Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: The global financial architecture is under siege. With the bankruptcy of the Unipolar financial order on full display in Bangkok. The IMF and World bank are to meet to enforce more debt slavery on the Global south, passing the bill for a Western engineered energy crisis onto the world's poorest populations. I'm Afshin Ratansi and you're watching New Order.
Today marks three years since U.S. state Department and USAID funded cutouts created a targeted Western engineered financial media blitz fronted by the Financial Times to sabotage India's key energy and port infrastructure. It even tried to slander Dubai. But things are changing in India. An AI counteroffensive begins at the World AI Summit in Bengaluru to counter Silicon Valley monopolies and secure a multipolar digital future. From the sudden backchannel extraction of a captured US Mercenary smuggling military drones into India's borders to FBI dispens of cooperation with Indian law enforcement, Washington's hybrid operations against New Delhi are escalating. Rubio's State Department just launched a rapid response NGO war chest to synchronize judicial overreach, information warfare and kinetic subversion. Modi, for his part, hosted the first anniversary for a trade agreement along with celebrating 25 years in public office. And his External Affairs Minister Jaishankar toured Ghana, Cote d' Ivoire and Ethiopia as fighting intensified in the Horn of Africa. But it's still the wars on Iran and Russia through Ukraine. Ukraine where India has now proposed a three part truce as well as the Gaza genocide. Let alone the potential loss of the bee in brics that focuses the mind for the New World Order. New Order's Zar Khan will be on later to answer your questions posted on social media. But with me today again is Trump's former National Security Advisor and the U.S. ambassador to the UN John Bolton pleaded guilty in June to violating the Espionage act he tried to weaponize against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Today he awaits sentencing of up to five years in prison and 100 hours community service. He joins me now from Washington, D.C. ambassador John Bolton, welcome to New Order. So Modi celebrating a trade deal with more Western European countries.
Isn't it clear that India needs to sign trade deals with other countries?
Given the fact that US Trade with India, there's not going to be a trade deal anytime soon.
[00:02:38] Speaker B: Well, it's a big mistake for the United States globally to have announced all these tariffs last year.
And I would say that the tariff issue has been handled with India particularly poorly for a variety of reasons, some of it having to do with the Russian aggression in Ukraine, some of it for other reasons. But I think any government has to look out after its own self interest and in this case pursue tariff deals where they can.
It's a missed opportunity for the United States. I think there are a lot of possibilities for closer US Indian relations on political, economic matters generally. And to have these tariffs out there as an issue really just makes it more difficult. And by the way, increases taxes on Americans. I mean, that's one of the fundamental things wrong. This is not simply injurious to India. It harms Americans too. That's why tariffs shouldn't be a normal, a tool of diplomacy.
[00:03:37] Speaker A: I mean, that's widely accepted across the US Political spectrum ahead of the midterms, arguably. But do you think it's important now for India, especially after the BRICS Delhi declaration signed by the uae, where I'm speaking to you from, from Iran, Russia, China, that India should have a no limits partnership with China in the face of these kinds of threats? I mean, sure, Trump may be, who knows, he may be impeached after he loses the Senate, but India can't rely on the United States as being any kind of partner, given that India's discovered the kind of axe it holds over its head.
[00:04:16] Speaker B: Well, I think you're talking about Trump rather than the United States. Trump is an aberration, there's no doubt about it.
We don't need to see any more presidents like that.
So I think it's a question, unfortunately, as is for many countries around the world, of kind of gritting your teeth to get through it. I wouldn't rush into China, China's arms. I think their interest in expanding their hegemonic capabilities all around their Indo Pacific is very real and in close relationship with Russia where they already have a partnership without limits. And we're seeing the effect of that in Ukraine right now.
So this combined threat of the China, Russia axis, I think is a serious strategic issue and not one that declarations from these diplomatic conferences are going to change.
[00:05:03] Speaker A: Yeah, but I mean, India has close relations obviously with Russia too. Would you say the single most important thing you did as national security advisor in that region and in that sphere was to split apart any kind of closeness between India and China. This is a crucial tenet of U.S. policy. And this isn't just since Trump, obviously. I mean, you know, the BJP discovered they were being bugged by the United States through Edward Snowden under the Obama administration.
