Transcripts For CSPAN Hearing On The Iran Nuclear Agreement 20240622

Meanwhile, the United States, the department of defense, and the men and women of the finest fighting force the world has ever known will continue, with your support to work in americans interests defend allies, and upholds the president s commitment that iran will not gain a Nuclear Weapon should it walk away from this deal. Mr. Mccain thank you. Mr. Dempsey. Mr. Dempsey i will keep my comments brief. As i have stated previously i was consulted during the course of the negotiations and provided my best military advice. It addresses a critical and the most dangerous point of friction with the iranian regime, but as i have stated repeatedly, there are at least five other areas of concern from weapons trafficking to the use of surrogates and proxies in naval minds and undersea activity, and last but not least, to malicious activity in cyberspace. The negotiated deal does not change the options at our disposal. We will continue to engage our partners in the region to address these areas. Ultimately time and iranian behavior will determine if the Nuclear Agreement is effective and stable. In the interim, i will provide my best military advice and options. With that, i look forward to your questions. Mr. Mccain we have a vote right now, and usually we vote we bounce back and forth, but i think this is important enough for us to recess. I would ask the indulgence of our witnesses. I apologize. If we could recess for 10 minutes while we are able to complete these two votes. I think this hearing is important enough not to have us bounce back and forth because i think all members would like to hear the complete testimony. So again, my apologies. We will stand down for 10 minutes. Congress has not been made privy to. Could i ask that since these side agreements have to do with the Weapons Programs of the iranians and the inspection and verification of those programs will we in congress receive the information concerning those side agreements in order to make a judgment as to the degree of verification . Mr. Carter chairman, i think it is important that the content of those agreements and the manner in which they provide for verification of the new year undertaking a ron is making in this agreement and the procedures of the iaea would be known to the congress. I cannot speak to the actual specific documents themselves. Im sure secretary kerry can. But it is an important part of the verification of the agreement, and obviously verification is an important art of any agreement. Let me ask if he wants to add anything. Cleggs first of all, to be honest, i would not call them side first of all, to be honest, i would not call them side agreements. The iaea i, as a standard, negotiates a safeguards confidential document with the country to define the protocols. Mr. Mccain those particles are very important mr. Secretary. Are we going to be aware of those protocols, because we know with any agreement, the devil is in the details. Critics personally, i have not seen the documents. Personally, i have not seen the documents. Mr. Mccain which is astounding. All i can say is their agreement requires cooperation with the iaea, and this is the Standard Practice of the iaea, which is critical to all of us. Mr. Mccain what is critical is that we have verification of the inspection of iranian activities because they have a clear record of cheating. We agree. Mr. Mccain so we believe, all of us, that we should see those instruments of verification. Otherwise, how can we make a judgment as to whether these agreements can be enforced and verified with a country that has a long record of cheating . The iaea will take the information that iran must provide by october 14, and at that point, we will understand to be iaeas confidence in their verification methods. Mr. Mccain so we are then dependent on the confidence of the iaea not the actual viewing of the agreement and verification. I dont think many of us would agree with that process. General dempsey, you talked with the committee a few weeks ago. Under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran relative to Ballistic Missile and arms trafficking. Now we are seeing after five years of relief of sanctions on conventional arms and eight years of Ballistic Missiles. How does this comport with the statement you made before the committee . Mr. Dempsey it will not surprise you to know that my recommendation was to keep pressure on iran for as long as possible. I will say i think that time works for as as well as a ran in this regard. With the agreement made and having the opportunity to give my advice, i support it. Mr. Mccain do you believe iran will change its behavior if this agreement is finalized and have you seen any indication of that . I have not, and speaking from my own judgment, i have no reason to foresee that. Thats why its important the agreement be verifiable. Thats why its important iran not have a Nuclear Weapon. Thats also why it is important that we do everything we need to do to defend our friends and allies, remain strong in the gulf, freedom of navigation, ballistic whistle defense, all of the things were doing. Ballistic Missile Defense all of the things were doing. The agreement does not limit us in anyway. If iran changes its behavior, that would be welcome, but i see no reason to foresee that. Mr. Mccain i see no reason to foresee it, and i see them now with about 50 billion to 60 billion with which to pursue those activities. I hear secretary lew and others say dont worry, they will use it for domestic purposes. They are doing it now with the assets they have. One can only imagine what they would do with 60 billion additional dollars. I know the witnesses have very busy schedules. I am grateful you sought to testify before the committee today in order to help us understand this issue, and i thank you. Senator reid. Mr. Reid thank you very much. You indicated in your statement that the United States has not given up military options with respect to the iranians. It has also not given up any military intelligence or National Intelligence with respect to iran. Those intelligence operations, i would presume, would be focused in great detail on potential violations of this treaty. Is that your sense . Yes, without going into detail here, it certainly is that we have intelligence activity focused on the Uranium Nuclear program. But on Everything Else they are doing. Malign activity, cuts force Ballistic Missiles, arms transfers, the whole thing. Its a very important intelligence effort. Mr. Reid i understand that general coffee indicated that he is confident, i think is a reasonable explanation, of the intelligence communitys ability to detect any significant violation of the treaties with or without direct contact with iaea. Is that a fair judgment in your mind . Yes cia director the the cia director and others all made statements that we would have far greater insight into the Running Program with the agreement. I would add that far greater insight will persist essentially forever. Mr. Reid general dempsey, in your military assessment, what is more effective in delaying or stopping the Iranian Nuclear program at this time or in the new year or in the near future . A military strike or this agreement . General dempsey i would like to point out that military options remain. I believe a negotiated settlement provides a more durable and reduces nearterm risk, which buys time to work with regional partners to address the other malign activities. But there are about five military implications. You have invited me here today to talk about the military applications. The first is it does reduce the risk of a nearterm conflict with iran over their Nuclear Program. Another military implication is we have to sustain those options. They have to be preserved into the future. Third, there is clearly opportunity for a ran to use some of the revenue they gain for malign purposes, and that bears watching in collaboration with our regional partners including israel. Fourth, this will require us to strengthen collaboration in that part of the world. Fifth, we should and will maintain our foreign presence. Those are the military implications. Mr. Reid in terms of the military expenditures, roughly double what the rainy and spend . What the iranians spend and has the capacity of going much higher, is that a Fair Assessment . Generall dempsey double is fair. Mr. Reid we have to make sure those resources are focused and can determine or defeat any aggression by there rainy ends or proxy aggression by the iranians or proxy aggression. We have a series of initiatives with the israelis to better position ourselves to address those other malign activities. Mr. Reid we have a situation developing rather resources are available. We are trying to reorganize in collaboration with the regional partners so they are much more effective to respond. So essentially, we are not ignoring these constant threats by iranians on the ground. Indeed, we are in a sense camping up our activities. Is that fair . Dash cam thing amping up our activities. Is that fair . This does cause us to increase our military we have to increase our attention to malign activities. Mr. Reid thank you. I am right now in the middle of one of the largest bills of the year. I am the sponsor. Therefore, i have not been in on all of this fun. I read this morning in the washington post, that president obama promised that the nuclear deal with iran would be based not on trust but unprecedented verification. It turns out it is based on trust after all, trust in two secret side agreements negotiated separately that apparently no one, including the Obama Administration has seen. Only the iaea and iran have yet to actually see it. The u. S. News world report says by law the administration is required to provide congress all contents of the deal. Secretary kerry do you agree with that an analysis of the law and what your requirement is . Mr. Kerry senator, let me just say to clarify the earlier part of the question, congress will be fully briefed on this agreement in a classified session, and indeed, one of our key negotiators, the day to day lead negotiator, wendy truman, was briefed on it, and ernie moneys was likewise briefed on it, so we are aware of what the basics are. It is standard procedure in the countries that have an agreement with the iaea, that are signed up with the mpt. Senator my question is, are we entitled mr. Kerry correct. Those that are part of the agreement, per se. This is by reference, and no country has access to the confidential agreements directly of the iaea. Senator i dont mean to interrupt you, but my time is limited. I cannot imagine that this would not be part of what we all were briefed on. Yesterday when congressman poe last the question, secretary rice said she asked the question, secretary rice said she had seen the deal and was going to share it with congress. At the same time or prior to the time that secretary rice saw it, did you see it . Mr. Kerry secretary rice has not seen it. She has been briefed on it. I gave her the exact quote. She has been briefed on it, she hasnt actually seen it. Senator i will give you her quote and make sure it is in the record. She said she did see it and did evaluate it. She said six days ago she had seen it and reviewed it, and that congress will get to see it in a classified session. Mr. Kerry senator you are quoting congressman poe. I corrected him with the direct quotes that we took from public record. Her quote is that she has been briefed, not that she has seen it. Senator i dont think that is correct. Mr. Kerry the White House Press briefing senator the hill magazine had something about that, and it was prior to the time it was six or seven days ago that we had a confidential briefing. I was there. You were there. Most of the people at this table were there. In a classified session you cannot say what was said, but was that addressed at all . Mr. Kerry it was. A question came up about it and the answer was given that of Course Congress will be briefed with respect to the contents, and of course you need to be briefed. Everybody needs to be briefed. Senator my point is that was a classified session where we were to be briefed at that time and we werent. Mr. Kerry