Zbigniew Brzezinski

It is axiomatic that the security of America and Europe are linked.

If we slide into a pattern of just thinking about today, we'll end up reacting to yesterday instead of shaping something more constructive in the world.

What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?

I realise that in an electoral campaign, you don't want to antagonise large groups which are highly motivated.

Neither the United States nor Israel has the capacity to impose a unilateral solution in the Middle East.

The Soviet Union's termination, which brought to an end the bipolar world, ushered in an era of U.S. hegemony. Hegemony, however, should not be confused with omnipotence. Hegemony is not omnipotence but is certainly preponderance.

I do think America has made it quite clear that it is in the interest both of America and China to avoid situations in which they will be pushed toward a collision.

A Russia that gradually begins to gravitate toward the West will also be a Russia that ceases to disrupt the international system.

I draw a very clear distinction between populism and democracy.

I think we have to pay attention to the Arab masses not just in the Gulf States, but also in the hinterlands.

Look: I don't want to live with a nuclear Iran. I would like to make it uncomfortable for them to seek it.

I would like to promote internal change in Iran - which is more likely if we don't fuse Iranian nationalism with Iranian fundamentalism.

We can't have an intelligent foreign policy unless we have an intelligent public, because we're a democracy.

We don't have a public that really understands the world anymore, and in the age of complexity, that problem becomes much more difficult.

We defended our allies in Europe for 40 years during the worst days of the Cold War - very threatening days of the Cold War - and nothing happened. So deterrence does work.

You know who's messianic? Netanyahu, because he talks that way. And that's a very risky position.

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

Moderation and bipartisan consensus go hand in hand.

Terrorism cannot be isolated from its political, historical, and even social context.

AIPAC has consistently opposed a two-state solution, and a lot of members of Congress have been intimidated, and I don't think that's healthy.

The difference between the Bush I war against Iraq and the Bush II war against Iraq is that in the first one, we appealed to the sentiments and interests of the different groupings in the region and had them with us. In the second one, we did it on our own, on the basis of false premises, with extremely brutality and lack of political skill.

Rushing to war is not a wise course of action.

I don't approve of the notion that we should be announcing who should step down from the position of a head of a state unless we are seriously prepared to remove that person. But if we are not, if we are being prudent and careful, then let's also be careful with how we talk.

Human affairs require some combination of moral commitment with disciplined political action. And that is what keeps me intrigued and challenged and wanting to influence events.

During the nineteenth century, men died believing in the cause of royalty or republicanism. In reality, much of their sacrifice was rendered on the altar of the new nationalism.

During the twentieth century, men fought on behalf of nationalism. Yet the wars they fought were also engendered by dislocations in world markets and by social revolution stimulated by the coming of the industrial age.

Both World War II and the subsequent Cold War gave America's involvement in world affairs a clear focus. The objectives of foreign policy were relatively easy to define, and they could be imbued with high moral content.

Americans must place greater emphasis on the more subtle dimensions of national power, such as innovation, education, the balance of force and diplomacy, and the quality of political leadership.

To his credit, Obama has undertaken a truly ambitious effort to redefine the United States' view of the world and to reconnect the United States with the emerging historical context of the twenty-first century. He has done this remarkably well.

World War II and the ensuing Cold War compelled the United States to develop a sustained commitment to Western Europe and the Far East.

Eurasia is home to most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states.

Given the accelerating velocity of history, we should begin charting deliberately the next phase in its trajectory.

Missing from much of the public debate is discussion of the simple fact that lurking behind every terroristic act is a specific political antecedent. That does not justify either the perpetrator or his political cause. Nonetheless, the fact is that almost all terrorist activity originates from some political conflict and is sustained by it as well.

The public has been told repeatedly that terrorism is 'evil,' which it undoubtedly is, and that 'evildoers' are responsible for it, which doubtless they are. But beyond these justifiable condemnations, there is a historical void.

Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president.

Waging a colonial war in the post-colonial age is self-defeating.

The United States should not engage in tit-for-tat polemics directed at its most important allies. That is as demeaning as it is destructive.

Democrats should insist that a pluralistic democracy such as ours rely on bipartisanship in formulating a foreign policy based on moderation and the nuances of the human condition.

Can we really mobilize support, even of friends, when we tell them that if you are not with us you are against us?

It is important to ask ourselves, as citizens, whether a world power can provide global leadership on the basis of fear and anxiety.

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.

Peace between Israel and Palestine would be a giant step toward greater regional stability, and it would finally let both Israelis and Palestinians benefit from the Middle East's growing wealth.

Japan needs the American market and it also needs American security protection. Japan also needs America as the necessary stabilizer of an orderly world system with economies truly open to international trade.

Pessimism about America's future tends to underestimate its capacity for self-renewal.

I was deeply involved in the decision that President Jimmy Carter made to boycott the Olympics in Moscow in 1980.

America's victory in the Cold War was not without painful social costs.

War triggers unforeseeable military dynamics and sets off massive political shocks, creating new problems as well as new opportunities.

The costly unilateralism of the younger Bush presidency led to a decade of war in the Middle East and the derailment of American foreign policy at large.

Only a dynamic and strategically-minded America, together with a unifying Europe, can jointly promote a larger and more vital West, one capable of acting as a responsible partner to the rising and increasingly assertive East.

The congressional role in declaring war is especially important not when the United States is the victim of an attack, but when the United States is planning to wage war abroad.