Michael Ledeen Quotes

Mr. Speaker, in the years since we enacted our attack against Iraq, the threat from Iran has only grown more difficult, and our capacity to meet that threat actually has diminished. It is one of the reasons many of us opposed that action against Iraq.

The United States is going to continue to punish Iran because of its defiance.

This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table

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

The only way we want to give them [the Iranians] arms is dropping them from the bay of a B-1 bomber.

The Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations all fell victim to chronically relying on Beijing's empty promises with the distant hope that China would finally use its influence to reign in Pyongyang's provocative behavior, to no avail.

The last thing Israel is interested in is an escalation or some military action against Iran.

I believe President Obama means everything he says about sticking to the unprecedented backing of Israel and keeping all options on the table against Tehran, as well as countering its adventures in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq.

When it comes to Iran, we must not accept Obama's inconsistencies and weakness.

Iran has attacked oil fields and shot down a U.S. drone - all while we stood by.

Israeli government & the neocons want US to bomb Iran.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has denounced negotiation with Iran as a 'historic mistake' that is making the world 'a more dangerous place.' His partners in Washington vigorously echo that view.

Iran poses the most serious long-term threat to regional stability.

No American soldier should be allowed to set foot on Iranian soil, regardless of the criticism we have of the Iranian government.

There is very little hope that the United States or anyone else can do much to stabilize Iraq, Libya, Syria or Egypt. Stabilizing Iran, and bringing it back into the family of nations, is much more possible. That would be a 'win' for both sides.

What could become a danger to world peace is Iran's nuclear program and the country's open threat to annihilate Israel.

After September 11, when the United States took action to overthrow the Taliban, our interests and Iran's aligned, and we were able to coordinate quietly but effectively.

Overwhelmingly, Israel's political and military establishment want the rest of the world to act diplomatically or otherwise to stop Iran. But if that doesn't happen, then the impulse toward the use of force will become quite strong.

The Arab League tells us to go in and take out Qaddafi. We've spent billions of dollars already with respect to the Arab League. Billions of dollars, because they told us to do it. Why aren't they paying for it? They don't like Qaddafi, Qaddafi's been a terrible thorn in their side.

Iraq does not pose an imminent threat to the United States of any of its neighboring nations.

If Iran does not change its policies, it won't be able to integrate into the international community and will become even more isolated than it is now, which likely will have a negative impact on the Iranian people.

And in Iraq we tried to implement the same policy that was so successful in Saudi Arabia, but Saddam Hussein didn't buy. When the economic hit men fail in this scenario, the next step is what we call the jackals.

The President [FDR] has been scheming for years to involve us in war.

If the United States credibly threatens to treat Pakistan like it does Iran, Pakistan’s leaders would find it best to cooperate.

The United States is proud of her remoteness from the old world, her freedom from entanglement in its quarrels, her isolation. Yet in her relatively very short history as an independent state she has fought at least six foreign wars while her troops have landed on foreign soil on nearly a hundred occasions. Not one of those wars was for the purpose of defending American soil.