i dont think we had the full material too brief. I didnt have it come anyway. But we are prepared, and i think Wendy Sherman is going to be briefing shortly on that. What we did providing can provide is the actual roadmap that the iaea put out and the iaea has issued a full roadmap of their expectation senator i understand that. But i am talking about the secret document. Mr. Kerry its a confidential agreement. Its being postured as this its a confidential agreement which is the standard of the iaea. We have lived with the iaea for years. Historically, they always create what is called a comprehensive safeguard agreement, a csa which they negotiate with the country, and we dont get that its not shared with the world. The reason it is confidential has to do with what you can get out of that country, but we do get briefed on it. We are aware of it. Secretary moneyonize may have tightened it up a bit. You have confidence in it. Senator i would say as chairman it is incomprehensible that we did not have full access to that and i think most people agree with that. But my time is expired. Thank you. Mr. Mccain senator nelson. Senator nelson thank you gentlemen all. Thank you for your public service. Secretary loew, i want to go down a different road. We have heard so many commentaries about how much of a windfall the sanctions relief would be for iran. We have heard over 150 billion dollars. The chairman is speaking of 50 billion. Tell me if this is correct. Sanctions relief of what has been withheld is about 100 billion. But within that 100 billion there are contractual obligations of iran to pay some 50 billion, and therefore, the net that would approximately come to iran would be about 50 billion. Is that somewhere in the ballpark . Jack lew that is correct. The one thing i would add is there is between 50 billion dollars and 60 billion that is accessible, but that money is not sitting senator but thats where i wanted to go. That money is sitting in foreign banks, is it not . Jack lew it is sitting around the world in china, india and many other countries. Senator china india japan taiwan uae, those banks . Check loop correct. Jack lew correct. Senator therefore, even if we deny the lifting of economic sanctions, that money is in the hands of foreign banks. What, in your professional opinion, is the likelihood that money would the released . Jack lew to be clear, that money belongs to iran. It has gone in foreign accounts and it is sitting there. If the deal were to be rejected, the question is what do the other banks do. I dont think they will feel bound to hold the money the way they have held it in escrow away from iran. I think with out without a Nuclear Agreement, some of that money will start going back to iran, if this agreement is rejected. Senator so, to recapitulate, if we were to reject it, the money is likely to flow because it is in the hands of foreign banks who would not be compelled to it here to the United States wishes at that point, is that correct . Jack lew we do have sanctions we could impose in other ways, but this money in banks, we could not lock it up directly. We need the cooperation of other governments and Central Banks to keep this money from iran. Just to add one more detail, i think the notion that somehow a 60 billion check gets written is wrong. This is the reserve they need to settle foreign transactions. They are already doing transactions in some countries using foreign reserves and exchange. They still need to buy things overseas. They cannot just spend all this money or their ability to conduct International Commerce goes away. They have hundreds of billion dollars billions of dollars of competing domestic needs. While i cannot say they will not use it for malign purposes, i have never said that, i do think their ability to use this has been exaggerated. Senator can you explain to the committee the ability the United States government will have on the uranium and plutonium programs as a result of the agreements stating there have to be modifications and or dismantlement of the plutonium reactor . Price yes, senator. On the uranium centrifuges, we will have yes, senator. On the Uranium Center fuses centrifuges, we will have technology to make sure the idle ones are locked up and used only as replacements for broken ones. For 20 years we will have containment and surveillance of all manufacturing of the centrifuge parts. As general clapper said, we have tremendously enhanced insight into their program. On the plutonium they will be required to take out the core part of the reactor, fill it with concrete, and then with international collaboration, and we will be part of that, we will make sure that the replacement reactor is the one that produces reduces plutonium production by a factor of about 10, way below the amount needed for a weapon. Secondly, they have also agreed that the spent fuel for life will be sent out of the country. We have very good containment there. Senator thank you mr. Chairman, and thanked all of you. I have been a member of an chair of the strategic Sub Committee over the years. It has been a unified view of the worlds developed nations that iran not have a Nuclear Weapon. It is a grave threat to peace in the world. Henry kissinger sitting where you are said a few months ago that if iran gets a Nuclear Weapon, proliferation dangers are very real, and that is why the whole world is very worried about where we are. I believe the initial era of negotiations commenced in 2000 nine after president bush had pulled back because of the behavior of iran. We have been exceedingly warned that talking can be a trap, and the deeper we get into this talk, the less able we are to take corrective action and alter the situation as we see it. Now i am afraid we have in the goal that we had pretty well unanimous with the world behind. Secretary carter, do you believe iran represents the worlds foremost sponsor of terrorism . Mr. Carter state sponsor, probably so. Unfortunately, it is such a kaleidoscope these days that there are lots of sources of terror, but i think for state sponsorship. Senator i think that is a consensus. Secretary kerry testified yesterday that yesterday in the house. I wish it were not so. There is a dream that somehow iran can be brought in from the cold and we can work with them but i believe it was the former advisor to president reagan, but mcfarland, who said revolutionaries dont go back on the revolution. Do you believe that Supreme Leader khamenei remains committed to the revolutionary goals of the iranian revolution . Mr. Carter i read what he says which suggests that he does. Senator i dont believe he has any intention to abandon that. He was recently at an event and led a rally. Chance punctuated the rally death to america, death to israel. Do you believe those reflect his views . Mr. Carter again, i am not an expert. But it certainly seems so, and that is a reason to be concerned about irans support for terrorism and especially to make sure they dont get a Nuclear Weapon, which is key. Senator i think that is the only conclusion we can reach that he means what he says. We can think it strange but it is serious. It represents a radical ideological agenda of this regime, which makes it a pariah regime, a danger to the entire world. Negotiating an agreement that allows them to obtain missiles is also dangerous, even if it is five years or eight years out. Iranians are very patient. You asked earlier about this and said the reason we want to stop iran from having an icbm program is because the eyes stands for intercontinental, which means having the capability i stands for intercontinental, which means having the capability to fly to the United States. After eight years, they have been able to cheat and purchase on the open market items that could help them build an icbm system capable of reaching the United States. Mr. Carter i am and i think we all need to be concerned about their missile at todays missile activities with or without this agreement. I spoke earlier about Missile Defense of israel. Senator you say they should not have this capability and we should stop it, and this agreement, does it not allow them to purchase anything they need on the world market . Mr. Kerry no, senator. Let me answer that. Eight years represents the best we were able to negotiate with three countries of the seven who said there should be nothing. But we were comfortable accepting the idea of the eight. We were comfortable because we have a number of other tools already available to us which we could apply to be able to prosecute their efforts with respect to myself two missiles specifically. We have the executive order of the president of the United States which allows him to sanction anybody who is providing any materials for missile construction. We have the Proliferation Security Initiative with 100 countries which allows us to block the transfer of materials for weapons construction. We have the irannorth korea syria nonproliferation act. We have huge tools available to us way into the future. Senator it seems like the last agreement would trump that. Mr. Kerry there is no trumpeting of anything. Senator i dont know what the language is in their is in there if it has no meaning. Mr. Kerry this protects us with respect to missile development. We also have u. N. Sanctions that prohibit the flow of weapons to has below, to iraqi shia, too senator they are flowing now are they not . Mr. Kerry indeed, because they have not been enforced. Which is why the administration has decided we need to do this more effectively and i am meeting to layout the specifics of the proposal of how were going to push back against iran. You have adequately and appropriately pointed to the rhetoric of the leader and to the things they are doing. Simple question. If that is what they want to do are we better off preventing them from getting a Nuclear Weapon, or do we want to go right back to where they were where they had 19,000 centrifuges, enough for 10 to 12 bombs . Dont be looking 10 to 15 years down the road. Right now, they have this ability, and we are stopping that. We are taking that away from them and providing a life time of inspection. Mr. Mccain senator, your time has expired. How did the north korean deal work out for you . Senator mccaskill. Mr. Kerry dont ask me. I didnt write the deal. Senator mccaskill is there anything that would constrain our ability to take any action we felt was necessary against iran . Mr. Kerry no. Senator one thing i do not think has been covered enough in all of the testimony that has occurred, i got the point that senator nelson was trying to make, that the money is not in our control, and it appears, looking at it, if all the other countries walk away from us, if we reject this deal, that they are going to get the money one way or another, either because they are entitled to it if we do the deal or because we cannot control it. But i dont know that that is completely accurate, and i think its important. This is not about is this a good deal. This is also about what happens if we dont do this deal. I think its important to talk about whether the power of the United States would have if this deal was rejected to in fact force our will on these countries that hold this money. We have a lot of tools at our disposal as the Major Economic power that we are, a lot of these are our nato allies. Obviously, japan. So, i think its fair that we shouldnt just say if we walk away from this deal they are going to get all the money. I think its fair to try to drill down and you try to give us a picture. Lets assume i know none of you want to assume that this deal is rejected, but lets assume that it is. At that moment, what power do we have is a country to keep this money from flowing to iran and its nefarious activities . Senator it is a very fair question, and obviously, nobody can give you a precise answer because there are perfectly legal ways for them to use this money now. If they buy chinese goods, they can pay with the reserves held in china. They can make a decision to acquire the things they need to acquire through the countries that have reserves and chip away at those reserves. The question of what unilateral sanctions versus multilateral sanctions can do is a powerful one. We dont have the ability