US may launch limited ground operation to secure nuclear materials: Former Trump advisor

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region - Former US National Security Advisor John Bolton said the ultimate American objective in a war with Iran should be regime change, arguing that lasting peace and stability would remain out of reach otherwise. He downplayed the likelihood of a full-scale ground invasion, suggesting instead the possibility of limited special operations, particularly to secure nuclear materials.

In an interview with Rudaw’s Nwenar Fatih on Thursday, Bolton said the conflict appears to still be evolving, with no clearly unified strategy from US President Donald Trump. However, he insisted that removing Iran’s leadership remains the only viable long-term solution to curbing its nuclear ambitions and regional influence.

“I believe the goal of regime change could indeed be the objective - and I hope that is what they are pursuing - because I don’t think there will be any chance for peace and stability in the region until the current government in Tehran is removed,” Bolton said.

He dismissed the prospect of a large-scale ground invasion, emphasizing instead the potential use of special operations forces.

“I don’t think there will be substantial ground forces as in a traditional invasion,” he said, adding that “there’s a real possibility that special operations forces could be used to try to secure nuclear material at some of the key sites in Iran—a step that would be very prudent.”

“We don’t want enriched uranium, centrifuges, or even the technical knowledge required to build a nuclear weapons program falling into the hands of terrorist groups or rogue states,” he added.

Bolton warned that ending the war without regime change would effectively amount to a victory for Iran, allowing its leadership to survive and eventually rebuild its nuclear program and regional proxy networks.

The former national security advisor also criticized inconsistencies in US messaging, suggesting that Trump has at times overstated both threats and outcomes.

He concluded that sustained military pressure, internal destabilization, and support for opposition groups could eventually lead to the collapse of Iran’s leadership, but cautioned that such an outcome would require long-term commitment and more coherent planning.

The following is Rudaw’s interview with John Bolton:

Rudaw: Mr. Bolton, welcome to Rudaw. I'm so glad to have you on my show.

John Bolton: Well, thank you very much. Glad to be with you.

Thank you. Trump's objective in this war at the beginning was really unclear. Can you say that the goal has become clear now after almost two or three weeks?

Well, I'm afraid that there's still some confusion because of different things that people in the administration have said. But I believe regime change really could be the goal, and I hope that's what they're pursuing, because I don't think there will be any chance for peace and stability in the region until the current government in Tehran is removed.

The Pentagon has requested, as a report out today says, a $200 billion budget for the war with Iran. Does an air campaign require such a massive amount of funding?

Well, it's not clear the request is entirely for the cost of the war. It may be for restocking our warehouses and arsenals with weapons that have been used both in Iran and in assisting the Ukrainian government in their war against Russia. So it's a bill I'm looking forward to. The Pentagon announced publicly after the first two weeks of the war that the cost was around $11 billion, so this is obviously looking well into the future.

But after three weeks, Mr. Bolton, do you anticipate that ground forces will enter the war in Iran?

I don't think there will be substantial ground forces, as if it were an invasion. I do think there's a real possibility that special operations forces could be used to try and secure nuclear material at some of the key sites in Iran. That would be, I think, a very prudent thing to do. We don't want enriched uranium, centrifuges, or even the information about how to build a nuclear weapons program falling into terrorist hands or the hands of a rogue state.

And about the Strait of Hormuz, which is now a big topic - can it be kept open without the use of ground forces?

Well, there are some arguments that it would be facilitated if we had control of the high ground on the Iranian side of the Strait of Hormuz. I leave that to the military analysts. But I do think it's possible to make it sufficiently secure so that tankers can transit the Strait. I wish we'd put a higher priority on it earlier in the war, but I think it's well underway now. With luck, within the next week or perhaps a little longer, insurance companies and tanker owners will be confident they can get in and out free of attack.

The United States is already deploying Marines to the region - at least 2,500, as we know. Some reports also mention plans to send thousands more. If ground forces are deployed, would they be limited to the Strait of Hormuz, or do you anticipate they would advance toward Iran if the tempo of the war continues like this?

Well, as I say, there might be a mission inside Iran at the principal nuclear sites - Isfahan, Fordow, Natanz, Pickaxe Mountain, that sort of thing. But I think that would come at a later point, perhaps as the government collapses and there are conditions of internal insecurity. We just want to be sure either that the nuclear material is truly buried, as it may well be at Fordow, or, if not, that we can take it out of the country so it doesn't fall into the wrong hands.

Okay. Israel, on the other hand - Benjamin Netanyahu is very clear about the goal, which is regime change, and he has stated this publicly. What does the United States really want in Iran in this war? At the beginning, it was just about the atomic program and missiles, and then Donald Trump said it would end in a few days. But now it's been a week, and he doesn't mention that the war will end soon. What is the real objective?

