Ronen Bergman Quotes

… this whole Near East problem is not just an Arab-Israeli dispute but a problem of the influence of the West as opposed to that of the Soviet. We want no wars, but we do not want a Sovietized world.

The United States is as weak as the Soviet Union. If enough pressure is applied to them, they will pull out of the Middle East.

The United States has dealt with the Middle East and surrounding regions for many decades in the context of the Cold War.

These four mongrels are supposed to be our defense against Communism and the extremes of Arab Nationalism in the Middle East.

Washington sees the various local and national conflicts in the Middle East as part of a battle for regional hegemony between the U.S. and Iran.

If America would withdraw from South Korea, there could be a power struggle between such as China and Japan.

During the Cold War, America took sides not only in disputes between Arab countries, but also in debates within them.

Nuclear deterrence doesn't work outside of the Russian - U.S. context; Saddam Hussein showed that.

I don't think that anyone seriously fears that the world can be blown to pieces all together. But what one can fear and rightly so are regional things, like in the Middle East, India, Pakistan, the Korean Peninsula, borders in Africa, etc.

We will always apply the same principles of collective security, prudent caution, and superior weaponry that enabled us to peacefully prevail in the long cold war against the Soviet Union.

If we can deter the Soviet Union, if we can deter North Korea, why on earth can't we deter Iran?

The trouble with the First World War, for example, is that people think war was inevitable, but I don't agree. If you look at the Cold War, you could argue that a war was bound to happen between the Soviet Union and its allies and the United States and its allies, but it didn't.

Twenty-five years after the fall of the Berlin Walland the lifting of the iron curtain, troublespots abound: the Middle East and parts of Africa lack a stable regional security architecture; in east Asia, nationalist tendencies and competing ambitions are threatening peace and stability in the region and beyond.

So, anything that avoids a conflict that could draw in, unhappily again, outside powers such as the United States or revisit, for example, Japan's interests in the Taiwan area would be the last thing that anyone would want.

American presence is, you know, the major cause of balance of power and the stability in this region.

People were really interested in what was going on because of the international context of the Cold War.

Force-backed humanitarianism, which relies on rational influence over events in other countries, may have been a more feasible project in the bipolar era of the Cold War, with its relatively defined and stable web of alliances and proxies.

Other than being crazy enough to press a button, there is nothing that Putin can do militarily to fundamentally alter American interests.

So I think we should stay focused on the real problem in the Middle East. It's not Israel. It's these dictatorships that are developing nuclear weapons with the specific goal of wiping Israel away.

So you're quite right that when... as the Cold War grew and expanded out of Europe, we ourselves had to take refuge behind the shield of the Monroe Doctrine.

When it comes to the Middle East, this is always a very difficult issue for any American president.

Great powers engage.

For four hundred years the foreign policy of England has to oppose the strongest, most aggressive, most dominating Power on the Continent …

Containment was merely appeasement on the installment plan.

The overall or political objective is to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and British Empire.