to reach out to all foreign banks and all foreign transactions. I think it is at our unparalleled we have a sanctions regime where we are enforcing unilateral actions that the rest of the world is rejecting, which is very different from what has been going on over the last few years. We have worked bilaterally with countries around the world to do things against their own economic interest because they agreed with us on the imperative of stopping iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon. If they see as walk away from an agreement that they believe would stop iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon, i believe the degree of cooperation would go down considerably. Its not blackandwhite. But what has made a sanctions regime so effective is the fact that we have had international cooperation. India and china have been buying less oil from iran than has been good for their economy. How do you enforce bilaterally with countries around the world doing things against their interest, just by saying we insist . There are things we can do, but it gets much harder. Senator mccaskill i appreciate that answer, but i think it would be helpful for those of us trying to analyze both scenarios if you all would try, to the best of your ability, put in writing, what you would and vision, what would be our best effort in keeping iran isolated if in fact this deal is rejected. I dont think it is fair for us to assume we have no power if this deal is rejected. Clearly, we are still going to have a lot of power. I am almost out of time. I know this is a hard question to give an exact answer to, but do you believe if we walk away from this deal that iran has a Nuclear Weapon by christmas . A cannot really answer that question. Senator mccaskill do your best. I think it is important for us to know how close they are. Mr. Moniz they could certainly generate the materials within months, which is before christmas. What is unknown is the degree to which they have completed which we cannot discuss right now other weaponization requirements. That is what the iaea, in building up its dossier over many years which it now needs to complete, certainly has identified labeled iran as having had a structured program of activities relevant to Nuclear Weapons in the past. It is a threshold state and that is the risk we face. The deal will walk them back from that threshold and give us permanently more insight into any Weapons Program they might choose to pursue. Secretary mccaskill thank you. They are a Nuclear Threshold state and have denied all along that they had any intention of doing so up into the present time. I think that is instructive. I think senator mccaskill may be onto something here with all of the options before us. My friend senator reid asked if we were better off with a negotiated settlement or a military strike as if those were the only two alternatives. Of coarse, we know those were not the only two alternatives. I wish our friends had not been so eager to leave the sanctions regime, but they were. The United States could go it alone. We do have unilateral tools that would be effective. So continuing trying to get a good deal, continued unilateral tools on the part of the United States making People Choose between banking with america and banking with iran, those tools are there. Let me say mr. Dempsey, i appreciate your service and i appreciate the many times you have come before this committee. We have disagreed and agreed from time to time. It would seem to me that your brief nine sentence Opening Statement before this committee amounts to damning this agreement with faint praise. There are six areas in which iran is a bad actor and five of these activities give us through concern. You list them and then give us these words of assurance. Ultimately time and iranian behavior will determine if a nuclear to agreement Nuclear Agreement is effective. That does not give me a confidence level. Based on your brief and tepid endorsement of this agreement. With regard to the conventional arms embargo as late as this spring, we were not hearing about this. General dempsey, when did you become aware that there would be this huge relief from the conventional arms embargo, and isnt it a fact that it caught you by surprise . General dempsey i would ask you not to characterize my statement as cap ignore enthusiastic, but pragmatic. I have said from the as tepid nor enthusiastic, but pragmatic. I have said from the start that i believe Diplomatic Options are preferable but i remain ready for military. When military implications became part of the conversation i was asked for advice and i gave my final recommendation regarding sanctions about a week or two before the deal was finalized. Senator that seems very late to me. The advice we have been getting on the other side of this agreement, down through the months and over the time that this massive retreat from conventional arms embargoes is something new and something very troubling. Let me just say, mr. Chairman in the minute i have left, that the assessment of the facts and the assessment of the effect this agreement will have by neighbors in the region i think is so instructive and should be so instructive to this congress. I dont blame my friends on the democratic side of the aisle for having concerns also. It is striking that from right to left, every ideology within the country of israel is opposed to this agreement. It is striking that the arab neighbors, the saudis and others, are alarmed at this deal. And i would submit to the record mr. Chairman, in the closing seconds, an oped by ra shop at ari shabbat in which he says that the randian negotiation teams succeeded iranian negotiating team succeeded in destroying the sanctions mechanism. China and russia recognize again and again irans right to develop advanced centrifuges which could be five to 10 times bigger than the capacity of the old ones. The biz means this means that the International Community is not only enabling, but actually ensuring the establishment of a new Iranian Nuclear program which will be immeasurably more powerful and dangerous than its predecessor. I submit this article for the record mr. Chairman. Mr. Mccain without objection. Senator shaheen. Senator thank you for your efforts on this negotiation and for being here today. Secretary carter, youre in the middle east last week. Can you tell us what you heard from our allies in the middle east about what they felt about this agreement, specifically saudi arabia and israel . Obviously, we have heard what Prime Minister netanyahu had to say. Mr. Carter Prime Minister netanyahu was very clear and has been clear publicly in his opposition to the deal. We discussed that, but we discussed many other things as well. Hezbollahs activity on the border with lebanon. In fact, i visited there. Our Missile Defense activities, our Cyber Security cooperation our intelligence cooperation lots of other regional issues. We discussed many topics. He was very clear. Senator would you agree with the characterization that the israelis were united in their opposition to the agreement from left to right . Mr. Carter i only spoke with the Prime Minister. He was as he has been publicly very clear. Senator what did you hear from some of our arab allies . Mr. Carter i spoke to the king of saudi arabia who repeated to me us hate men he had issued repeated to me a statement he had issued a few days before supporting the agreement. He reiterated that the verification and snapback provisions were important to him. He referenced those things. And then we went on to talk about other things that are more related to the defense of agenda including his air forces munitions, Cyber Concerns that saudi arabia has, and something we started to discuss at the gcc, namely saudi arabias role in countering isil, which is a whole other subject. Senator did you hear from any of our other arab allies in the middle east to that they were in agreement . Mr. Carter i spoke to the jordanians about it. Again, it was not a major topic. We had a lot of other things to talk about. I dont recall exactly what they said. Again, it wasnt really the subject of our meeting. Those are the three places i met with. Senator thank you. General dempsey, is there a military option short of invasion that would roll back irans Nuclear Program more substantially over the next 10 years than the jc boa does, in your opinion . General dempsey i would have to make assumptions about how often we would he compelled to conduct we would be compelled to conduct airstrikes. The military options could disrupt the program by several years. There is nothing to say we could not repeated if necessary. Senator is there any intelligence to suggest what irans response would be should we engage in an airstrike against them . General dempsey the analysis suggests that they would counter our presence in the region at every opportunity and use what they have available to them. Senator thank you. Secretary moniz there has been a lot of discussion about the 24 day delay. Could you clarify the extent to which we would be able to detect nuclear activity, so, uranium, in an extended time beyond the 24 day . What if the activity does not include Nuclear Material . To what extent do you believe we could detect other activity other then uranium related or Nuclear Related activity . Mr. Moriz first, let me reiterate that the 24 day timeline is new again, to repeat Nuclear Materials, we have very sensitive capabilities and can add more classified context. With regard to nonNuclear Materials, it gets more difficult. When one has Nuclear Weapons specialized activities such as explosively driven neutron initiators, we would not be without tools to detect activities in that kind of time, but clearly, as one gets farther and farther away into just conventional explosive testing which is what militaries do normally, then it is a question of putting together context. In the end, you need the Nuclear Materials to get to the weapon and that is where we have extraordinary techniques. If i may add one more comment, if you permit, just to go back to the comment on advanced centrifuges. I dont know the particular article you quoted, but it appears to have forgotten to mention that their most advanced machines are already operating at full cascade level, two different machines, and those are going to be dismantled before this is implemented. Senator i have been informed that senator ernst is required to provide preside over the vital proceedings on the floor of the United States senate critical to her presence, so i would ask my colleagues to indulge her and allow her to proceed. Senator thank you. This well be one of the most significant votes we take as members of Congress Moving forward. I think it is imperative that we get this right. Not long ago, the United States discovered that we had had a data breach at opm. Simple. Data personnel records had been tapped into. So, thats just laying the groundwork of where im going next. Secretary carter and secretary moniz, i am very concerned regarding the governments ability to did tech and prevent detect and prevent Cyber Attacks on our government. With regards to James Clapper around has conducted Cyber Attacks on u. S. Officials hacking which compromised the marine corps internet, sans las vegas casino, and attacks against u. S. Banks. These attacks along with recent successful attacks against opm leads me to have less than full confidence of our own super Cyber Capabilities, let alone the Cyber Capabilities at the iaea. It is vital iaea has a lock tied ability to protecteds equipment and technology, vital to ensuring effective monitoring of iranian facilities under this agreement against Cyber Attacks. Simple yes or no, secretary carter. Are you concerned regarding irans ability to impact the effectiveness of iaea monitoring equipment through cyber . Mr. Carter i am sorry, i cannot give you a yes or no. I am very concerned about iranian cyber activity. You name three countries. I could go on. This is a problem, and sadly, i share the lack of confidence you have in the adequacy of our defenses. In the defense department, you would think we would be secure, but we are not, and we know that. It is not just a rant, but others as well i ran but others as well. That