At first glance, John Bolton's appointment to replace Gen. H.R. McMaster as U.S. President Donald Trump's National Security Adviser does not, in and of itself, indicate a dramatic shift in America's strategic global policies. To be sure, despite their different styles, McMaster and Bolton alike are fundamentally hawkish in nature, and their objections to the current nuclear deal with Iran have been decisive and comprehensive.
Bolton, who appears perpetually eager for a fight, is particularly willing to use military force, chiefly for the purpose of ending Tehran's dream of acquiring a nuclear bomb (and Pyongyang's as well). He applies this same hardline, uncompromising approach to countering the dangers posed by the various Middle Eastern emissaries of radical Islam.
However, despite the similarities to his predecessor McMaster, Bolton's appointment points toward a change, especially from Israel's perspective. Indeed, within a span of just one week, Trump has reshaped his triumvirate of top diplomatic-security advisers. Two of these advisers (excluding Defense Secretary James Mattis) already think alike about Israel. The two in question, of course, are Bolton and newly appointed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the former head of the CIA, who replaces Rex Tillerson. Bolton and Pompeo view Israel through the same lens, seeing it not just as a vital strategic asset and an anchor of stability in an environment rife with violence and upheaval, but as a faithful and loyal partner in an ideological sense.
Thus, while the ousted McMaster's support for Israel stemmed solely from calculated security and defense considerations (and Tillerson was reticent toward the Netanyahu government), their replacements form a new type of troika. Unlike their respective predecessors, Bolton and Pompeo bring a highly principled dimension to their jobs, predicated on the recognition that both societies and cultures share a similar destiny, constitutive ethos, national legacy and vision.
These two avowed champions of the special relationship with Israel and its role in the decision-making process are expected to dominate Trump's inner circle and will likely render the final holdover from the president's inaugural appointments, Mattis, a lone minority voice.
Mattis, who doesn't view Israel with extraordinary empathy or fondness – much like McMaster – bases his approach to the Jewish state on its strategic contribution to the United States. We should note that in the Iranian sphere, too, the cautious, reserved Mattis will likely find himself exposed in short order against the more hawkish and proactive line espoused by Bolton and Pompeo.
This new alignment, it goes without saying, will significantly impact the fate of the nuclear deal with Iran, which we could see as early as May. In any case, from Israel's perspective, these personnel changes are expected to provide an immanently crucial security blanket against any impending challenge.