Well, part of this people should understand is Donald Trump himself, who doesn't necessarily think in traditional terms - from point A to point B to point C - and he changes his mind fairly often. But he was saying to the Iranian people back in January, when they were demonstrating in major protests, “Take over your institutions, help is on its way.” Unfortunately, no help came, and thousands were massacred by the Basij militia and other elements of the Revolutionary Guard. So I think he understands that to solve the nuclear threat problem, and Iran’s support for terrorism, regime change is the only long-term answer. Indeed, as recently as a few days ago in Kentucky, he said, “We don't want to have to come back and do this every two years.” I think most people would agree with that. But the only way to ensure that is with a very different regime committed to a very different foreign policy.

Some reports suggest that Donald Trump and his administration were surprised by the Iranian response. Do you think the United States did not expect this reaction?

Well, I'd be surprised if Trump were surprised. We talked about this in his first term, and I'm sure General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, briefed him on a range of possible Iranian responses and outcomes. I don't think there were any illusions on the Israeli side either. So I think part of it is Trump trying to avoid any claim that he made mistakes in ordering this operation—that would be typical Trump behavior.

Tulsi Gabbard's testimony before the Senate regarding Iran seemed to differ from Trump and Pentagon statements. Why is that?

Well, I think Trump has said things that are simply not accurate. He claimed that during the 12-day war last June the Iranian nuclear program was obliterated - but it was not. We did substantial damage, yes, but it was not wiped out.

He also said the current threat was imminent. Based on what I know, it was not imminent. That doesn’t change the legitimacy of using force, but I think Trump overstated the case. So Tulsi Gabbard and other intelligence officials had to navigate between those inaccuracies - that was the challenge they faced.

If Trump stops the war now, who would be the winner?

I'm afraid that if he stopped before regime change, the Iranian regime would win. They don’t need to defeat the U.S. militarily - they can’t - but simply surviving would allow them to claim victory. And there is some validity to that, because they would return to their previous policies: rebuilding nuclear capabilities and supporting proxies like the Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Shiite militias in Iraq.

Given current circumstances, how do you think this war will end?

I think the key institutions of Iranian power - the Revolutionary Guard, the Quds Force, and the Basij - are being severely weakened. If that continues, the prospects for regime change increase significantly. Once a regime can no longer defend itself, its lifespan becomes limited. Many inside the system may defect rather than “go down with the ship.”

Trump claims the U.S. was unaware of Israel’s attack on Iran’s gas infrastructure. Is that believable?

There are conflicting reports, but given the level of coordination, I would be very surprised if the U.S. had not been informed and given approval - possibly even Trump himself.

Why are European countries reluctant to join the coalition to secure the Strait of Hormuz?

I don’t think the case has been made that this war is in Europe’s interest - that was a failure before the war. But Europe is arguably even more threatened by Iran, given its proximity and exposure to missiles and terrorism. I think frustration with Trump plays a role, but if they reassess their interests, they may become more involved.

At the beginning of the war, Trump supported Kurdish involvement but later backtracked. Why?

With Trump, it’s often hard to say. But ethnic minorities in Iran - Kurds, Azeris, Lurs, Arabs, Baluchis - are deeply discontented. Supporting them could increase pressure on the regime.

How do you see the future of Kurds in Iran?

I have long supported an independent Kurdish state, though it hasn’t materialized since the post–World War I era. If the regime falls, there may be opportunities for autonomy or even statehood, but that would depend on broader regional developments.

Can a regime fall purely from an air campaign?

Yes - if the air campaign destroys leadership and weakens coercive forces, it can trigger internal collapse. Many authoritarian regimes fall from internal fragmentation rather than direct invasion.

Do you think Trump has fallen into a trap?

He has made things harder by not coordinating effectively with the opposition. More support - communications, funding, even weapons - could have helped. It’s not too late, but regime change requires patience and persistence.

Gulf countries are heavily affected by Iranian attacks. Has the U.S. failed to protect them?

I hope not. There has been strong cooperation, but Iran has targeted civilian areas, revealing its true intentions. That should strengthen regional cooperation against the regime.

Is this war also about confronting China?

Not directly, but China benefits from cheap Iranian oil. Cutting that supply will hurt China economically and force it to seek alternatives.

Finally, if the Islamic Republic remains in power after the war, what does that mean?

It would be a defeat. The regime would rebuild its nuclear program and proxy networks and continue to threaten global security. Its ideology won’t change, so the risks would eventually return.

Mr. John Bolton, thank you very much for your time.

Thanks again for having me.

Have a good day.