Transcripts For CSPAN U.S. Special Rep. For Iran At Senate Foreign Relations Committee - Part 1 20240713

Enthusiastic audience, im sure. We ask you to be respectful, remind everyone that holding up signs or making verbal outbursts is disruptive and appropriate action will be taken if need be. This morning, we have a hearing on a matter that is really of pressing National Security importance. That is the relationship of the United States and for that matter the world with iran. This hearing is intended to do three things. Number one, we will consider the facts behind the maximum Pressure Campaign against iran. We will examine the elements of irans necessary Behavioral Changes that would satisfy u. S. And the worlds National Security interests. And thirdly, assess irans willingness to behave as a responsible member of the International Community. Their pursuit of regional domination following 1979 revolution transformed the fabric of the middle east. Dangerouslyregime weaponized religion against its neighbors. The regime triggered a sunnishieh war, threatens to unravel the greater middle east. The Nuclear Issue is but one aspect of the regimes malign conduct. Iran actively enables assads continued butchering of syria. They are working to subvert several regional governments below the level of Armed Conflict. The supportive proxies is perhaps the most nefarious. Ask our men and women in uniform who faced iranian provided roadside bombs in iraq. It already has american blood on its hands. For lack of a more Firm Response by Prior Administrations has only encouraged further iranian violence. The regimes abuses continue to be a concern inside its own border. Citizens live under arbitrary arrest and torture. Indeed, despite the regimes claims of religious legitimacy it is morally bankrupt. The ecliptic press he that steals from people to subvert its neighbors. That brings us to our question of the most appropriate policies to curb the totality of iranian behavior. It is my assessment that the maximum Pressure Campaign against iran is working and can serve as the bridge to more meaningful negotiations. I note that some of my colleagues have argued that the maximum Pressure Campaign is not working. I would be the first to concede that the campaign has not achieved its goals, but on the other hand, it is clearly working. Since may of last year, billions have denied of dollars in oil revenue. It will cost the regime is much as dollars annually every it the iranian economy faces unprecedented strains after rounds of highly targeted sanctions. Shrinking at ais rate that should alarm tehran. Nearly a 6 reduction in gdp for 2019 is estimated. , these are clear indications and clear evidence that indeed, the sanctions are working. For the first time, irans terror proxies have seen a reduction in funding. Has bola has been reduced has has beenezbollah reduced to panhandling. Mistake, every dollar that we deny the regimes money not spent on terrorism. For totaluests sanctions relief in order to come to the table should be and is a nonstarter. It regime must demonstrate is willing to negotiate in good faith or face continued pressure. The pressure must have an international face. For too long, our european friends have sought to preserve a moribund nuclear deal that offered iran a financial escape hatch to continue destabilizing the region. We have had numerous conversations with our european friends regarding that. I welcome the joint statement from the u. K. , france, and germany following irans attack in saudi arabia. Apart from rightly identifying iran as the corporate, our partners stress the importance of addressing the Regional Security issues, as well as the nuclear question. This is well received by us, but they must go further than that. Musturopean partners follow the United Kingdoms lead and support the pursuit of Behavioral Changes in irans part. My thoughts on the jcpoa are wellknown. A deal that only partly addressed to the Nuclear Issue and very importantly ignore the rest of irans terrorist conduct and enriched the regimess terrorist proxy. Any new deal should address iranian conflict curbing the Ballistic Missiles program, ensuring freedom of navigation consistent with international law, ending iranian adventurism, and the regimes efforts to promote civil war through its proxies. The Nuclear Solution should not merely Delay Development of a Nuclear Weapon or sunset in a manner that allows regime scientists to sprint to the finish line. It is in our vital National Security interest and the interest of the entire world that iran never possess a Nuclear Weapon. Finally, a topic has emerged in Public Discourse that should be addressed. There are many that blame the u. S. Diplomatic and economic efforts as the root cause of irans acts of violence. To you i say, you could not be more wrong. There is only one party to blame for irans acts of violence and that is the Iranian Regime. There is only one bad actor here and that is the Iranian Regime. The Iranian Regime is feeling the weight of the growing community against them. Absent an attack on americans or American Assets abroad, we should not be moved by iranian outbursts