is why we are trying to make investments in that area and pull up our socks on cyber but i cannot reassure you. Senator the iaea does have some senator they are more advanced than the United States. Mr. Carter ciber is tough. It is something that keeps us up all the time. We have develop our capabilities. Senator i have no confidence that we would not be able to know if there were tampering involvement going on as we monitor these activities. Or if the iaea tries to monitor these activities. I hope they improve those measures. I believe we are vulnerable as we have seen with our own infrastructure. General dempsey, we have heard from other discussions today about this agreement. Many news outlets, usa today others had quoted president obama as the choice is the Iran Nuclear Deal or war. This seems to be a military decision. I understand that you advised the president on these issues. Is that what you have told the president . We take this deal or we go to war . Martin dempsey no. At no time did that come up in our conversation or i made that comment. Senator who is advising the president . Martin dempsey i could not answer that. We have a range of options. I always present them. Senator ernst it is imperative everybody on this panel understand there are other options available out there. A multitude of options. We are taught in the military about dime. Diplomatic options, information operation. Military operations and economic types of sanctions and opportunities that we might have. For the president to reject everything the war is outrageous to me. I do hope that you are able to better advise him that he needs to be careful with his language because that seems to be the rhetoric we are hearing is that we either go to war or we accept this deal. I reject that premise. Martin dempsey as long as we agree that military strikes is an act of war per there are things tween here and there. Senator ernst i agree. Thank you very much. Senator general dempsey, you answered first of all let me thank everyone at this table for your service to our nation and the hard work and dedicated service that produce this agreement whether we vote for it or not. I have i have made no decision for myself for the nation owes its gratitude for the hard work you have done. It is fair to say general dempsey that the breakout time for iran to produce enough material for a Nuclear Weapon will return to what it is now 23 months after the 10 year periods. Martin dempsey i dont know that it is fair to say that because i think that some of the additional protocols which are out of my area of expertise could inhibit them for a longer time. Senator lets assume for the moment that in fact the bracket breakout time is reduced to what it is now. Will the United States be in a stronger or weaker position militarily if the military option is necessary . Martin dempsey the chairman earlier pointed out that it will make it more difficult but not make it more impossible. It depends on how we use the time between now and then. We have to plan with our allies in the region to increase their capabilities over that time. If we use the time wisely and have the resources necessary to do it we should not assume we are in a weaker position. Senator the iranians will use that time to build their conventional forces. At the very least they will have more revenue from various sources if the sanctions are lifted. Martin dempsey they are starting from an extra ordinarily weekend position weakened position. Senator senator where i am going is in the near and longer term . Martin dempsey that is almost a separate hearing. I would suggest we need to have the budget certainty that the secretary of defense has articulated and secondly that we should not at this point in time consider reducing our force presence in the middle east area of responsibility. Senator secretary lew, let me turn to the economic sanctions that could be available. Which my colleague from iowa has mentioned. Can those be put back in place . United states alone even without , our allies use its finance system and its bank to implement a severe sanctions system . Jack lew senator we certainly have significant tools that we have used unilaterally could use again unilaterally. But we have seen over the last several years is the impact of sanctions that have had a crushing impact on irans economy. It has brought them to the table. They have reached the agreement we are here discussing. The notion we can unilaterally equal or surpass that that is something that is inconsistent. Senator we can certainly make a significant and also severely damaging effort if we choose to do so. Jack lew we can. What i would say importantly the , snapback provisions that are in this agreement if iran valid violates, the sanctions will be back in place. Senator the challenge will be to mobilize. Jack lew i dont think there is a challenge. The way it was constructed, it is a very strong snapback provision. The International Sanctions snapback in a way that weakens that we can work out will by exercising a veto if there is a disagreement with us. Senator secretary kerry did you have a comment . Mr. Kerry there is a surreality here. With all respect, the president of the United States is not mandating war. He doesnt want to go. It is not his choice. He is not advocating war. If you analyze the alternatives here, and this is what i mean by surreality, could the United States continue sanctions . To what end . To negotiate . With whom . Do you think the ayatollah is going to come back and negotiate . Senator please shorten your remarks. Mr. Kerry the reason the president talks about the possibility of war is iran has already made it clear that if this is rejected they consider themselves free to go back and in rich, and go back where they were with the 10,000 kilograms 1012 bombs, etc. The inevitable consequence of that would be what are you going to do about it . We will have lost the International Support because the International Community is ready to enforce this deal. If we are not unilaterally, they walk away. You have huge difficulty with sanctions and you lose your capacity to have the support for the military strike if there had to be one. It is not a choice the president wants to make but it is the inevitable consequence of them moving to assert the furtherance of their program. Senator senator. Senator i want to thank the chairman and all the witnesses for being here i want to take this opportunity. It is probably going to be the last time general dempsey testifies. I want to thank you for your service and the service of your family. When you appeared before the committee i was the person who asked you about there had been floated some views in the press at that time iran was pushing for lifting of the resolution on Ballistic Missiles and the resolution of arms which we now know are in the agreement. When you can before the committee, you said under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran and those issues. Was it your military recommendation that we not agree to lifting of those sanctions . Martin dempsey yes. I used the phrase as long as possible, and that was the point renegotiation continued. That was my military advice. Senator thank you. I want to ask about an issue, i know senator ernst and talked about. The iranian cyber activity. A number of years ago we saw there was an interruption of irans Nuclear Program through some other cyber activity. That was reported in the press i believe. In this agreement, according to paragraph 10. 2 of annex three of the deal, the United States is obligated under this agreement to help strengthen irans ability to protect against sabotage of its Nuclear Program. It might be hard for americans to believe that we would agree to help iran protect against sabotage of its Nuclear Program in light of its prior intentions. General dempsey, i wanted to ask your opinion on that. Do you think it is a good idea for the United States to help protect its Nuclear Program against sabotage . Martin dempsey i had not thought about that. I would like to have the opportunity to do so. I will say, back to the cyber question, next week this committee and the senate will consider some cyber legislation that we have been eager to see passed for some time so we can get ourselves better protected. Senator when we know iran continues malign activity on the cyber front, the idea that we would agree to help them protect its Nuclear Program against sabotage, i i assume that would allow us to inform the israelis, and form iran and form iran if the israelis were taking over activities that would undermine its activities. I wanted to also ask about this idea we have heard a lot about sanctions. Sanctions, as i understand, iran has written the United Nations on july 20 about the sanctions regime. One of the issues that has concerned me about this agreement is that once the sanctions, the long list of mainly congressionally mandated sanctions that will be listed lifted under this agreement are undertaken, if iran, for example, engages in terrorist activity, which it is known to do, separate from the Nuclear Program, iran seems to have taken the position in its letter to the u. N. And i have read the agreement and i have been concerned that the agreement provides the same that in fact iran says it is understood that reintroduction or reimposition including through an extension of the sanctions will constitute significant nonperformance which will relieve its commitments in part or in whole. I am deeply concerned that if we want to reimpose the toughest sanctions on issues related to their terrorist activities and support for terrorism, another tool in the toolbox general aside from military options, iran can walk away from this agreement. If the answer is you disagree with this characterization please tell me where am i wrong . The language says we cant reimpose Nuclear Sanctions. We have never given away our ability to use other sanctions regimes. Senator with all due respect, the Nuclear Sanctions are the toughest sanctions that we would impose in other contexts including on crude oil, oil and gas. Jack lew we reserve the right if there is a Financial Institution that is engaging and financing terrorism to put sanctions back on that institution. That is not a violation of the agreement. It is not a nuclear sanction. Senator iran seems to take a different position. Jack lew we cant take the Nuclear Sanctions, put a different label on them, and put them into place. What we would have to do is make the case as we have on many occasions that institution should be sanctioned on their behavior on terrorism. We will continue to do that vigilantly. All of our sanctions that apply in that area still stand. Senator thank you. Every time we say goodbye to you , you come back and another week on another panel. I know it is not by choice, but we are thrilled to have you here again. Thank you for your service. Mr. Secretary, secretary of energy, if a year from now we have suspicions that something is going on, does the iaea have access to go inside that building and see it or not . Jack lew we certainly have through the initial protocol and this agreement, access anywhere that there is suspicion of nuclear activity. The protocols, i would have to see it is certainly a different forwardlooking different from resolving the possibly military possibility of military dimensions. Senator we need to know whether it is does the iaea have access to go inside those . Mr. Moniz they must have the access granted to resolve the issues that they need to resolve the issues that they need to resolve. We must have integrity in the process. Senator and if they do not they will be in material breach of the agreement. Senator this is different than what has gone in the past. Mr. Kerry it is different for there are different mechanisms to bring it to a close. Under the additional protocols speaking to senator mccains concern of north korea, the lesson of north korea produced the additional protocol. Now there is an initial protocol which has huge new requirements for access. Senator one of the proposals put forward is to say no to this deal, then to tell the other countries who are involved in regards to sanctions that a viable alternative is to say to france, germany, and others, choose us to