That is the essence of why I believe this is a bad deal for America, a bad deal for Iran's neighbors in the Middle East, and a bad deal for the world.

If we have a chance to avoid a third major conflict in the Middle East since 9/11 and if we can stop Iran in the process I think that is a good course for the United States.

Yes, well, it sure does, in my opinion, and as others have said--General Hayden--it does something else.

this agreement has much more risk for America and much more reward for Iran than it should.

the result will be exactly the opposite of what was hoped for here, which is a more peaceful Middle East. It is going to be a much more violent and potentially explosive Middle East.

Very briefly, this question really, in my opinion, highlights the greatest specific weakness of the agreement announced today.

It allows Iran to be a nuclear weapon state and makes it inevitable.

It seems to me that Iran has developed a lot of the nuclear capability that it has today in violation of its obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty.

I think we are going to have to push back against the Iranians in the Middle East because they are on a tear.

an agreement presumably to reduce the presence of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, because it eventually allows a radical state like Iran to get nuclear weapons, will in fact encourage other powers within the Middle East to invest in…

I certainly do. That is the ultimate answer and we haven't really tried or done very much to bring that about.

I am pessimistic about peace in our time with Iran because I don't see any fundamental change in their radical ideology and their aggressive support of terrorism.

There is no evidence of it. Somebody said before that, and I have heard it before--Iran has two governments. I don't think so.

I think that all the elements in Iran want this agreement because it is so good for them economically and it strengthens their position in the Middle East.

This is a bet not based on fact. In fact, it is a bet based on hope over experience we have had with Iran.

I think much more likely is that the billions of additional dollars that the Iranian Government and economy will get will be used by the IRGC.

I actually agree with what Ambassador Burns said here, that if the agreement is rejected that Iran will not rush to build a nuclear weapon.

I believe we have got to contain their threat in the Middle East and we have to stop them.

I think, particularly if this agreement announced today is not rejected by Congress and goes into effect, the willingness of the United States to provide Israel with the so-called MOP--the big bunker buster--will be part of a necessary…

If we disavow this agreement P5+1 falls apart and Iran races, not walks, to accelerate its nuclear development program.

The most disappointing part of it is the inspection part. It is not anywhere, anytime.

I think one of the great imperatives for the U.S. is to do whatever it can--it is going to be hard--to reassure the Muslim Arab countries, the Sunni Muslim countries, and Israel that we are still with them.

I think the result on first look--it just came about a few hours ago--is that this deal is not a good one for the U.S. or our allies and it is a very good one for Iran.

On first look, the inspections provisions in the agreement announced today fall far short, dangerously short, of the anywhere, anytime access that is needed.

So now we are taking a risk of making this trade where we end sanctions on them in return for them essentially temporarily freezing their nuclear program.