[00:05:36] Speaker B: Well, leaving aside those sorts of things, look, I think this is a question of strategic reality.
And India has The geographic reality of having a land border with China, across which there have been numerous military incidents over the years, and as to which there's still considerable disputed territory. China has a lot that it's looking at now, but it's probing all around its periphery. Against the Senkaku Islands, claimed by Japan, against Taiwan in the South China Sea. Their most recent hot war was of consequence, was with Vietnam in 1979. Border clashes along the line of actual control with India repeatedly.
You know, this is not a nice, quiet neighbor, and I think India understands that fully. And hopefully we can get over the disruptions of the Trump administration, revive the Asian security quad with Japan and Australia, and talk about matters of mutual interest.
[00:06:42] Speaker A: Yeah, but I mean, the China Vietnam conflict was a long, long time ago, and you can't name any more conflicts China's been fighting since then. And also, it's not just that why
[00:06:54] Speaker B: they're building up their military in one of the largest increases in capacity in history and at a very rapid rate. And building a force of nuclear weapons, very short order, as these things go. Perhaps by 2030 will be roughly comparable to the Russian arsenal and the United States arsenal, making it a tripolar nuclear world and not a bipolar nuclear world.
[00:07:19] Speaker A: And could that arming be defensive, given the threat from the United States? Obviously, in this region, we've had the war on Iran ongoing. We don't know whether, by the time this is even being broadcast, Trump will have decided to use tactical nuclear weapons or with his partner, Israel.
What did you make of the US Israeli targeting of India's Chabahar port in Iran? Was that to damage Indian trade routes?
[00:07:46] Speaker B: No, and I think there's effectively zero chance of anybody using nuclear weapons against Iran. The reason it's so important, in my view, to change the regime in Tehran is precisely to prevent this government of medieval authoritarian religious fanatics from endangering their neighbors. The.
The hit on the Indian ship came after warnings, after repeated warnings to stop because there was a blockade and not aimed at India or anyone else. And the standard operating procedure for the Navy is to say, if you don't stop, we will target your engine room. You have 15 minutes to evacuate.
So the captain of that ship, I think, holds a considerable responsibility.
[00:08:31] Speaker A: But this was the Chabaha port facilities owned by the Indian government.
I'm not talking about ships. Why was that attacked? And the rail lines, which are so important, obviously, for the north south transport corridor, which I assume you as national security advisor, opposed.
[00:08:47] Speaker B: Well, the issue here is dealing with the regime in Iran and the specifics depend on the circumstances we're facing. I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to the ship that was fired on by the U.S. navy. And that I think was regrettable, but as I said, in large measure the responsibility of the captain. One of the things the Navy says in hailing ships is this blockade will be enforced by the entire United States Navy.
Almost no other captains disregarded that.
[00:09:23] Speaker A: Yeah, but I'm talking about Indian defense. In a world where the United States attacks important, vital strategic trade corridors that India is part of amidst. And in the context of 25% tariff threats and all the rest of it, you can understand why BRICS is not just diplomats signing a declaration.
[00:09:48] Speaker B: Well, we'll see about that. I think that's what it's been so far. But this is in the context of dealing with Iran, which I think the Indian government's well aware of.
[00:09:57] Speaker A: I mean, we had last week Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff at the State Department under Colin Powell, who said that Trump had been. I mean, you're laughing. Tell me why you're laughing. He said he'd heard from people in the circle of Stephen Miller and others that Trump had given Netanyahu the go ahead for nuclear weapons.
[00:10:14] Speaker B: Look, there's a lot of speculation there. I wouldn't try and answer Larry Wilkerson if my life depended on it.
[00:10:22] Speaker A: Why is that?
[00:10:24] Speaker B: Not a reliable source?
[00:10:26] Speaker A: Former chief of staff at the U.S.
[00:10:27] Speaker B: state Department, not a reliable source.
[00:10:32] Speaker A: Well, yeah, I presume that you've vetted him after he left office. Who knows? You've always preferred the IMEC corridor, which of course goes through Israel. Of course, Israel hugely unpopular around the world. In the United States. In the United States amongst American Jews, let alone everywhere else after the genocide in Gaza. So what was the point of the IMEC corridor be now when Israel is hated and Iran clearly because of what's happened, has a incentive to get nuclear weapons for the first time?
