We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction, yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security - and indeed to continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use.

Sanctions are a bad idea.

You're shooting yourself in the foot if you isolate or disempower the moderates.

Well, first of all, we now have everybody with the exception of India, Pakistan, and Israel, and I don't think these three countries are going to join by simply providing them an incentive, in terms of technology.

How can you run for president if you don't know the job description?

If a huge number of people call for change, the government will have to react. If you want to avoid uprisings, or demonstrations, you need to respond to the people's desperate need for change.

Managing a country is like managing a company in many ways. It maybe involves more complicated issues, but it's the same skills.

You either have a civil society or you don't.

My sister-in-law works for a group that supports orphanages in Cairo. She and her colleagues take care of children left behind by circumstances beyond their control. They feed these children, clothe them, and teach them to read.

I argue that for every country to have an independent fuel cycle is the wrong way to go. Because any country which has a complete fuel cycle is a latent nuclear weapons country, in the sense that it is not far from making a nuclear weapon.