or attacks on shipping. We should remain steadfast and continue to apply pressure until the regime excuse me, we should continue to apply pressure until the regime capitulates and changes behavior. The Iranian Regime is faced with a sharp choice. Is long time that they enter the International Community is a good actor and enjoy the benefits that peaceloving nations take delight in. Otherwise, it will remain a pariah state. This is an important issue and im glad we have the attendance we have today to examine this issue and with that, i will recognize senator menendez. Thank you mr. Chairman for holding this important hearing. I just want to urge the chair, global events come at us fast and furiously. This committee historically has played a role in fashioning the u. S. Foreign policy and as we face the challenges in ukraine and syria, i hope that the chairman, i know that the Committee Democrats have written to the chair asking him for a hearing in ukraine, i think that would be echoed in syria. These are vitally important issues in terms of the Foreign Policy of the United States, the role that russia is playing, iran is playing, so i certainly will honorhe chair those requests and hold a hearing on both of those issues as expeditiously as possible. Now, this committee has not had a hearing on iran since march 2017, more than 2. 5 years ago. Because itfortunate has been one of the administrations biggest stated priorities and one in which i believe there is at least a basis of bipartisan consensus from which we could work. There is no doubt that and ronnie and Nuclear State would pose a threat. Iranian no doubt that proxy action is ongoing and destabilizing. UseUnited States should strategic diplomacy with our International Partners and allies to most effectively counter iran. Is everyone i think in this committee knows, i did not support the joint comprehensive plan of action. When the Trump Administration withdrew from the deal without a strategy and without partners, i worried that this unilateral approach would put our nation in the dangerous and lonely path that would ultimately leave iran emboldened. Im afraid to say i think i was right. Seems starvedgime of some financial resources, but that is all as far as i can tell. Beyond sanctions, our maximum Pressure Campaign only extends to sending american troops to pressure protect saudi arabia. The rest of the policies across the middle east seem to only have emboldened iran. Pardoned its political supporters and most devastatingly helped entrench itself in bashar alassads syria. You said that the two goals of the maximum Pressure Campaign or to deprive the Iranian Regime of money to stop its malign activity and to bring iran back to the negotiating table. However, application of this policy is confusing. One minute, the president is willing to make a deal, the next he is threatening to wipe out the iranian economy. You have utilized just about every sanctions Authority Available to you, but sanctions are only a viable tool if they are consistent. , a man was arrested in turkey in 2016 and correction with one of the largest iran sanctions of asian schemes in history. While his criminal case was i understand you are at least aware of these efforts. What does that say about the viability of american sanctions or this maximum Pressure Campaign . The iranians are holding out because they believe they can. They will not come to the table for a kim jongunlike photo op. My fundamental question mr. Hooks where are you in the harder diplomatic art of this campaign . How have you utilized the pressure to get iran to a negotiating table . I also would like to live in a world where we could sanction iran into stopping its support for terrorism, treating its own people with dignity and respect, and to releasing all unjustly at detained americans including a Princeton University student, but i live in the real world, where i know that in order to make a deal, you have to give something to get something. Now, seems like the ideal time to harness the pressure you have created. Im curious to know if you have laid out the parameters of a deal that the administration would accept, including limitations on research and development, limitations on enrichment and stockpile thents, and whether or not iranians will seek relief in the United States. Whether you have gone through back channels to try to engage iran in that regard. In negotiated agreement with iran with buyin from our International Partner to meaningfully constrain the Nuclear Program and address other malign activity. A deal that includes permanent and longterm restrictions, tackling the Ballistic Missile proliferation and addressing Regional Support for terrorism. About forward to hearing your progress to address this ongoing National Security priority. Want to agreend i with you 100 that this hearing is important and i think probably one of the most prescient issues facing the United States. It is the issue that has the most potential for having miscalculation by the other side and winding up with a situation that we really dont want to be in. I think that potential is there and more so with this regime than any