choose them as you move forward economically, that if you are going to continue to do business with iran you cant do business with us. Do you see that as viable as an forward . Senator senator, we do have powerful tools that make it dangerous for foreign business to violate u. S. Laws. If they do business and violate our sanctions we will enforce. Whether we can do that against the whole world effectively without doing damage to our own economy is something we have to have serious considerations about. It is one thing it is another thing if we are standing on our own. The ability of a technical sanction to work is not the same as it being affected or necessarily adding up to what we would like to accomplish. Senator secretary carter, have you i know you are talking to the gcc countries, it seems to me one of the challenges here is confidence. Confidence that they will be safe, israel will be safe. Making sure your child can be safe and sleep safe that night. That is what mr. Netanyahu is trying to ensure and we are trying to ensure. As you look at it, is there any putting together a plan that says to iran, not one more inch . As we move forward you will see from year to year that in yemen, not one more inch . That against hezbollah, there will be massive retaliations if there is actions, that we will stand with the sunni tribal leaders to make sure they have success and will be a viable and strong against whatever efforts iran has in iraq. To lay out the plan, let people know, let iran know in advance would help create a better sense of confidence that there is a reason, that there is a reason to stand with us. Mr. Carter i think that is extremely important. That is what gcc companies are looking for in mine conversations with them, namely the continued commitment of the United States to help them protect themselves so they can sleep well at night, maintain our regional role, counter irans malign influence, and activities. At the same time they recognize perfectly well what has been set up here, which is and iran with Nuclear Weapons would be an enormous problem. Our agreement heads that operate they want to make sure we are there. That is with the gcc countries were told at camp david by the president. My trip was impart to solidify all of the things. Senator i just want to finish by saying i think it is important to publicly state, not one inch more policy. Additionally, i am not at all comfortable with our people who are still in iran, they have to come home. I wish they had come home as part of this agreement. I know you do too. This cannot rest because we do not leave anybody behind, and we do not intend to leave them behind, either. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator thank you mr. Chairman. Secretary moniz, i would like to followup on what mr. Blumenthal was asking you about with regards to the breakout time. What are the main factors you consider when you calculate that breakout time . Mr. Moniz the key factors are the enrichment capacity and the stockpile of enriched uranium. There are many other factors as well which come in such as the rate at which additional capacity could be built in during a breakout time. All of this comes into our National Laboratory evaluation. Senator that would include the number of centrifuges as well . Mr. Moniz correct. Senator after 15 years what limits do you think will be in place on those things that you just mentioned . Mr. Moniz after 15 years they will probably expand their capacity after those restraints. That is why such a key element is the verification measures that we put in place for all time. Senator we are talking about tracking the Nuclear Material to make sure it is not divergent diver did from a civilian program. Mr. Moniz for 25 years. Senator we are basically just checking in irans math correct . Mr. Moniz checking the math. We are checking our math, if you like. Senator we are checking our math. Mr. Moniz for 20 years we follow the manufacturing. It is the supply chain that we follow. Making our intelligence people will tell you to reproduce the entire supply chain in multiple places would be very difficult to conceal. Senator we are just looking at of course the declared the sillies, is that correct . Mr. Moniz no, we have of course strong measures in the facilities, which by definition rests on the actions of our allies and friends intelligence capacity. Senator do you have confidence in that capacity we will locate any undeclared facilities and pressure iran to allow us to make sure that we have verification in those as well . Mr. Moniz i would go back to the statements of general clapton and cardella and . Cohen. This will give us greater insight into what they are doing. That leaves us and other intelligence agencies we work with two point iaea in the right direction. We have a tool of a finite time to get access to that place or they are in material breach. Senator are you concerned on the discrepancies between statements made by our administration and compare those to what is being statement being made by the advisor to the Supreme Leader when it comes to access to allowing the iaea to look at the military centers in iran, where i believe i have heard our administration say that we do have access to those, they are declared facilities. Yet the advisor to the Supreme Leaders is the access of inspectors from the iaea or any other body to irans military centers is for bidden. Who is correct . Mr. Moniz we are correct. I might point out there were many statements made before vienna senator this was made july 21. Mr. Moniz they were many statements. You can check them against the agreement. They dont square out. Senator how do you reconcile that . Mr. Moniz those statements were very clear. First of all, the aim is not to go to military sites. It is not us, it is iaea. The goal is to go where there is suspicious or suspicion of nuclear relevant activities. If they are in a military site it doesnt matter. They are still the iaea access to those sites. Senator i only have a few seconds left. I would hope that you would reconcile those statements for the public. Mr. Moniz we cannot control their statements. Senator you have stated the 24 day waiting. For International Inspectors will not allow the regime to conceal any illegal activity. As i read the agreement many people have pointed out the inspectors request to his of those sites could be delayed more than 24 days. I know that you are not concerned about the 24 day period. You believe that iaea would be able to handle that. But if you look at different parts in q of annex 1 of the agreement, we have the the potential of an 89 day delay. Do you think that would be possible . How confident are you mr. Moniz we certainly cannot allow for that. I might say i did not say any , illegal activity. I spoke specifically as activity with Nuclear Material. As my real focus. Number two, the iaea has any sign of our cooperation noncooperation they have to launch the process with the ir request for access. Then comes the 24 days. In the unclassified literature, there is an example of a sixmonth delay an attempt to conceal which did not work. They were caught redhanded. Senator you said you would not allow the 89 days. How many days after 24 days would you allow . Mr. Moniz it is that the process to launch the formal request for access from iaea has to be prompt. That launches the 24 day clock and that is the end. Senator you would not allow anything past that . Mr. Moniz i would not. Senator thank you. Senator thank you for joining us. Thank you for your intense work on this. We care about the National Security of the United States and our allies. Secretary moniz, you and i had a long conversation. What i would like you to discuss with the committee is the Nuclear Capabilities that it ran iran has today are considerable and most experts have given it a 23month time period to have one bomb. If left unchecked how quickly , can they ramp up to greater production, to more highly enriched uranium, excluding this deal arrangement . After you describe that, i would like you to describe what they ramp up time would look like post 81015 years. What i understand from reading the agreement is you spent a lot of time identifying what can be changed and modified in the three existing facilities so they dont run a military risk. I would like that more philip more fully described. And the last point, my constituents are concerned about clandestine operations. To the extent you can talk about that in this sitting them i would like you to discuss a clandestine line facility during the agreement. Mr. Moniz quite a few questions. In terms of their current capacity, they have demonstrated the capacity to enrich uranium. That is clear. But i want to emphasize that they have also demonstrated, they have enriched to 20 enrichment. 20 is the cut off that the iaea uses for uranium. The point here is, the amount of work needed to get to 20 is nearly all the work you need to get to 90 , which would be weapons grade. So they have the capability. As i have already mentioned they already have full cascades running of the next generation five times more powerful. This agreement will have those dismantled at the time of implementation. What is critical is we are rolling them back in every dimension of their program for at least a considerable period. Now in terms of the breakout time, the president was very clear, and our p5 plus one partners were clear. A quantitative criterion was or there had to be at least a oneyear break out time in terms of fissile material for at least 10 years. We have accomplished that with this agreement. Our Lab Scientists are fully behind this, as are those of other countries. After 15 years, depending on what to do, we may revert to the common kinds of breakout times of fissile material. Senator gillibrand so they cannot make those steps for weaponization. Secretary moniz right. We will be better off at that time then today because we will still have advanced verification procedures that can point intelligence agencies to any violations. Senator gillibrand is there anyway you can reverse those modifications and make it a heavy water plutonium facility again . Secretary moniz the redesign would provide us in this language a breakout time of years. Because once it is online, they would need years of operation to get enough plutonium to be relevant. And the iaea would detect their change of the operation within one or two months here in months. Senator gillibrand if they wanted to ramp up again, would that take a significant amount of time . Secretary moniz most of the centrifuges and infrastructure will not only be stripped out completely, but they will not even stored there. Secondly, we will have a major international, not only iaea daily presence but new science , opportunities. If they kick everybody out alarm bells go off. Secretary gillibrand monetary options are better or worse after the agreement . Secretary carter if the agreement is implemented, they become marginally better if the facilities are we learn more about them. Many of them are dismantled. So in that sense, that purely technical military sense, it becomes easier. Senator cotton i want to discuss the dose k the two siding deals. I traveled to vienna to discover there are side deals. There are still some lack of clarity about the content. Secretary kerry, have you read either of these two side deals between the iaea and iran . Secretary kerry no, i havent. Senator cotton have you read any previous drafts . Secretary i have been briefed through our team that met with the iaea. Senator cotton did anyone on your team read the text of these agreements . Secretary kerry i believe one person may have read it at the facility, but doesnt have it, do not possess it. Secretary cotton what is that persons name . Secretary kerry its possible i dont know for sure, but its possible Wendy Sherman, but i dont know for sure. Senator cotton secretary moniz, have you read the context of these agreements . Secretary moniz no. Senator cotton has anyone else reviewed the text of these agreements . Secretary kerry not that i am aware of him i dont think so. Maybe somebody saw something on the technical team. Senator cotton if secretary sherman has read these agreements, does that not undercut the claim of