Book Review: The Room Where It Happened by John Bolton – Inside Trump’s White House

After a very careful reading of the book by former US National Security Advisor John Bolton, I found that presenting the book according to the sequence of its fifteen chapters (including the concluding chapter), its 445 pages, along with 20 pages of photos of the author and other American and foreign officials, followed by 38 pages of notes and references, and then 59 pages of the index does not help in understanding the mechanisms and interactions of political decision-making in the United States during Donald Trump’s presidency. The facts are too numerous to count, and the scope of American political action, both strategically and tactically, encompasses the entire world. The tools of power are overwhelming to the point of terror.

Thus, I thought it best to divide the memoir according to my perspective on its themes while strictly adhering to the text of the book, considering what is most relevant to the Arab reader first and foremost.

First: Trump’s Character According to the Book:
I counted 73 “figurative or literal” descriptions of Trump’s character, his public behavior, his level of thinking, and the governing value system of his personality. I then compared these descriptions with a report published by 37 American psychologists at the moment he won the presidency, and I affirm that the degree of correspondence between Trump’s character in John Bolton’s book and the character in the psychologists’ report reaches about 95%. To avoid overloading the reader with repetitions from the psychologists’ report, it suffices to refer back to the report I presented in a study published by the Zaytouna Center and available on my Facebook page. Bolton’s book recounts descriptions Thrust upon him, whether spoken by Bolton or by American officials from the White House, Pentagon, CIA, State Department, the US Mission to the UN, or from foreign (often Western) officials, that align with the psychologists’ report, which diagnosed Trump as suffering from “pathological narcissism.” Bolton’s book includes descriptions such as: the illusion of knowing everything, the importance of personal relationships over decision-making bodies, personal loyalty to the president above all else, Trump’s silliness and insanity, his constant inquiry about how the media covers his visits or press conferences, his inflated self-assessment, his excessive use of phones with both formal and informal contacts in contrast to Bush’s organized communication, his listening to security reports twice a week while dominating conversations and discussing unrelated subjects, and his willingness to accuse any employee of lying, contradiction, and changing positions as a common trait. For example, with China, North Korea, Venezuela, or Iran, he would threaten and refuse direct negotiation, only to later seek communication with these parties, citing attempts to engage with Iran but for the Supreme Leader’s firm rejection. He did the same with the North Korean leader and even attempted to reach out to Maduro in Venezuela. Additionally, there are instances of ignorance, such as questioning Finland’s connection to Russia as a part or satellite, or asking whether Britain is a nuclear power.

Second: The Difference Between Trump’s and Bolton’s Perspectives:
Both Trump and Bolton belong to the realist viewpoint (in both its old and new forms), where power remains the central tool for managing international relations and conflict is fundamental, and national interests are inherently not aligned. However, the difference between Trump and his opponent Bolton is that Trump believes the economic tool of mercantilism is the most suitable method for managing international relations, seeing customs duties, quotas, and taxes as more effective than military force. Conversely, Bolton adheres to the Morgenthau school, which views hard power as the most appropriate tool. In his book, Bolton clashes with Trump regarding positions on China, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Russia, or North Korea, and even with European allies. This divergence has led to an American policy during Trump’s presidency that appears confused, as noted by several American officials.

Third: Trump’s View of Arab Allies:
The book reveals that Trump views his Arab allies merely as “checkbooks.” Whenever the possibility of withdrawing American troops from Syria and Iraq arises, Trump states literally each time that “the Arabs should pay for our forces plus an additional 25% of this cost,” later increasing it to 50%. He even tells Arab allies that in the case of striking Iran, “they should pay for the strike against Iran.” The book confirms that Trump contacted Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Emirati Crown Prince, and the Egyptian president about this, and all three leaders showed serious interest in the idea. Additionally, Bolton attributes to Trump the notion that we should “take Iraqi oil,” and elsewhere he indicates that we should take Syrian oil. When discussing the reconstruction of Arab countries devastated by wars, Trump states, “I am concerned with rebuilding my country, not others.” Trump’s plan in Syria involved withdrawing most of his troops and replacing them with Arab forces, with Arab states financing the remaining American troops. He also stated that “if we do not sell weapons to the Arabs, they will buy weapons from Russia and China.” Bolton mentions Putin stating he will sell weapons to the Saudis if you don’t sell them to him. Trump’s primary concern is what arms sales provide in terms of American jobs rather than geostrategic considerations.

The book reveals how Arabs have been frustrated by the Japanese Prime Minister’s attempts to mediate between them and the U.S. regarding the ongoing Iranian-American confrontation.

