If New Delhi decides to vote against the resolution that would definitely put obstacles at least in the nuclear deal signed in July 2005.

I'm not optimistic we can somehow diplomatically get them to give them up.

The biggest loser is Iran because there has finally been a finding that they are in non-compliance and that changes the equation enormously...They are now considered violators and no longer a member of the club.

A lot of people are fraudulent, making it sound like a science. It's not.

It would appear as though we just basically wanted this agreement so badly we got it - badly.

The way it's being interpreted today, where everyone has a right to get within several days of having an arsenal force of weapons-usable material, turns the treaty on its head.

I think it's sort of smoke and mirrors.

If the idea is to promote a sense of security at the same time that the development of large reactors to a long list of countries is promoted, then it's very misguided. They're trying to sell this as a nonproliferation initiative, but we shouldn't be so quick to cede that point.

We've already begun to talk about regime change in North Korea. It is the clearest way for us to come to the assistance of people who are being repressed and it is the only way of getting lasting non-proliferation results.

Until and unless the US-Allied stakes in the strait's threatened closure can be reduced, Iran will literally think and act as if it has us over a barrel.