Tom Cotton Quotes

I've repeatedly voted for sanctions against Iran. And I think all options should be on the table to prevent them from having nuclear weapons.

I'm prepared to continue doing what we need to do to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

It is imperative that the United States lead in preventing Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon. That requires vigorously enforcing the Iran deal while leaving all options on the table, including military force if necessary.

I'm very concerned about the nuclear weapons development for Iran and the destabilizing influence it has and they have in that part of the world. And I strongly endorse continued pressure, diplomatically, financially, economically.

What the United States has to do is send a clear message to Iran that they will not be able to develop nuclear weapons. Why endure the difficulty of sanctions if they are not going to be able to develop nuclear weapons anyway?

My priority is to repeal the Iran Nuclear Deal and vote to do that. I think it's extremely dangerous... you don't negotiate with terrorists.

The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

The Iran nuclear issue is on top of the agenda. It is a very complicated issue with long history.

President Obama has made it clear that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Certainly the international community is putting a lot of pressure on Iran and making clear that its nuclear program must stop. If it stops with the sanctions, the combinations of sanctions, diplomacy, other pressures, I, as the prime minister of Israel, will be the happiest person in the world.

The United States must also continue to push the United Nations Security Council for strong action to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. In the meantime, it is our job to take meaningful steps to eliminate the threats posed by Iran.

The Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons would be infinitely more costly than any scenario you can imagine to stop it.

The two biggest threats to international security in 2013 are Iran getting a nuclear weapon, and Iran being bombed to stop it getting a nuclear weapon. Both would precipitate a long and dangerous conflict in an already unstable Middle East. Both would be a disaster.

The question really is what action we take which lessens the chances of a nuclear exchange, which obviously is the final failure…. You have:, A blockade without any declaration of war A blockade with a declaration of war Strikes One, Two and Three We’ve got invasion

Instead of planning to deter would-be [nuclear] proliferators, U. S. policy makers have developed a preference for preventative war, They now seem to feel that deterrence is too weak to deal with radical regimes, forgetting that the precise purpose of deterrence is to counter dangerous enemies, not cautious ones.

Look: I don't want to live with a nuclear Iran. I would like to make it uncomfortable for them to seek it.

The broad goal, laid out by Congress, the Obama administration, and the U.N. Security Council, was that Iran would suspend all enrichment-related activities and not be permitted a path to ever pursue a nuclear weapons program.

Preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is one of the most important objectives of our national security policy, and I strongly advocated for and supported the economic sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table.

I think the notion of getting the North Koreans to denuclearize is probably a lost cause.

I do not believe the efforts of the international community to stop Iran's nuclear program will bear fruit.

It is not unimaginable to have military options to respond to North Korean nuclear capability. What's unimaginable to me is allowing a capability that would allow a nuclear weapon to land in Denver, Colorado. That's unimaginable to me. So my job will be to develop military options to make sure that doesn't happen.

Iran can never get a nuclear weapon, and it never will as long as I have anything to say about it.

The Iran deal was working. As a solution to the problem of Iran developing nuclear weapons, it was actually working quite well.

Certainly, the JCPOA was not a perfect agreement. It did not deal with the threat from Iranian missiles, or their support for violent extremism. And it contains a 'sunset clause,' meaning it expires after a decade. But it was accomplishing the one goal it set out to achieve: stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Ultimately, the goal of sanctions is to ratchet up the economic pressure on the Iranians to such a level that the regime determines it is simply too great to bear, and they are forced to weigh the decision to carry on their nuclear development and their illicit quest for nuclear weapons against the ever-growing pressure from their own people.