I am aware of the thesis that the United States has long since invested exclusively in stability and this has obviated democratic transformation in the Middle East.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
The Iranian people, if you look at their demographics and their level of education, could be a strong source for stability in the Middle East. The problem is they're run by an apocalyptic cult of ayatollahs.
We've gone too far in thinking we can re-create an American democratic paradise in the Middle East.
In many... cases, of course, the Arab Spring has brought about instability rather than greater stability. And rather than bringing about government that is more representative and more responsive to the people, you're seeing, frankly, the opposite, or you're seeing all-out war.
The rise of ISIS in Iraq is a wider threat to the stability of the Middle East and the West than many realise.
According to this view, democracy is a product of western culture, and it cannot be applied to the Middle East which has a different cultural, religious, sociological and historical background.
Stability is when the U.K. and U.S. invade a country and impose the regime of their choice.
The Iranian regime, in my mind, is the single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East.
It's not a democracy here, it's the Middle East.
Certainly we've seen the enormous changes across the whole of the Middle East. The democratic genie is out of the bottle.
A central claim of the Bush administration's foreign policy is that the spread of democracy in the Middle East is the cure for terrorism.