[00:11:12] Speaker B: Look, Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons for 35 years.
[00:11:16] Speaker A: If not, you know that's not true under any agency. That's obviously factually incorrect.
[00:11:21] Speaker B: It is absolutely true.
[00:11:23] Speaker A: Tulsi Gabbard.
Tulsi Gabbard said only at the beginning,
[00:11:27] Speaker B: never should have been Director of National Intelligence. She's totally unqualified for that job.
And the long standing nature of the Iranian nuclear weapons program was demonstrated by materials brought out by the Israelis in their raid on the archive in Tehran in the spring of 2018, documenting it way back to its origins.
[00:11:50] Speaker A: Yeah, but that's not what I was really asking. I was asking about the fact that. And I think if you were national security advisor to Mujtaba Khamenei right now you'd be saying get nuclear weapons as fast as you can. Given the circumstances.
What would be the purpose of an IMEC corridor trade route as an alternative to the NSTC North South Trade corridor if there won't be in Israel very soon?
[00:12:14] Speaker B: Well, I think Israel is going to be around a lot longer than the current regime in Tehran which has demonstrated it remains committed to getting nuclear weapons.
They have been trying for years. They have hidden facilities from the International Atomic Energy Agency. They barred the IAEA inspectors from key locations.
Military bases were the key.
[00:12:35] Speaker A: They don't care now.
I don't think they care at all.
[00:12:39] Speaker B: Those have been destroyed. Those have been destroyed and they are still building at Pickaxe Mountain, which they think will be a more secure site. So even as much of their nuclear program lies in ruins, they continue to do work for that program to go on.
[00:12:55] Speaker A: Well, clearly they're incentivized now for a balance of power because Israel has nuclear weapons.
[00:13:00] Speaker B: Israel's had nuclear weapons for a long time, although they've never admitted it. The other governments in the region have learned to live with that. And the idea that somehow this was defensive again is belied by what the Iranians own archives said, as demonstrated when the Israelis made it public several years ago.
[00:13:21] Speaker A: Ambassador Bolton will continue after the break. Keep watching New orders.
[00:13:30] Speaker C: Foreign.
[00:13:36] Speaker A: You're watching new order. Ambassador Bolton, we were talking about Israel and its existence.
Back to bricks, back to India. What do you think of the fact that no one really cares anymore about the threat of U.S. sanctions?
I actually don't know what your response was to the Lancet publication. That US sanctions have killed 38 million people between 1971 and 2021 is the estimate in the esteemed British medical journal the Lancet. No one cares about the sanctions anymore. The US can threaten India all it likes. It will continue trading with Russia.
[00:14:15] Speaker B: Well, it depends on the sanctions. It depends on how they're being enforced and what effect it has on the targets. I think in the case of Iran right now the blockade on oil exports and any imports into Iran is having a very significant.
I think the government is ever more susceptible to being overthrown from within. The economy, which was already in bad shape, is in worse shape. So these are the kinds of sanctions that are actually enforced that really came out.
[00:14:47] Speaker A: Sanctions obviously don't.
Sanctions are proven time and time again not to work. And we're talking about a country with the largest.
I don't know, biggest car manufacturer in this region from where I'm speaking to you. And journalists who've been there recently told me that those who oppose their government. Government now support their government. You do understand the rally around the flag effect of the illegal bombing?
[00:15:10] Speaker B: I don't think that's the effect.
I don't think that's the effect it's having inside Iran. And by the way, speaking of sanctions, I think the government of the UAE has done exactly the right thing by saying that they will not allow Iran to trade or launder their finances through UAE financial institutions. I think that's going to have and is having a significant negative impact on, on the regime's ability to stay afloat financially.
[00:15:37] Speaker A: And yet the UAE and Iran were in the same table, of course, in Delhi signing that declaration. And back to those sanctions on Russia,
[00:15:46] Speaker B: which shows about what significance it's going to have. It reminds me of my days back in the United nations when the General assembly routinely passed resolutions that went from the floor of the General assembly right into a file, never to be reviewed again.
[00:16:00] Speaker A: Because you firmly believe that BRICS is what, over? I mean, looking towards Brazil and what's been happening, we're looking forward to a runoff which some believe will see.
