With or Without Bolton

By Editor in Chief: Ali Kassem
عنوان البريد الإلكتروني هذا محمي من روبوتات السبام. يجب عليك تفعيل الجافاسكربت لرؤيته.
John Bolton has left the White House as the last instigator in the war team, knowing that many of Trump's US war plans predated Bolton's presence in the White House. There are those who affirm that a lot of those plans will come after his departure, though incitement's sides to wage wars and their supporters are successively losing their claws with momentum in the halls of the White House.
The controversy between Trump and Bolton is like a final chapter, bringing to an end the skirmishes that colored the relationship between the president and his own or close crew, as it has become difficult to count the number of those whom he excluded in less than three years, to set the record in the change that no other American administration has ever witnessed. The coming developments indicate that Trump still has a lot in his quiver before finishing his first term.
Considering the change, it is difficult to count on changing people, but in the American case and with someone like Bolton, difference may be made, but it will not reach the limits of the bet, nor even to think about it, especially since the US administration, before, with and certainly after Bolton, did not and will not ease the intensity of its hostility, nor its desire to escalate and master the creation of hostilities with the assumption of enemies to the extent that the whole world has become in the norm of the American successive administrations, an enemy, unless obeying the American desire and accepting its hegemony, performing what serves its ambitions and aggressiveness.
The dilemma was and will remain in an administration that has changed the whole world into battlefields, including cold and hot spots, as it is witnessing the explosive, sliding and uncontrollable ones. It did not hesitate to use the worst of humanity in the history of tools and mercenaries of wars, betting on them to achieve its ambitions. The absence of Bolton from the political scene and the White House lobbies, will not change anything, nor modify the American approach. There are many others including those who are more aggressive, and those who are dominated by the lust of wars more than Bolton.
The dispute was not over Bolton's extremism, nor on his high level of lust for wars, as much as it were because of the manner in expressing that aggression, and perhaps on its timing and management, though that ultimately reflected a total failure in Trump's choices at the political level, as well as at the level of people. Most importantly, it is a resounding failure in this administration's policies, approaches, tools and alliances in the region and beyond, as it is within and outside the administration itself.
With and without Bolton, the rhythm of US policy remains in its zigzag path. Botlon had his influence, power, presence, aggressiveness and lust for wars. He had his desire to invest in the excessiveness of power, but it is a history now. However, the presence is represented by an American administration that is facing its failure crises and structural differences, by escaping forward. It is preparing itself for an open confrontation with the world. Thus, the disagreements and disputes it shows remains for media consumption, which builds, analyzes, explains, and elaborates on explanation for some time. Otherwise, it remains a rhetoric and a reinterpretation of Trump's tweets, while the debate is among the corners of the US administration telling about the start of disintegration of the most dangerous system, even if it were for some time.
Translated by Amal Suleiman Ma'rouf