other regime on the planet. Secondly, i agree that this committee has historically played an Important Role in Foreign Policy and continues to do so. I note that members of this committee are very active making statements stating their both to, giving advice the state department and the white house, members of this committee regularly communicate with the state department in the white house. We will of course continue to do that. I want to address briefly you mentioned that i had received a letter from you and members of the minority in the committee wanting certain hearings scheduled. I have taken that under advisement and im in the process of vetting that. Im doing some foundational work on that and i have talked with most members of the committee, not all, but almost all, i want to talk with other interested parties before i respond to that and it will respond in writing just as you did. I want to correct you respectfully regarding your criticism of the administrations withdrawal from the jcpoa. You indicated you supported the withdrawal or you did not support the jcpoa, but you supported the withdrawal. I urged the president to withdraw. The president withdrew with a very Clear Strategy and that strategy was to go back to the Pressure Campaign that was in place before the jcpoa negotiations started. It was not called the maximum Pressure Campaign, but it was the same thing. Tot i did agree with was stop the maximum Pressure Campaign and start negotiating when they were at a point when they had to negotiate. At the present time, we have a maximum Pressure Campaign, i reiterated the things that i think are pressuring the country. Talkpect mr. Hook will about that quite a bit more. Urging is that we stay with the strategy we have. That is continue to exert maximum pressure on the regime until they capitulate and they will, they will have to. With all that, thank you, and we have the honorable brian hook, special representative to iran. Mr. Hook leads the iran action group, responsible for coordinating all iranrelated activity within the u. S. State department. We could not have a better witness or a more informed witness or a more competent witness to address these issues before the committee. On a personal momo, ive had the good fortune to talk to mr. Hook on many occasions about these issues. I find him to be receptive, i find him to be wellinformed. And acting in the best faith in the best interest of the United States as we move forward. With that, mr. Hook, the floor is yours. Chairman thank you, for your very kind words. I would also like to thank the Ranking Member menendez for his Opening Statement and distinguished members of the committee. Ive appeared before this committee a number of times, mostly in private, so im very happy to have an opportunity to have a discussion on iran in a public setting. I have a longer prepared statement ive submitted, but why dont i go over some parts of that . We have implemented an unprecedented Pressure Campaign with two objectives, to deny the regime the revenue it needs to fund a revolutionary and expansionist Foreign Policy. Increase the is to incentives for iran to come to the negotiating table. Theou look at the history, 40year history of the United States have had, you see a consistent pattern that you need to have. More of these are what inform irans decisionmaking calculus. Foreign policyr squarely within the left right limits of economic pressure and diplomatic isolation. The president has also repeatedly expressed the United States willingness to negotiate with iran. Meet with willing to the iranians without preconditions. We are seeking a comprehensive deal. It needs to address four areas. Veryeds to address in a comprehensive way the threats iran presents International Peace and security. The Nuclear Program, Missile Program, it support to terrorist groups and proxies, and its 40year history of hostagetaking. This includes the arbitrary detention of u. S. Citizens. Before we exited the deal and reimposed sanctions and accelerated air pressure, iran was increasing the scope of its malign activity. We now have newly declassified information relating to irans Missile Program that i can share today. While the United States was still in the jcpoa, iran expanded its Ballistic Missile activities to partners across the region, including hezbollah, Palestinian Terrorist groups, and she of militias in iran. Transferredran whole missiles to a designated terrorist group in the region. Iran is continuing to develop Missile Systems and related technology solely for export to regional proxies and while we were in the jcpoa, iran increased its support to hezbollah, helping them produce a greater number of rockets and missiles. This arsenal is then used to target israel. Beyond continuing advancements to its Missile Program, iran was deepening its engagement in regional conflicts. Dealunder the iran nuclear , iran was given a Clear Pathway to import and export dangerous weapons. 