Official White House Photo by Pete Souza.

John Bolton throws a fit over the U.S. abstention on the recent Security Council resolution:

Mr. Obama’s refusal to use Washington’s veto was more than a graceless parting gesture. Its consequences pose major challenges for American interests.

As usual, Bolton is wrong, but his objection to the resolution and the U.S. abstention tells us a lot about how he and other hard-liners misunderstand American interests. If the U.S. takes a position that serves our broader interests, but happens to be at odds with the preferences of the Israeli government, these so-called nationalist condemn it. If the U.S. had continued to shield its client from international consequences of its illegal actions at the expense of our interests, they would be pleased. Not surprisingly, Bolton can’t identify any American interests that are “challenged” or put in jeopardy by the passage of this resolution, because there aren’t any at risk.

The resolution that the U.S. chose not to veto does nothing except restate the obvious and affirm existing U.S. policy regarding illegal Israeli settlements, and it is consistent with previous resolutions that other administrations have abstained on or even voted to pass:

The U.S. abstention—the focus of a great deal of personal rage against Obama by Netanyahu and others—was not new either. In 1987, the Reagan administration abstained and allowed the passage of UNSCR 605, 14 to 0, which reaffirmed the application of the Geneva Convention (via previous resolutions) and included “Jerusalem” in the “Palestinian and Arab Territories, occupied by Israel since 1967.” Sixteen years later, the George W. Bush administration voted in favor of UNSCR 1515, which called—by endorsing the Roadmap for Peace—for a full settlement freeze, including natural growth. In fact, until this latest resolution, Obama had been the only president not to let a resolution critical of Israeli policy pass in the Security Council.

Unfortunately, the resolution is mostly useless because it comes so late in Obama’s presidency after eight years of endlessly indulging and arming Israel. The next administration will ignore it and has no intention of following up on it. Naturally, that doesn’t satisfy Bolton, who wants Trump to harm U.S. relations with numerous other states to punish them for having the temerity to respect international law:

First, there must be consequences for the adoption of Resolution 2334. The Trump administration should move to repeal the resolution, giving the 14 countries that supported it a chance to correct their error. Nations that affirm their votes should have their relations with Washington adjusted accordingly. In some cases this might involve vigorous diplomatic protests. But the main perpetrators in particular should face more tangible consequences.

You could scarcely ask for a more explicit demand to put the interests of a client state ahead of our own, but then that is what we have come to expect from hard-liners when it comes to U.S. policies in that part of the world.