Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton took to Fox News this morning to blast the idea of a “hotline” between Iran and the United States. Bolton is quick to dismiss the concept as cheap political ploy to heighten Iran’s “prestige”:

Well it’s not always the best course to assume the Ahmadinejad’s being entirely logical in what I will call the “Western” sense of that word. But it’s possible on the hotline, what he has in mind, is a mechanism that he thinks will enhance Iran’s prestige. After all, how many countries does the U.S. have that kind of hotline with. I think this is part of his charm offensive. It’s hard to use that phrase when he’s also accusing us of masterminding the 9/11 attacks but again, in his rather strange way, this is a signal as well to us as inside Iran to try and enhance his position in the political infighting that’s going on there.

Watch it:

While Bolton is dismissive of establishing a hotline, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen, speaking at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace last week, said:

We haven’t had a connection with Iran since 1979. Even in the darkest days of the Cold War, we had links to the Soviet Union. We are not talking to Iran, so we don’t understand each other. If something happens, it’s virtually assured that we won’t get it right — that there will be miscalculation which would be extremely dangerous in that part of the world. [...]

And one day before Mullen delivered his remarks, The Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. officials were examining the establishment of a hotline following a series of “near miss” encounters between American and Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf.

Bolton dismisses the hotline as a ploy by Ahmadinejad to increase his “prestige.” But the U.S. military is increasingly voicing concern that a misunderstanding with Tehran could lead to a wider conflict in an already tense region.

You can read the whole post for yourself, but here’s NSN’s list:

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “I worry, on the other hand, about striking Iran. I’ve been very public about that because of the unintended consequences of that…” [Admiral Michael Mullen, 4/18/10]

General David Petraeus, former CENTCOM commander: Warning that the military option risks unleashing a popular backlash that would play into the hands of the regime.  “There is certainly a history, in other countries, of fairly autocratic regimes almost creating incidents that inflame nationalist sentiment,” said Petraeus. “So that could be among the many different, second, third, or even fourth order effects (of a strike),”  [David Petraeus, 2/3/10]

General Anthony Zinni, former CENTCOM commander: “The problem with the strike is thinking through the consequences of Iranian reaction…You can see all these reactions that are problematic in so many ways. Economic impact, national security impact — it will drag us into a conflict.  I think anybody that believes that it would be a clean strike and it would be over and there would be no reaction is foolish.” [Anthony Zinni, 8/04/09]

Ambassador Nicholas Burns, former Bush administration Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs: “Air strikes would undoubtedly lead Iran to hit back asymmetrically against us in Iraq, Afghanistan and the wider region, especially through its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. This reminds us of Churchill’s maxim that, once a war starts, it is impossible to know how it will end.” [Nicholas Burns, 5/06/09]

Colin Kahl, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East: In an interview with Think Progress, Kahl warned that even though any military strike could delay Iran’s nuclear program, it could also ‘incentivize the Iranians to go all the way to weaponize.’ [Colin Kahl, via Think Progress, 10/1/09]