reading.” They’re also fond of the same allusions to world history. In O’Brien’s National Interest article, he invoked British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler in 1938 to denounce Obama’s deal. Earlier that year, Bolton said the deal “puts Obama in a category worse than Neville Chamberlain.” 

Bolton, who once called for the US to preemptively bomb Iran, was a staunch supporter of the administration’s maximum pressure strategy, but clashed with the president over Trump’s recent desire to ease sanctions on Tehran in pursuit of a deal. His exit from Trump’s administration came just one day after a disagreement over Iran policy. “Bolton did not favor giving the Iranians relief and believed the maximum pressure campaign was working,” Axios reported

Now O’Brien will be tasked with advising Trump on Iran policy even though he, like Bolton, has argued against paying adversaries, such as Iran, as part of negotiations. In an op-ed published last year by the Hill, O’Brien said “paying millions or even billions of dollars” to “terrorists and pariah states” only encourages “more kidnapping, more pain and more suffering for Americans.” While written in the context of hostage negotiations, not negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, O’Brien’s article suggests he is more aligned with Bolton’s instincts on Iran than with Trump.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate