Jeanne Shaheen

I certainly share the view that it is important for us to keep our coalition together if we are going to be successful.

Well, if you would, talk a little bit more about that because one of the things that I thought was very telling was when Russia canceled the missile deal with Iran several years ago.

Can you also--shortly after the JPOA was negotiated, there was a lot of noise in some of the European capitals about trade deals with Iran and trade delegations that were being sent to Iran.

I think when we have reports that come out that show that China is losing its wetlands at a rate that means that it is no longer going to be able to feed its population, that it is going to look elsewhere to do that and that will have…

So while there is short-term convergence with the United States in countering ISIS, I think Iran and the United States are going to be at loggerheads over the long-term trajectory for both countries.

The fact is, people are still observing whether, there were actually 'more moderate' folks elected and the policies are actually going to change.

So the Russians are actually helping on that front?

I think our efforts to counter Iran really need to start with Syria not only because Syria is perhaps the most important conflict we see.

I think that is one of the underlying tenets of our foreign policy or certainly should be.

I think it is important that when they do something that is irresponsible and destabilizing, that there is a price that they pay.

We have to recognize that we have not made a strategic shift in the Middle East with Iran. These have been transactional.

You cannot win these militarily. You have to win them militarily. You have to create a military stalemate. But that is only the starting point for a new power-sharing arrangement and building of new institutions that can actually govern…

The idea that we are going to try to create a Syrian opposition where the members have no ties of any kind to any Islamic organization and are willing to solely fight Daesh and not the Assad regime, to me it is almost surprising that we…

I think the policy that we are trying to pursue in Syria is nonsensical.

I would prefer that there not be an arms race in the Middle East, although obviously it is quite useful for the American arms industry.

I think the Iranians are going to have access to a lot more cash, which they are going to use to refurbish a badly dilapidated military.

I think the agreement will spur the arms race.

The likelihood is incrementalism, we cannot rule out a decision by the Supreme Leader to throw out the inspectors and to go for a nuclear weapon.

I think in most of the testimony that I have heard with respect to the agreement over the last couple of weeks, people have suggested that if Iran violates the agreement, they would do it in an incremental way, which would make it more…

I think that Congress should pass an AUMF that would be a follow-on should Iran decide not to comply with the agreement.

It is also my understanding, again, based on estimates that I have seen, that should we enter into this agreement, at the end of the 10-year time period that Iran will be between 8 and 12 months away from building a nuclear weapon?

Are you both in agreement with what I understand to be the intelligence assessments that today, before we enter into this agreement, that Iran is 2 to 3 months away from breakout to build a nuclear weapon, should they choose to do that?

I would also ask that we request a confidential, classified briefing by our intelligence agencies.

I think all of this is important in creating the kind of intimidation of the Iranians that we should want to have in our policy.

I guess, based on some of the testimony that we have heard, I have assumed that we ought to be thinking about not just other actions we should be taking in the region with respect to supporting our allies there, but also other measures…