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?

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

It is definitely not the policy of this administration, or any conceivable American administration, to have anybody in the region developing a breakout nuclear capacity, let alone actual nuclear weapons.

I think my understanding is that we are talking about nuclear sanctions, with respect to the agreement.

So those sanctions will remain in place?

Well, so talk a little bit more, if you would--I know it is Ambassador Indyk's idea, about the extension of the U.S. nuclear deterrent umbrella for some of the countries in the region, but do you see that as making a real difference?

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 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 am deeply skeptical that we will ever reimpose sanctions on terrorism grounds that have that kind of significant economic impact.

We point to the underlying problems as why you have these accelerants of violence, of instability, of social breakdown.

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 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…