Jane Harman

Negotiations are tough. Each party has to give up something to get to a deal.

I think that the Kim regime in North Korea has regime survival as its first tenet--not helping its people but regime survival.

The American people deserve a voice in this. They have to understand what the trade-offs are in terms of resources and loss of life.

If you're Kim Jong-un and you're watching this and thinking oh, here was an international agreement led by the United States in which they promised to give up their nuclear program in exchange for certain things.

But on North Korea, talk about their intentions--they built 60 nuclear weapons. So let us not be naive as we do a deal with them and I am in favor of doing the right deal with North Korea.

We have to keep an eye on this. We have to think about ways in which we can help Americans who are unfairly detained there.

I do think, as you said, that decertifying this deal or at least in some way pulling away from this deal is going to make it harder to negotiate with the North Koreans.

But imposing sanctions and continuing to impose them on Iran's malign behavior in the region, which is permissible, is the right way to go.

Absolutely, but the question we raised is whether the President's anticipated action this afternoon helps or hinders that goal.

I think that Congress can finally construct the strategy that has been missing from everything we've been doing in the region.

I think Congress is AWOL and Congress should be doing this, and the 2001 AUMF that most of us who are here voted for it seems to me doesn't apply to this situation at all.

I think that if President Trump can reach a strong deal with the North Koreans he will deserve enormous credit.

I think Congress has to enact an authorization to use military force for the region, which would identify the trade-offs and how to create a strategy for United States leadership that puts maximum pressure not just on Iran.

I think leaving the deal on a unilateral basis...further isolates us and that's a mistake in terms of U.S. strategy.

We should not underestimate the need for our allies. The Europeans are disappointed, if not dismayed, by the U.S. decision to leave the Paris Climate Accord.

I think we should be very, very careful, given the Iraq experience, and if the people of Iran who elected their government by more than 50 percent in a four-way field want to change their government, then let them do that.

I think this action by the President makes it harder for us to get them out.

I actually think the sanctions have been very effective and economic sanctions as a tool of foreign policy is an asymmetric strength of the United States.

If we don't have European allies, going forward, and we have a large trade war with Europe, I worry that not only our policy toward Iran but our policy in many areas of the world will be harmed.

I think it should be working, as we've all said, with Europe, who are in this deal in the first place, and hopefully with China and Russia, too, to contain nuclear developments in the region.

If the people of Iran who elected their government by more than 50 percent in a four-way field want to change their government let them do it.

I, too, always thought Iran's intention was to acquire a nuclear weapon.

Should it have addressed Iran's other malign behavior? Yes, it should, and it still could, if this side agreement were entered into.

First of all, let me commend Congress for something it did last year by a veto-proof margin and that was to pass the sanctions law against Russia, Iran, and North Korea that dramatically increased sanctions against all three countries.