The abrupt exit last week of President Trump's Assistant for National Security Affairs came, frankly, as no surprise; Bolton is an ideologue, and in this Administration, any ideology not completely congruent with the president's is a set-up for emotional, vitriolic policy clashes.

But what does this all mean in terms of the future direction of the president's foreign policy, particularly now that Bolton's bugbear, Iran, is behind the devastating attack on Saudi Arabia's petroleum infrastructure?  

  • First, and most importantly, the Bolton exit removes a personality strongly committed to a muscular use of military force. Whatever one may think of the president's disruptive international operating style, starting new foreign military adventures is not a Trump stylistic feature. And Bolton made no secret of his desire to do just that - with North Korea, with Venezuela, and with Iran most recently.
    • Hence, while (guarded!) first-blush assessments post-Bolton were that internationally-induced business risks might be lowered, the attacks a week ago on Saudi oil facilities changed the calculus. Bolton for sure would have forcefully argued for a so-called "kinetic" U.S. military response; but Iran may now be simply signaling, "You the U.S. think you have leverage over us with your sanctions? We'll show you what leverage WE have!" Few would be surprised if we see further Iranian and Yemeni Houthi escalation.   
    • As the immediate crisis subsides, there's a potential political benefit downstream for Trump, both from the Bolton exit and from the president's so-far measured response to the attacks on the Kingdom: as one analyst recently highlighted, "Bolton was seen as an election liability because the rhetoric made Americans fear he would send their children to war." Trump's political antennae are finally attuned to this reality. 
  • If there is a diplomatic downside to the Bolton departure, it may be over U.S. policy toward Ukraine. With a new president, this key Eastern European nation has been looking to the U.S. for hardware support and political backing. Bolton pushed for both, while the president has balked, perhaps leveraging for domestic political reasons. Regardless, Kiev may be the principal loser in the National Security Council (NSC) shake-up.   

Bureaucratically, the Bolton departure, and the announcement of State Department hostage negotiator Robert O'Brien to be his replacement, further cements Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's role as THE go-to point of contact on foreign and security policy. Given his close relationship with CIA Director Gina Haspel and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper (Pompeo's West Point classmate), the Trump-savvy Secretary of State will enjoy the most unfettered interagency freedom since Henry Kissinger occupied both the National Security and Secretary of State posts in the 1970's. 

And to remind, significant White House disruption in NSC Directors is not unprecedented; President Reagan had six Directors - admittedly over eight years. However, the departures under Reagan were not ideologically-based; and the Reagan-era disruptions led ultimately to the selection of Colin Powell, who quietly restored sanity to the West Wing. One hopes that Robert O'Brien quickly imposes order to an interagency process that was virtually non-existent under Bolton.

Going forward, tea leaves and Tweets had suggested yet another Trump foreign "surprise," this time a potential meeting with Iran's President Rouhani in the coming week at the UN; candidly, that now seems unlikely.

Even the thought of Trump entertaining a sit-down with the Iranians, however, must have sent Bolton through the roof. It ultimately sent him out of the White House.