Fourth: Trump’s Perspective on Liberal Values:
Liberal values hold no significance in Trump’s view of alliances with others. He is unconcerned with human rights, trade fairness, or international law. Thus, the book describes Trump’s positions against the climate agreement, his withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran, his insistence on increasing his allies’ contributions to NATO budgets to 2%, critiquing Germany and France, his withdrawal from the World Health Organization, halting aid to the Palestinian refugee agency, and his desire to abandon the Human Rights Committee. He believes South Korea and Japan should increase their purchases of American agricultural products, a stance he presented to the Chinese president to boost his electoral chances (notably, agricultural producers represent a significant part of his electoral base alongside evangelicals). Trump’s curiosity about Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s motives in granting $500 million to aid Africa also indicates a lack of interest in humanitarian or value-related dimensions outside mercantilist philosophy.

Fifth: Bolton’s Positions:
Bolton presents his connections with Trump in a rather unstructured manner but reveals his initial expectation of obtaining a position in the State Department or National Security Council. However, he seemed less enthusiastic about other roles. While Bolton appears to favor an organized approach to decision-making within the National Security Council, such as presenting various alternatives and their respective advantages and risks, leaving the president to choose what he deems best, Trump does not operate this way in a methodical and organized manner. Bolton also strives to establish the significant role of both Kushner and Ivanka in American decision-making, especially regarding the Middle East. He recounts one American official’s sarcastic remark, “How can you assign Kushner to resolve the Middle East conflict that even Kissinger failed to solve?” Bolton argues that Kushner was the one who proposed firing FBI Director James Comey.

Bolton categorizes personnel around Trump into two groups: the first he labels “the adults” and, in the later stages, he leans toward calling them “the loyalists” (yes men). Yet, there are challenges in dealing with both groups.

On another note, Bolton expresses absolute hatred and distrust toward Iran in any form, advocating that force is the most suitable solution with them. He supports regime change in Iran, while Trump leans towards changing the regime’s behavior. He feels that the Iranian nuclear program is moving toward making Iran a nuclear state, which will likely drive countries like Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia in that direction.

Bolton subscribes to an idea that deserves attention: he believes that the relationship between North Korea and Iran is profound, especially within the nuclear framework. He highlights the cooperation of the Khan network in Pakistan with both Iran and North Korea in nuclear weapons, especially uranium enrichment technology, which the Pakistani “stole” from Europe, while Pakistan obtained atomic bomb design technology from China. He mentions the Syrian nuclear reactor destroyed by Israel in 2007, which he attributes to North Korea (calling it “Amazon of nuclear”). He indicates that war with North Korea is contingent on China’s position and reaction. Bolton accuses North Korea of selling chemical weapons to Syria funded by Iran, expressing the opinion that anyone selling chemical weapons could later sell nuclear arms.

Sixth: Nature of Interactions Among Trump’s Administration Employees:
The descriptions Bolton offers about the mutual backstabbing and foul language among employees depict a chaotic environment (Tillerson once insulted U.N. envoy Haley by saying “You are nothing but a vagina,” an American term for a woman perceived as naive). There was a two-faced policy in dealing with Trump, showing him respect when present and derogating him in his absence by calling him dumb or miserable. Bolton notes the internal pressures for achieving certain positions, mentioning the support he received from the Jewish lobby while being aware of other pressures against him. He also notes that those connected with oil companies, such as Tillerson, clashed with Trump. However, Bolton hints at connections between these figures (like Tillerson) and Russian President Putin, indicating that he admires Putin’s leadership abilities to the point of suggesting that Trump should never be left alone with Putin.

Seventh: The Relationship with China:
According to Bolton’s book, there are two directions in Trump’s management toward China:

• The first direction believes that China’s entrenchment in the market economy and peaceful rise will change its orientations, with the assumption that rising wealth and income will lead to more democracy. However, in Bolton’s view, China has diverged from these expectations, adopting a mercantilist approach and increasing its military spending, which undermines American interests. In Trump’s perspective, China is also working to influence congressional elections, as it did in 2018 in favor of the Democrats, and to work towards defeating him in 2020 (page 266). This stream perceives Trump’s policies toward China as largely “impulsive and whimsical,” illustrated by the decision to allow the Chinese company (ZTE) back into business.
• The second stream believes that China seeks expansion and gradual militarization, especially in the Pacific region, which threatens American interests and must be curtailed.

Conclusion:
I believe that Bolton’s book represents a phase of American regression that has been discussed by many experts in future studies like Galton, Paul Kennedy, and others.