Bolsonaro's son, I'm not sure whether you've met him. I know you met his father, may become the leader of Brazil, the BE in brics. What do you think that will mean for brics?
[00:16:24] Speaker B: Well, I think that would result in a pretty significant change in Brazil's policy. But what I'm referring to is not changes of administration at the top, but fundamental interest. BRICS itself is composed of countries whose basic interests are contrary to one another. Certainly in the case of Brazil and Russia, they're energy exporters, as opposed to India and China, which are energy importers.
They've got different approaches and different priorities. That's what drives national policy.
And ultimately, that's what will prevail.
[00:16:58] Speaker A: Well, some people would say that it can be more synchronized. I mean, you know, there was a thing called opec. I know the UAE just left it, but they were all exporting oil at the same time. You know, what do you make of accusations that the United States has been interfering in the election of the bee in brics Brazil? Because you were accused of that. Famously, you called it the troika of tyranny in Miami in 2018, ahead of Bolsonaro Sr. Taking over. You met him in Rio. You, you praised the judge, Judge Moro, who of course was exposed by WikiLeaks as someone who was involved with the United States institutions ahead of the prosecution of Lula. President Lula
[00:17:46] Speaker B: well, the torque of tyranny I was referring to was Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela and not intended in any way to have an impact on the then Brazilian elections. I don't know how it's going to come out. I did meet President Bolsonaro before he was inaugurated. We were in his modest home in Rio. He made breakfast for me and his incoming foreign minister. And he had very good relations with the Trump administration. Whether his son will be elected or not, I don't know. I don't think it basically helps the United States to interfere in truly democratic elections. Trump himself proved that he was so antipathetic toward Justin Trudeau and his party in Canada that he helped Trudeau's successor, Mark Carney, get elected, which Trump has found uncomfortable. So I think the prudent thing to do for an American president is just be quiet and say, we're going to respect the outcome. We'll work for whomever is victorious.
[00:18:45] Speaker A: Yeah, but there have been cases recently that the Indians haven't been liking over perceived attempts to destabilize India. I mean, not just since the time of the bugging of the BJP itself, but in terms of other elements of U.S. strategy. You were a national Security advisor. You know that you interfere in other governments. In fact, USAID is an instrument of that, is it not?
[00:19:14] Speaker B: It certainly is not. I was an official of USAID in the early Reagan administration, Mark the first time I visited India, in fact, in 1982 or 83.
I think the dismantlement of USAID by the Trump administration has been a big mistake. Ultimately, it's going to be replaced one way or the other. I would say. During at least my tenure as National Security Advisor, I thought we had excellent relations with India. We worked closely together on handling an Indian response to an act of terrorism committed across the border from Pakistan. I think that was appreciated at the time. And I thought back then, Modi and Trump had gotten off to a good, good relationship, but marred perhaps only by the fact that Modi shook Trump's hand so hard that it left him kind of gasping, which I think shows how strong Mr. Modi really is.
[00:20:09] Speaker A: Well, the US Organization of Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, I mean, isn't that also funded by usaid and it's the State Department. You don't believe these sorts of institutions created by the United States are there to. To advance US Strategic power? Obviously, the Indian government honestly has never heard of.
[00:20:29] Speaker B: I've never heard of that institution, it's called the occr.
[00:20:33] Speaker A: The Indian government has just said it's being used to target state aligned Indian companies. I mean that is rather the way U.S. policy works, isn't it?
[00:20:44] Speaker B: Well again, since I've never heard of that institution, I can't really say no, no. Most American companies frankly are heavily resistant to being used in that way and we can talk about that. But it's hardly like well this was
[00:20:57] Speaker A: a us, this is a US cutout organization used to malign different state aligned companies. State aligned companies within India Indian state companies.
[00:21:12] Speaker B: Well, it may be the least known US cutout in history.
[00:21:16] Speaker A: I've never heard all the more dangerous. Some might say so you're just not. So you don't think, you don't think the destabilization of BRICS countries is going on at all by the CIA, usaid, the State Department? They're not involved in trying to destabilize BRICS countries that align themselves too closely to particular BRICS partners. I mean obviously Iran is a member of brics, as is Russia, as is China.