confidentiality . Secretary kerry i dont know she read a summary or a draft. She will be briefing in classified. Senator cotton i have received several classified briefings on the deal. I look forward to another one. What congress would like is the text of these agreements as required by u. S. Law. The Associated Press mentioned yesterday that the content of side deal that discusses where detonators for Nuclear Tests may have been rolled out much like an nfl player taking his own urine sample and sending it, can you confirm the content of those side deals . Senator kerry what i can confirm is that secretary moniz, in his discussions with the team, made recommendations to them. I believe is satisfied that whatever the process is, that the process will be able to provide the answers we need. Senator cotton why can we not confirm or deny the content of these agreements in public . Why is this classified . The ayatollahs know what they agreed to. Senator kerry because we respect the process of the iaea and we dont have their authorization to reveal an agreement between them in another country. Senator cotton so the ayatollahs will know what they agreed to and not the American People . Senator kerry not exactly. We will share with you in the classified brief. The iaea is an independent body. I dont know at this point what the law says about the United States requiring something which another entitys laws prohibit. Senator cotton u. S. Law requires not only agreements with the United States i think there have been passed precedent. I would like to move on to the second topic. Specifically irans support for terrorism. Can i have chart 1, please . General dempsey, this chart describes a powerful roadside bomb. Are you familiar with what it shows . I am, senator. Can you explain what the bottom diagram shows . General dempsey a copper cone is melted at superhigh temperatures and projected and essentially burns its way through armor plate. Senator cotton the copper disc troubles at about 6000 feet per second. Can i have chart two so we can see what happens to a humvee when a ball of fire travels at 6000 feet per second. Do you know how Many American troops were killed by such penetrators . General dempsey several hundred. Senator cowan was iran a main supplier of these . General dempsey yes. What should we say about the families over 500 american troops killed by an iranian ball of fire traveling at 6000 per second . Senator kerry we should tell them how extraordinary grateful we are for the service of their loved ones. We would also tell them that we lay out what we intend to do, to push back against irans behavior, that we have a number of laws in place requirements by which we will be able to prevent iran from transferring these weapons. And we have already engaged in very forward leaning initiatives to do that. We specifically turned around a convoy recently, in the last months, that was bringing weapons to yemen. We have been Crystal Clear and i will be even more clear when i meet with the gulf states about our united efforts to hold them accountable for these kinds of activities. Senator ono thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like to ask this question of all the witnesses, but id like to start with secretary carter and chairman dempsey. In your assessment, and without getting into specifics that cannot be discussed in this open setting, is there any military strategy or response that would achieve the same goals as the agreement without embroiling the United States and our allies and a devastating longterm war in the region . I would like a yes or no answer considering the setting. Starting with secretary carter. Secretary carter im sorry to it would be difficult on that, but i just need to understand the question a bit more. You mean if there is no deal, if iran gets a Nuclear Weapon, then we have a serious issue we would have to defend ourselves our friends , and allies in the face of that reality. Is that responsive to your question . Senator kane the reality is that without this agreement iran can produce a nuclear bomb into in two to three months. Without this agreement, is there a military response . That would achieve the same goals of this agreement . Yes more yes, morneau . Secretary carter im going to have to say that there is a military response maybe this is responsive to your question. Theres a military option which i know youve been briefed on that has the effect of setting back the Iranian Nuclear program. It doesnt stop it forever, that but it substantially sent it back. We have talked about to that publicly for quite a while. Senator kane the other part of my quiestion is we can have a military response that can set them back but would that involve us in a longterm war in that region . Would that be a highly likely outcome . Secretary carter iran would surely respond to such an attack. In a hypothetical situation in which that occurred, which this deal is intended to make unnecessary, iran could respond for sure. General dempsey one of my jobs is never let the nation run out of options. Wed not run out of options but theyd become increasingly costly, to be sure. Senator kaine and the longterm. Secretary kerry, would you like to answer . Secretary kerry i think general dempsey answered the question earlier when he said the deal is far more durable and provides a more durable option longer term. Look, i think it is pretty clear that if iran would start enriching and go back to its program, we have no inspectors. We have no sanctions that are universal. The United States can have them but we have already seen sanctions dont get them to give up the program. So you are stuck with the situation of what will change the dynamic of the program. Then you are in what secretary carter and general dempsey said they will respond. And then we will respond, and then is it is back and forth. The question is, where does that and and how does it end, and does it accomplish the goal of getting rid of their program . We dont believe so. We believe this agreement accomplishes the goal and provides us with the support of a continuing basis from the International Community. Senator kane let me go on to another question. This is for secretary carter and chairman dempsey. Are you contemplateing any changes in our force posture if this agreement goes into effect and stays in effect . Secretary carter yes. If i can say more, senator, in all seriousness, yes, we are doing a great deal in the gulf. Thats what i was there talking to our Gulf Partners about. That is what we talked about the gcc summit a few months ago. They were doing a great deal with israel. I mentioned missiledefense. Qualitative military edge. This is a dynamic region, with or without a deal. And one that has iran and other problems to boot. So we have to and or doing a lot to strengthen our posture and alliances and partnerships in the region and we will continue to do so. Secretary kane general dempsey, would you like to weigh in . General dempsey with israel were working on Ballistic Missile defense counterterrorism and counter tunnelling is a new and emerging challenge for the state of israel. Chairman id like to tell the committee that the witnesses have to leave at 12 45, so the order will be senator brown, senator king, senator till, i senator sullivan, and senator graham. And no one else, i am sorry. So senator rounds. Senator thank you for your service. Today youve gone through 15 different interrogators. I get to be number 16. One of the things that happens is a lot. A lot of the questions we have got you have been asked. If we assume that we have a rogue nation who is a threshold state today with regards to Nuclear Weapons, the goal of this was to eliminate them from having Nuclear Weapons or, in the second position, to delay the implementation or their capabilities with regard to Nuclear Weapons. I would like to know from the panel, very simple, are we stopping them from getting Nuclear Weapons or are we delaying them for a peer peer a period of 10 to 15 years from years . General dempsey my opinion, sir, our governments policy has been they will not get a Nuclear Weapon and nothing were tacking about today should change that policy. Senator rounds mr. Moniz . I agree with general dempsey. In terms of our capabilities to make sure theyre not pursuing a Nuclear Weapon, this agreement will leave us better. Secretary carter ive worn many hats this administration and each one ive said iran will not be permitted to get a Nuclear Weapon. I believe that deeply. Secretary kerry if they were to try to not implement this agreement or its not full, the other options are Still Available to us. They will make it a weapon. Secretary carter one note to say in addition, i think its significant that the agreement codifies with the p5 1 that iran will never get a Nuclear Weapon. Senator rounds it appears in each time ive heard the discussion it comes back to over a period of ten years we have something in terms of the agreement that restricts them. Somewhere between 10 and 15 years, we change, and in that time, they can begin because there is nothing in the agreement which stops them from moving back into and adding to their Nuclear Capabilities. If they are a threshold state today and we have delayed them that is one thing. But at but if they can pursue nuclear options, that is what we are trying to decide. Along that line, and general dempsey, i appreciate your thoughts earlier when you said you were pragmatic with regards to your comments. It seems to me that we had an embargo in place that many of us were relying on when it came to an arms embargo and also with regard to icbm. You indicated on july 7 of this year, your quote was under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran. Secretary carter said the reason that we want to stop iran from having an icbm program is that the i stands for intercontinental, which means having the capability of flying from iran to the United States and we dont want that. Secretary kerry indicated that there were other ways in which we could handle the situation. If we had an embargo in place and we had concerns about this what is the purpose for the embargo if we had other means in the first place . General, clearly, it seems to me that you were pretty clear that this was not the kind of advice you are suggesting they allowed to come out. General dempsey as i said senator, i would have been happy to see the embargoes maintained in perpetuity. I think the question would have to be asked, were they likely to be sustained in perpetuity given they were imposed to bring iran to the table . When they came to the table, it became truly a negotiation. And sanctions is only one way to do this. We have other instruments and military options to pursue. Secretary kerry senator, if i can add to that, we obviously all of us would prefer to have it there forever and ever. Were dealing with a u. N. Resolution, the nuclear resolution of 1929 which said, if the iranians come to negotiate, then all the sections would be lifted. That is what was contemplated by the empowering resolution here. Now the arms embargo was slid in at the vary lastminute by then u. N. Representative susan rice. She got it in and it sort of slid into the Nuclear Provision itself. Under the Nuclear Provision, at the end of a period of time, when the iaea draws its broad conclusion, this would have been lifted completely anyway and we have no power to stop that. In effect, getting the eight years is a victory. Or getting the five years is a victory. But we have these other tools that completely strengthen our ability to do it in perpetuity. Senator rounds secretary carter, would you say that the today iran does not have the capability of getting icbm and ten years from now, based upon the provisions in place, without the embargo, they still would not be able to have an icbm . Secretary carter they do not have an icbm today. I wouldnt rule out that in ten years they could progress to an icbm. We have seen north korea develop and test missiles of increasing range, and they can do that on their own as the North Koreans have done with not a lot of external help. It doesnt mean they would. I dont have a crystal ball of the future. But judging principally from the experience with north korea, we cannot rule that