Ed Markey

As has been discussed here today, Iran has conducted two ballistic missile tests in the past few weeks in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929.

This is an important world moment. It is important moment for the IAEA, to make sure that it works.

Again, our greatest concern is that it would be kind of a fulfillment of President Kennedy's warning that there would be 20 to 25 countries with nuclear weapons.

It is a rich man's war, but a poor man's fight.

I think the question is, are you bequeathing to your successor a productive framework? Are you bequeathing the tools?

But Bush decided to violate this kind of trust with the IAEA and now Iran took the wrong message from it.

In other words--no. The point I am making here is that we knew that Saddam Hussein did not have a nuclear weapons program and we invaded them.

I think it is such an American interest to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. And of course, that has been our policy since the Reagan administration.

Can you imagine a scenario where a President of the United States would not feel compelled to take the necessary action in order to ensure that Iran did not have a nuclear weapon in the 2020s?

It is clear that we have a very checkered history in this whole area of the IAEA and the use to which it has been placed.

No matter what, we have to make sure that Iran fears Israel, that Hezbollah fears Israel, that Hamas fears Israel.

I agree with you. I think we have to again evaluate this deal, looking at the advantages and the defects that may exist.

You have to have some kind of confidence that you are going to be able to keep a coalition together.

Are we going to give the resources to the IAEA in order to be able to do its job, especially as the years expire?

I do not like it, but we have a system, and we just have to ensure that there are, in fact, adequate safeguards in place.

I think we need to examine the consequences. Does that mean Ali Khamenei can move $95 billion in liquid assets around the world through the formal financial system, including SWIFT?

So, for example, what would Russia's response be in 15 years if Iran started enriching to 50, 60, 80, 90 percent? What would happen?

But if you look at Libya today, it is hard to say it is better.

Do you think we should be more humble in terms of our public pronouncements of the goal to topple the Iranian Government?

So then if I can go back to you, Dr. Allison. You draw an important distinction between material cheating and marginal cheating in your testimony.

So can you talk about that, Mr. Tobey? Essentially Qaddafi and Saddam wound up in the same situation, pretty much in the same ditch after they gave up their nuclear weapons programs.

I think would complicate, dramatically, our ability to, in fact, gain the full benefits of the treaty that we are hoping can be negotiated.

While it is the kind of the sotto voce policy of our country that Iran would not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, the premise of the treaty will be that they are not going to get a weapon

I think obviously the goal of an agreement with Iran is to move toward a normalization of relations with Iran.

I think that there are other ways that it can be done without, in effect, producing a kind of automaticity to how we would respond.