[00:21:44] Speaker B: Well, I wouldn't comment on what we were doing covertly in any case, but the short answer to the question is it depends on the country. I wish we were doing more to destabilize the Iranian government. I think it's very close to collapse right now and I'd like to see us succeed in that in as short a period of time. I mean Iran is a close within brics.
[00:22:05] Speaker A: Most of the world doesn't see it like this. Clearly India doesn't because India has close relations with Iran.
I mean, is it your view that there are people in the American establishment at the State Department, in the Pentagon who really believe India is going to stop importing Russian energy? Is that a serious idea?
[00:22:26] Speaker C: Well,
[00:22:28] Speaker B: I think it would be worth considering.
It's at record levels whether supporting the economy of a country that supplies China with high end weapon systems that could be used against India over the long term really is in India's geostrategic interest.
[00:22:49] Speaker A: So you think nothing of the handshake between Modi and Xi Jinping? You think it represents nothing?
[00:22:55] Speaker B: I think it represents a very clear eyed view that India has to look out for its own national interest.
And that doesn't surprise me at all. I think the real question is understanding what China's near term and long term objectives are. And I think it's unmistakable that what China seeks in the near term is hegemony along its periphery and over the longer term hegemony in east and South Asia.
[00:23:23] Speaker A: But China will always be treated preferentially to India by the United States, as we see from the tariffs and from the fact that China can import as much Russian oil as it wants. The Graham act sanctions aren't going to hit China.
[00:23:36] Speaker B: As I said before, that's the Trump aberration at work. I mean, I think I've said on any number of occasions, I think the disproportionate treatment of India makes no sense whatsoever. Not strategically and not even from Trump's own perspective of his relationship with Modi.
[00:23:54] Speaker A: Ambassador Bolton, thank you.
[00:23:57] Speaker B: Glad to be with you.
[00:24:03] Speaker A: Trump called John Bolton wacko. John Bolton, someone who's not wacko is social media queen Zahra Khan.
[00:24:10] Speaker C: I will take that for the compliment that I'm perceiving it as.
[00:24:13] Speaker A: Absolutely.
[00:24:14] Speaker C: Polypopsocket has asked, aren't these wars a sign we should work on using natural resources instead, like water, sun, wind.
[00:24:21] Speaker A: Well, I mean, Israel is not only trying to steal the gas from Gaza, it's trying to create an ethnic supremacist situation.
I think from what John Bolton was saying, you can kind of see it's not destroying Russia just for resources like the ones you just mentioned. It's something more visceral.
And if you were to use the sustainable way, as Polly Popsocket is saying, what would happen to all the profits, corporate profits, the war pays.
Five oil supermajors made $48 billion out of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Best quarter since Russia went into the Donbass after NATO killed 14.
Neoliberal treaties anyway have something called the Investor State Dispute Settlement Scheme and clauses. So if you started to use water, sunshine and wind, they'd be going. You got to compensate US companies for the fact you're not using us, you're using the sunshine. And corporation monopolies can anyway own the water and there are mechanisms for the corporations to take over sunlight. So it's a good idea, but needs a bit more work. Bit more work.
[00:25:28] Speaker C: And Jovit has asked, does Nathan Yahoo think nuking Iran will get him re elected?
[00:25:34] Speaker A: At the time of the recording, no nuclear strike. But as Larry Wilkerson said and John Bolton was laughing at him, what did he mean when he said about the former chief of staff at the U.S. state Department that what was his exact words? He was trying to say he wasn't right. But anyway, at the time, anyway, because Wilkerson said there would be a nuclear strike and Trump had given the go ahead. I think the important thing now is for the IAEA to demand immediate access to Israel's nuclear weapons. That's the important thing. We don't even know whether Netanyahu is safely guarding these nuclear weapons. That's the issue. More than Netanyahu thinking of nuking Iran to get himself re elected, this is
[00:26:16] Speaker C: all the time we have this week. I will be back next week with more questions in a non wacky way, of course.
[00:26:21] Speaker A: Sarkant, thank you. And remember to follow us on XEWAUDERTV to ask your questions. We'll keep watching India and its global south pole partners as they create an age of multipolarity. Sea Sunday.