out. Which is why we need to protect ourselves. Whatever happens with the Nuclear Agreement protect , ourselves with Missile Defenses, with the other statutory and other International Agreements protections that we have deterrence and Everything Else. Senator, your time has expired. Senator king. Id ask the senators to respect the time limit. Senator you heard the chairman. Were going to try to go through some of these questions as quickly as possible. Secretary lew, what would the allies reaction be in terms of sanctions if the u. S. Rejected this agreement . Secretary i think they have made it clear that they think the agreement should be put into force. I dont want to speak for any of them. But they are already taking actions to show that they are beginning to deal with iran in a different way. The vice chancellor of germany was already over there. There is a french delegation over there. I think they are going to take a very dim view of our rejecting this agreement. On the other hand, i do believe they respect our unilateral sanctions, they fear them. That will put them in a vary difficult bind. But i dont think we will have as much capacity to bring the World Community together in that situation as we have had up until now. Senator i suspect the reaction would be different among china and russia . Secretary lew and if you look at the developing countries like india not in the p5 1. , they are a big economy dependent on oil imports. We have had diplomatic programs to keep them in line. They will see that harder if they see the world going another way. They are going to look and ask how much capacity do we have to take Enforcement Actions . And they find ways around them . Ultimately, they will do business more and more and other countries. Senator would it be fair to say the sanctions regime would fray if not unravel . Secretary lew i think thats fair. Senator herch secretary carter, you just visited the middle east. Is the danger of proliferation greater or lesser as a result of this agreement . Are some of our allies in that region who may think about their own weapon, are they less likely to acquire a weapon because of this agreement or more likely . Secretary carter logic would suggest if its implemented, meaning a ron iran doesnt have a Nuclear Weapon, its less likely other states in the region get a Nuclear Weapon. Senator herch mr. Moniz, well have a lot of time to talk about this. There has been all this discussion about the secret agreement. Its true this agreement between we know what the future inspection regime will be. It applies to the past of iran but does not apply to future inspections . Secretary moniz thats correct. With what the jcpoa accomplished is forcing a ron iran to cooperate with iaea to finish the examination of past behavior. Senator herch this socalled secret agreement is for a small part of this deal but its not the essence of it which is the inspection and verification. In 28 seconds, this famous 24 days, is there any way that they could clean up a facility where they had been processing fissile material sufficiently that it could not be discovered if the inspection took place after 24 days . Secretary moniz i can never say 0. 00 , but with very, very high confidence, i think we would find Nuclear Material utilization evidence. Certainly the risk of getting caught would be extremely high. Senator tillis . Senator tillis thank you, mr. Chair. I want to get back to, and chairman dempsey, ill start with you. I want to go back to what you said in one of your responses to the malign activities that i believe secretary carter in response to a question says he has no reason to believe that they will change. Thats the Iran Terror Network a to cyber terror, their Ballistic Missile program. Its their weapons trafficking. We could get into human rights violations. We could get into an ayatollah sending a tweet out that has the image of some say it is the president and some say it is an american. These people are evil people and they will continue to expand in areas they think they can. They are people who violated 27 International Agreements or treaties. They have violated some of the terms of the nonproliferation treaty. Some of that language is similar to the agreement we have here today. So they are dangerous. I understand why you would be concerned with the Nuclear Threat because it would limit other military options if they existed. So my question is, if this deal goes through, what does our posture look like in the middle east and with our partners over the next two years . What looks measurably different to make us feel like we are in a position to make it untenable for the iranian leadership to move forward with a new Nuclear Weapon . Secretary carter when we talk about iran, its really the regime. Its not the iranian people. Its the irgc, qods force and their leadership. The iranian people, this would lead them to hope that theres some hope that it would place them into the International Community. Our posture changes. We are very muscular, we have a muscular posture in the region right now. For the most part, it will stay the same, but it will shift the activities a little bit. Senator tillis secretary carter, chairman dempsey, im trying to get my hands around the thought process that would make the saudis less likely to acquire a Nuclear Weapon, most likely from pakistan, a warhead. Why would any of the leadership in saudi arabia you only need one to spark other Nuclear Proliferation if we are talking about a nation that has violated a number of treaties and agreements, the possibility that that could occur and nation and a nation having to prepare to have their own deterrent, wheres the logic in this agreement preventing them from moving forward and having a having that ability themselves . Secretary carter the agreement doesnt limit what anybody else does. The logic is if iran is effectively prevented from having a Nuclear Weapon which is the purpose of this, then that cause at least for a saudi arabia or in egypt or turkey to get their own Nuclear Weapon is removed and logic would suggest that i cannot speak for the psychology but that is what logic would suggest. With respect to iranian behavior, this comes down to a question of managing that risk. Because we see exactly what they say at least what the leadership is thinking. The point is that it is better if they dont have a Nuclear Weapon than if they do. This is an effective way to make sure they dont have a Nuclear Weapon. It does not eliminate all risk. Senator secretary carter, some have suggested military strikes against iran could be both quick and effective without acknowledging the costs and consequences and risks that that might entail. Can you talk a little bit about what the primary risk to the u. S. And our allies would be if we had to take their course of action . What would set the ron irans Nuclear Program back further . Secretary carter speaking now just very generally and not specifically, the two things that make it the successful implementation and agreement preferable from that point of view to a strike is the effects of a strike are temporary. And secondly, iran would, as i said earlier, respond to an American Military strike upon iran and one needs to a through what the subsequent steps are including the possibility that iran, at that point, would become irreconcilably committed to getting a Nuclear Weapon. I say that is predicated on the effective implementation of this agreement. Effectively implemented, the agreement stops iran for 15 years. But by the provision we were talking about, way beyond that. So we are comparing that situation, which is effective implementation, complete implementation of this agreement to the military option. We also have to recognize there may not be effective implementation of this agreement. We have to recognize that there may not be any agreement and so forth. That is why we are under instructions from the president to preserve and indeed we are improving the military option. Because temporary as it is, it needs to be there because that is our fallback if that is the only path left. Under this accord, do you think that option gets stronger over the course of the information desk and limitation of this deal . We have a more complete understanding of where everything is that we might strike and have more detail about the nature of those things. Secretary moniz, i want to get to you. Can you talk a little from the point of view of a Nuclear Physicist about why is why it is so difficult, if you have a covert facility where enrichment occurs, why it is so hard to sort of cleanup the signs of having uranium or, for that matter, plutonium at a facility like that. And would you answer the question with an undeclared facility itself be a violation of the jcp away . Secretary moniz on the second part, absolutely. An undeclared facility would be a violation and, frankly, a stern response would be in order. With regard to the coverup, there is not too much we can say here in public and by just to say that dealing with Nuclear Materials, whether it is enrichment or looking at the characteristics of uranium in an explosive situation, for example, would tend to leave lots of very small particles difficult to clean up. But beyond that, we could talk in a classified environment. Senator heinrich thank you, mr. Chairman. One of the frustrations you are seeing with congresss we are reading it, we are digging into it, and when we question it we seem to get these answers that do not comport with the language. I want to go to the snapback provision. Is there a term of the snapback provision in the agreement . The word snapback is not in the agreement, but let me make my point, mr. Secretary. I have a lot of questions. I think it would be helpful if you didnt use that term much. I think it is in some ways deceitful because it is an illusion and i think that in many ways, the provision in the agreement the snapback is actually more focused on the United States than it is iran. And as you know, mr. Secretary those of us who were involved, i was in the Bush Administration and getting countries to economically isolate iran, we used a lot of leverage. Saying, hey, you are either going to be in their market or ours. And that was effective. But if there is some kind of snapback, that was that took years to get countries to digress out of the iranian economy. But let me ask a hypothetical. It was a question i asked during the closed hearing. A number of senators were not satisfied and it focuses a little bit on what another senator said. Lets assume sanctions are lifted. We get the the iranians are looking for a 120 billion in additional investments, no violations of the agreement, the economy is going along. There is an act of terrorism. Either way, the sanctions that are lifted annex, which is essentially all of our bullets. This is a lot of American Power including the unilateral sanctions that you mentioned on the financial system. So on an act of terrorism happens, they blow up a consulate. I think its likely that they are going to do that in the next 10 years. The congress is upset. The new president is upset. We impose sanctions. We reimpose annex 2 sanctions. This is our power. You talked about how this is power. We do have a lot of unilateral power with regard to sanctions. Then iran cites paragraph 26 of the agreement. And im going to read it. It says iran will treat such a reimposition of sanctions as grounds to cease performing its commitments. The deal is over. They are cranking. Their economy is cranking. And they can walk. They can legally walk from this agreement. So let me ask you this. If we ever impose socalled snap back sanctions, isnt the deal over . Where am i wrong on that question . Senator kerry senator, we would snap sanctions back once they violated the agreement. Secretary lew you asked two questions. The first set of questions you asked was about the snapback. Does it work . Yes, it works. If they violate the agreement our the u. N. Sanctions were structured so they could be put back in place. Senator and they can walk. secretary lew thats if they violate the Nuclear Agreement. Snare yo one is they violate the Nuclear Agreement. Scenario two is they blow up some facility, take an act of terrorism, we have the right to put these kinds