I mean, my guess is that Iran would continue to adhere to the deal because they were getting some relief.

Let me ask you this. You said that there was interpretation--correct me if I am wrong--interpretation questions. So have there been instances of questionable compliance thus far that were resolved outside of the dispute resolution…

So basically, what I tried to get from Secretary Lew and what I cannot get from my own government--I have to read it from the Government of Iran--to understand what the agreement as I read it was about.

I believe that Congress should disapprove the JCPOA and vote to override any veto, because the Plan is inadequate in limiting Iran's nuclear program and makes no effort to curb its other illegal conduct.

the breakout time--that the agreement does not seem to accomplish a 1-year breakout--that it may be between 6 and 7 months.

Is it not essential for us to be able to make it clear that even after the expiration of the agreement with Iran that we would not permit it to possess enough nuclear fuel to make a single weapon?

Because if there was a dispute on something, you would be more formal and everyone would know about it.

I pressed very hard about the question of shouldn't we have the ability and shouldn't we pursue the reauthorization of the Iran Sanctions Act.

There is a difference between notification and consultation. Being notified when it is going to happen is not consultation.

I think that was a very important point. And I may want to follow up with some specific suggestions that you made as to how we can perhaps follow up on that particular point.

Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

I understand the difference between call upon and shall. And there is a fundamental difference.