Jimmy Carter Quotes

There isn't a doubt that Iran constitutes the single most important single-country strategic challenge to the United States and to the kind of Middle East that we want to see.

Look, I think the public generally understands that what's at stake in Afghanistan is American security, number one.

Why did we leave Afghanistan? It’s because there is no oil in Afghanistan.

In order to have defense here at home, we have to have offense in Iraq and Iran.

If the United States were attacked by rockets from one of our neighboring countries, we would be a lot tougher on them than Israel has been on the Palestinians. When we were attacked, we sent an army abroad and took over Afghanistan from the Taliban.

When our vital interests are challenged, or the will and conscience of the international community is defied, we will act; with peaceful diplomacy whenever possible, with force when necessary.

We believe US threats of an approaching World War III and their use of Iran's nuclear issue as an excuse is another form of American insanity.

We will never again permit any foreign nation to have Uncle Sam over a barrel of oil.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

Is a military solution the only way to stop nations from doing bad things?

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld did not invent preemptive and preventive wars; they have a long history in U. S. foreign policy.

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.

It’s not only time to It is time not to take force off the table… It is time to put force on the table and use it

At present many nations in Asia and the Near East think of us as being more willing to use military force than are the Soviets. I think this is a regrettable impression to make in any area of the world.

A United States President should never, never, never, never threaten the use of force unless he is prepared to follow up.

There is every prospect that events arising out of our growing foreign investment will present us in the future with decisions involving war and peace, will bring us, whether we like it or not, to concern ourselves with distant causes.

Nations drift into wars.

Unless we get serious about addressing Iran's regional ambitions in places like Syria, then our allies are never going to be confident that we have a strategy for the region.

I have introduced legislation - with other senators from both parties, like Bob Corker and Bob Menendez and Joe Manchin - called the 'Countering the Iranian Threats Act', specifically to clamp down on a lot of Iran's nefarious activity throughout the region.

Unfortunately, the international community is not ready to deal with Iran's repeated provocations.

I believe that Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship are, and should be, key considerations in shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East. Americans with roots or interests in the region should be involved in advocacy and discussions of public policy concerning the region.

A new book by 'New York Times' reporter Charlie Savage, 'Power Wars,' suggests that there has been little substantive difference between George W. Bush's administration and Obama's when it comes to national-security policies or the legal justifications used to pursue regime change in the Greater Middle East.

The issue with Syria, I think for many of us, has always been about Iran. This is an anchor point for them in terms of regional domination. It means a lot to them. They are all in here.

On a global scale, the way Trump talks about dealing with foreign policy is very scary.

Israel may be beloved, but for American security, it is not essential.