of measures in place. They are not Nuclear Sanctions at that point. They are terrorism sanctions at that point. Senator iran has stated it will treat such reimposition of the sanctions in annex two as grounds to cease forming those commitments. How am i not reading that correctly . Secretary lew annex two illustrates, lists the nuclear chairman the senators time has expired. Senator carter im happy to pursue this in greater detail. We have not given away our ability to put these measures in s in place for nonnuclear purposes. Senator i think the iranians have a different view. Senator lee thank you, mr. Chairman. I have a number of questions regarding the military applications. Secretary kerry, why isnt this a treaty . And why is it not have advice and consent . Senator kerry there are many reasons why, not the least of which is we dont have diplomatic relations with iran. This is a situation with a multilateral agreement with many countries. You dont normally negotiate a treaty in that kind of context. So it is a political agreement. We believe the leverages and it the snapback of sanctions, the oversight, it is vary our full for irans compliance. Senator lee i would note theres nothing in article two section two that limits the definition of treaty. Nothing in your definition of the term treaty. It defines treaty as a formal agreement between states. I dont think that is an adequate answer. That we will move on. General dempsey, presumably one of the Weapons Systems that iran is likely to acquire and that russia has implicated has indicated can you describe what impact it would have on u. S. Military operations . General dempsey no question it would make application of the military option to reduce their Nuclear Capability more difficult but not impossible but more difficult. Senator lee thank you. Wendy sherman, the chief negotiator for the United States during these talks stated in february of last year of 2014 to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that iranian Ballistic Missiles or indeed are going to be part of something that will have to be addressed as part of a copperheads of agreement. At the time was secretary sherman referring to lifting the u. N. Embargo on Ballistic Technology when she made this statement to the Foreign Relations committee . Or did the United States intend to include restrictions on Ballistic Missiles in this agreement . Secretary kerry it does include its under Chapter Seven and enforceable under the United Nations. Article 41. And there are restrictions within this agreement and i would also comment on the earlier question that the defensive weapons are not covered by the embargo. So the is 300, for example, from russia, is not covered anyway. Senator lee this is a roguish state. It has made not only threats but taken aggressive actions towards the United States, made threats to wipe israel off the map. There are real reasons why we dont want them to get nuclear arms. In light of the fact that that is the biggest concern, we are willing to enter negotiations to lift sanctions and give iran a big economic benefit, why on earth did we not insist as a condition to getting any deal at all that iran, for the love of god, cease and desist from its terrorist ambition, cease and desist from making comments like it was to wipe israel off the map, cease and desist from undertaking and funding acts of terrorism against the United States and her allies . Secretary kerry as was mentioned earlier, it would be great and ideal if one could negotiate that. Im not sure how long it would take. And given the imperatives we had with the iranian 19,000 centrifuges and fissile material it will to 10 to 12 bombs already, there asking of the fuel cycle and their near imminent finishing of the iraq reactor which would have produced weapons grade plutonium at the rate of two weapons a year, we felt we had this had to keep this targeted to the greatest threat of all, which is the potential of having a Nuclear Weapon. And if indeed they are meaning to translate their slogans into policy then getting rid of the Nuclear Weapon is everybodys first imperative here. So that is what we focused on. We knew you could get tangled up our definition one mans freedom fire Freedom Fighter is another mans terrorist. You can be fighting forever on definitions of who is protecting home and you wont it anywhere. You literally will not get there. That is why we separated those activities. That does not reduce our commitment as we have defined again and again to push back on every one of those activities. But its easier to push back against an that doesnt have a Nuclear Weapon than one that does. I just have one, yes, one question. Ive read and i just want to go over this and any reaction you may have, Fareed Zakari wrote, iran get their how is this in Americas National interest or israels are saudi arabias or anybodys in that area . It is not a plausible scenario. In 2005, three european powers rejected the nuclear deal with iran with two years of negotiation. So i would ask, if this does collapse, does this put them on an accelerated with their intentions being shown already does this put them on an accelerated path . Center secretary kerry well we believe so. The president believes it, you are our intel believes it. Our Intel Community has made it very clear to us that theres no return to negotiations with this ayatollah. And that they will then believe we have given them the reason that they have to develop a Nuclear Weapon. Senator manchin secretary, between november 2012 and 2013 even when we had the noose around their neck, they still produced 6,000 more centrifuges. Their determination is to do it no matter how much we have been strangled. Secretary moniz that is quite correct. Absolutely. They declared they would go to hundreds of thousands of versus the current 20,000. Senator manchin and you believe in the heart of hearts and your one question has now expired. Senator graham general dempsey do you believe the iranians have been trying to build a bomb or a Nuclear Power program for peaceful purposes all these years . General density i believe they have a militarization aspiration. Senator graham who is the commander in chief of the Iranian Armed forces, secretary carter . Who calls the shots . Secretary carter the Supreme Leader. Senator graham who decides if iran goes to war russian mark the Supreme Leader, right . Who decides if they try to break out, the Supreme Leader . General dempsey yes. Senator graham does the people leaders religious views compel him over time to destroy israel and attack america . Secretary carter i dont know. I dont know the man. Senator graham i can tell you, i do. I read what he says. I know the man. I know what he wants. And if you dont know that, this is not a good deal. Could we win a war with iran . Is it your testimony that saudi arabia is oh k with this deal and they are committed to you they dont feel compelled to get a bomb because of this deal. Secretary carter no, my testimonicy cant speak for saudi arabia. Senator graham well, you have spoken for saudi arabia all over the American Media reassuring everybody in this committee theyre okay. You think they were lying to you . Or do you think zooish of course not. Of course not. Whos your counterpart, mr. Monisz . What is his name . Secretary moneysmoniz mr. Sullahe. Senator graham have you read what he said on july 22nd, according to middle east Media Research institute . About the side deal. On said we have. We reject the concept. What kind of arrangement has he made to make him feel so positive . Secretary moniz first of all, i had not red it. Secretary graham im going to give it to you. You dont have to answer. Would it be surprising to you hes telling the iranian people dont worry about this side deal, were going to get a good outcome. I assume hes saying we reached an arrangement were okay with. Thats what im assuming. Secretary moniz i would read it differently just from hearing secretary graham we dont know what he means. Apparently we dont know what the ayatollah wants. I know what he means. He means hes reached an agreement where they acquire a Nuclear Weapon on the somebody stops them. Secretary no, not everybody believes it. Senator graham name one Political Party in israel. People who are actually governing the country. Name one Political Party in israel that is for this deal. Secretary kerry i didnt hear you say Political Party. Senator graham im sorry. every Political Party in israel is opposed to this deal so when you speak about israel and this deal, its not beebe, its everybody. Secretary its exley not everybody. The alan, former head of shinbet not a Political Party. Senator graham senator cruz thank you for being here. General sul man any, the heads of the al quds forces has more blood on his hands than any living terrorist. Secretary kerry said to the families of those men and women who gave their lives who were killed by general solomonic, we should apologize. Secretary carter, i understand that the joint Personnel Recovery agency has the classified list of roughly 500 american soldiers who were murdered by iranian iuds. I would ask secretary carter, so that we can deal with secretary what secretary kerry suggested, that the Department Released that list to every member in this committee declassify that list and release it directly to the Service Members families. Senator kerry senator, i never said the word apology. I never mentioned apologize. I said we should thank them for their Extraordinary Service. I never said the word apologize. Please do not the store my words. Senator cruz secretary kerry, its duly noted you dont apologize to the family members of the Service Members who were killed by secretary kerry thats not what i said. Senator cruz do you apologize or not . I dont want to put words in your mouth. Secretary kerry i thanked them for their Extraordinary Service and i would remind them that the United States of america will never take the sanctions off qasam so the money. Senator cruz moniz, the single greatest threat to the United States, if iran acquires a Nuclear Weapon is that of an electromagnetic pulse. A Nuclear Weapon detonated in the atmosphere over these turn seaboard that could kill tens of millions of americans. On july 23, in testimony before congress, you told the United States senate you hadnt read the congressionally mandated commission on emts and you did not know what an emt was. Secretary moniz i said i did not know the 2008 report recommendations. I said i was quite familiar with the issue and we know about emps from nuclear air burst secretary cruise secretary, let me read the testimony verbatim so i dont mischaracterize. Senator johnson, let me read what you said. Senator johnson, are you familiar with the emps commission 2008 report . No, i am not, sir. Youre not . Do you know do you know what an emp is . You will have to explain it to me please. Secretary moniz thats a report. If you read further in the testimony, you will see my explicit statement. Of course i know about the issue. I happen to know something Nuclear Weapons, emp is senator cruz do you agree that an emp detonated killed tens secretary moniz its obviously a very potent weapon. Senator cruz could kill tens of millions of americans, would you agree on that . Secretary moniz that would depend on the specifics senator cruz youre refusing to answer the question. Secretary carter, is it correct iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world . Secretary carter i was asked before and i believe thats true, yes. Senator cruz do you have any doubt whatsoever if in excess of 100 billion goes to iran that some of that money will go to jihadists will who will use it to kill americans. Secretary carter i cant say that. I can say their maligned activities about which were extremely concerned are quite well funded today and its senator cruz i just have a second left. Secretary carter the rest of their conduct makes it important they also do not have a Nuclear Weapon. Senator cruz finally, because a i only have a second left. Secretary kerry, you told senator lee this is not a treaty because we dont have diplomatic relations. That is directly contrary to the testimony you gave yesterday to the house. When you were asked when you were asked, why is this not