Trump’s Former National Security Adviser Says He Is Bowing To Iran

Former national security adviser John Bolton sharply criticized the Trump administration’s reported negotiations with Iran, calling the tentative agreement a major setback for the United States.

During an appearance on Elizabeth Vargas Reports, Bolton argued the proposed arrangement was being driven more by political concerns over rising gasoline prices than by long-term national security strategy.

Bolton, who served during President Donald Trump’s first administration, claimed the White House is focused on reducing fuel costs ahead of the upcoming midterm elections.

The proposed agreement, first reported by Axios, would reportedly establish a 60-day memorandum of understanding aimed at preserving the fragile ceasefire in the region and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy corridors.

Under the framework, Iran would reportedly agree to stop interfering with commercial shipping traffic and remove naval mines from the strait. In return, the United States would ease certain sanctions and lift aspects of its naval blockade, allowing Iran to resume broader oil exports.

The deal would also reportedly include renewed discussions about sanctions relief and commitments related to Iran’s nuclear program.

Bolton expressed skepticism about Iran’s promises regarding nuclear development, arguing Tehran could use the agreement to buy time while rebuilding its economy and military capabilities.

According to Bolton, extending negotiations while reducing economic pressure on Iran could weaken U.S. leverage and allow the Iranian government to strengthen its position over time.

He also suggested Iranian leaders may believe American political attention will shift as election season intensifies in the United States, potentially reducing the likelihood of tougher enforcement measures later on.

Bolton repeatedly tied the administration’s approach to concerns over inflation and fuel prices, arguing that reopening the Strait of Hormuz could lower global oil costs and improve economic conditions ahead of elections.

The reported agreement has sparked broader debate among foreign policy experts and lawmakers, with supporters viewing diplomacy as a path toward stabilizing global energy markets, while critics warn the proposal may offer too many concessions without fully addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions or regional influence.

As negotiations continue, uncertainty remains over whether a formal deal will ultimately be reached or how both sides would enforce the reported terms if an agreement moves forward.