Elliott Abrams Quotes

War on terrorism reflects, in my view, a rather narrow and extremist vision of foreign policy for a superpower and for a great democracy with genuinely idealistic traditions.

But it is well to remember that we are dealing with nations every one of which has a direct individual interest to serve, and there is grave danger in an unshared idealism.

In an ideological age, diplomacy may seem weak and prosaic. But sometimes it is all we have.

For better or worse, I've been involved in the description of political conflict.

Power politics is another name for the law of the jungle.

[Describing Russia:] ... the most realistic regime in the world—no ideals.

The sovereign wrongs of one nation are often involved in the sovereign rights of another. What, then, is the use of discussing the redress of these wrongs if every government is irrevocably determined to stand firm by the sovereign rights of the nation behind it?

I felt from the start that America was not likely to relinquish lightly positions established at the cost of such sacrifices, and I pressed the view that a high degree of preparation and willingness to make sacrifices would be necessary on our side, but everybody here always persists in facile optimism until the very worst actually happens.

There will certainly be times when Merkel and I will have opposing viewpoints. Just the fact that government work adheres to a different set of prerogatives than a party does makes conflicts unavoidable.

I have always thought that foreign-policy idealism has to be tempered with realism.

The important thing is that we recognize our President's leadership, that he is not saying: I am going to walk away from this. He is saying: I am going to do the right thing.

Most foreign policies that history has marked highly, in whatever country, have been originated by leaders who were opposed by experts.

In almost every country there are elements of opinion which would welcome such a conclusion because they wish to return to the politics of the balance of power, unrestricted and unregulated armaments, international anarchy, and preparation for war.

The predominant yardstick of your government is not human rights but national interests.

Taking a principled and consistent stance over Iraq has attracted much criticism from our detractors and opponents.

The idea that if people are just friendly and demonstrate they want peace, that will be answered with good will - that is really naive.

I ran on the platform of moderation and won the election by a large margin. By virtue of the strong mandate that I received from the electorate, I am committed to operating in the framework of moderation, which calls inter alia for a balance between realism and the pursuit of the ideals of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Everybody pursues their national interests. The only one who gets blamed for it is the United States.

The Americans have taken the course of confrontation and do not assess their own steps critically at all.

I don't think we should ever be at war. That's kind of naive, I suppose.

The artificial separation of politics and culture is nowhere more pronounced than in the discourse of foreign policy and international affairs.

Politics is irrational. Politics is about human beings with their frailties and perversions and distortions or perception, who prioritise things according to their conviction.

Americans tend to go for it all. In international politics you can’t have it all. You have to compromise.

In the last resort nations can only find security in doing what their material interests dictate.

The United States sits down with her enemies because they have some semblance of power.