Security Assurances Quotes

Moral disarmament is to safeguard the future; material disarmament is to save for the present, that there may be a future to safeguard.

The President is of opinion that if Japan makes a treaty with the United States, all other foreign countries will make the same kind of a treaty, and Japan will be safe thereafter.

How can you have a security guarantee? The Europeans can give their security guarantees to Iran all they want in return for their stopping their enrichment. But as long as America says we're going to stay out here and we're not going to drop the stick, we're going to pound you if we have to, it's not going to work.

Disarmament requires trust.

North Korea is making several demands in exchange for giving up their nuclear program, including a promise from America not to attack them. Which is a little strange because for us to attack them we would have to have slam dunk proof that they have weapons of mass destruction. I mean, for Gods sakes people, we're not maniacs. It would have to be an air-tight case. We wouldn't just come in there and start bombing you.

I asked Secretary [Robert] Gates, what did they get in return for giving up the nuclear shield of Poland and the Czech Republic? And you know what his answer was? Nada. They got nothing.

Any agreement that you have isn't going to be based on North Korea's intentions or trust.

Transparency agreements typically take years to negotiate, lack effective enforcement mechanisms, and focus on narrow issues, such as arms control, where the parties see an advantage, or at least little risk, in trading secrecy for stability.

International legitimacy is a fundamental source of power for Israel nowadays.

I believe the main solution is to gain the trust of Europe and America and to remove their concerns over the peaceful nature of our nuclear industry and to assure them that there will never be a diversion to military use.

The expectation in the Obama Administration, or at least the hope, is that a nuclear deal with the West could ultimately moderate Iranian behavior by helping to integrate the country more thoroughly into the international system. Will this happen? It's impossible to predict, of course. We will only know if we get there.

I am ready to compromise, but there is one thing I won't compromise on: the safety of the Israeli people.

We would welcome that, but it's going to require a commitment on the part of the North Koreans to denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula and pursuing a stable relationship with their neighbors. Instead, we've seen a lot of provocations and a flouting of international norms and obligations.

Friendly governments do not act so as to undermine the national security of their friends, and do not presume to know better than their friends how they should contend with the many challenges they face. The Swedish government would do well to rethink its intention to act in this way towards its friend Israel.

Iran will be the most checked and inspected country if the principles agreed in Lausanne are transferred into the language of practical agreements.

A diplomatic solution that puts significant and verifiable constraints on Iran's nuclear program represents the best and most sustainable chance to ensure that America, Israel, the entire Middle East will never be menaced by a nuclear-armed Iran.

A feasible North Korea strategy must consider how to reassure China that our objectives on the peninsula are not aggressive.

I'm in favor of dealing with Iran and dealing with the nuclear issue, but I'm not in favor of a bad deal.

Engaging in diplomacy with Iran and putting an end to their nuclear weapons program was the right thing to do.

Bilateral talks would have to achieve cessation of the missile work by the North Koreans. And it would have to include, as did the Iranian deal, the International Atomic Energy Agency or some other group coming in to assess that and to enforce that to give information about it internationally.

The message that we must send to North Korea is twofold: If the North Korean regime believes that it can defend and protect itself through nuclear and missile programs, that is a misjudgment. But if North Korea gives up its nuclear program, we will help it secure and develop itself. We must consistently send these two messages.

Israel's flexibility is dependent on its sense of security.

A two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a region free of Iranian nukes are worthy goals that should be able to withstand public scrutiny in every Middle Eastern capital.

One thing is clear: any international agreement on prevention of nuclear armaments must be backed by actual and efficient controls. No paper agreement can be sufficient since neither this or any other nation can stake its whole existence on trust into other nations' signatures. Every attempt to impede the international control agencies must be considered equivalent to denunciation of the agreement.

The key is we have to keep those communications together, and we all agree on one goal - a denuclearized North Korea.