18,days from now in october we will be exactly one year away from the expiration of the United Nations arms embargo on iran. Because of the Iran Nuclear Deal, countries like russia and china will soon be able to sell conventional weapons to iran. The Un Security Council needs to renew the arms embargo on iran before it expires. We have made this a priority. Visited the unas Security Council to her three times to highlight the Expiration Date of the arms embargo. Nearly every measure, the regime and its proxies are weaker than when our pressure began. Militant groups have stated to the New York Times that iran no longer has enough in the past. Them there is one who said the golden days are gone. Unprecedented austerity plans. Their leader went on tv and said hezbollah needed public support to sustain its operation. In various parts of lebanon, you can see piggy banks and Grocery Stores soliciting spare change from lebanese citizens to support the operation. We are also making it harder for iran to expand its military capabilities. Beginning in 2014, irans military budget increased every year through 22017. Nearly 14 billion. From 2017 until 2018, we saw a reduction in military spending in nearly 10 in the first year and in the 2019 budget, which was announced in march there was a 28 cut to the defense budget. Cut for irgc a 17 funding. Because of our sanctions, iran will be unable to fund this thin budget for 2019. The irgc Cyber Command is now low on cash and the irgc has told shia militia groups they should look for new sources of revenue. Our policy is at its core a diplomatic and an economic one. This administration does not seek Armed Conflict with iran. We are relying on american pressure and american diplomacy economic pressure and american diplomacy to raise the costs in iran and force meaningful behavior change. Unfortunately, iran has responded to our diplomacy with violence and kinetic force. In recent months iran has launched a series of panicked attacks what secretary pompeo has called panicked aggression to intimidate the world into halting our pressure. Iran was responsible for the , the assault on two oil tankers in oman, and the attack on saudi oil facilities. The message to the International Community is quite clear and this is important that i think people understand the regimes paradigm. The message to the world is if you do not allow us to conduct our normal level of terror, then we will behave even more badly until you do. Iran has long used its Nuclear Program in this way and for this reason. The world ought to recognize this extortion when it sees it. When the world comes together to push back against iran and we saw this recently in the context fifa, and fifa stood up to the regime, made very clear that there needed to be a change and for the first time iranian women theyadmitted into a game, were segregated from everybody else and they were capped in a cordoned area, but it is an imposing isolating to thed pressuring iran kind of behavior change we are talking about. ,hen the world comes together we do see iran change its behavior. This administration will do its part and we are succeeding in having others join us. During the monday of the u. N. General assembly shortly after the attacks, france, germany, and the United Kingdom called for iran to accept negotiations on its Nuclear Program, Ballistic Missiles, and regional activity. This has been the position of the United States for 2. 5 years and we were pleased to see the tocall on new negotiations have a new and comprehensive deal. I think it is very much the case that the Iran Nuclear Deal has come at the expense of this nonproliferation in the middle east. I think ive said to this committee probably a year ago, i know i said it a year ago when i was at the United Nations, if we do not restored deterrence against the iran missile proliferation, we are accumulating risk of a regional war. We saw this one year later in the iranian attack on saudi. The longestthat suffering victims are the iranian people. We wish nothing more than a future with a truly representative government. With much Better Future the American People and the iranian people. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the committee, i think you for devoting a hearing on the subject of iran and im happy to answer your questions. Thank you very much. Thank you for those comments. I feel like we are in good hands with your firm hand on the tiller on this issue. With all due respect and i want to thank you for appearing before this committee. Senator menendez indicated we had not had a hearing on iran since 2017. A june 19, you appeared in joint committee before us and the Armed Services committee along with two other informed witnesses in this important issue and we thank you for making yourself available to that. , it is very troubling, the fact that in october 18 the u. N. Resolution is going to aspire the sale of conventional arms to the country. Obviously, we would like to pass another resolution, but with russia and china having veto power over that kind of an action by the u. N. , realistically, what do you think what is thend prognosis on this whole thing . Mr. Hook the secretary and i have had many discussions with russia and china about promoting a more peaceful and stable middle east. Ive had separate discussions with both china and russia talking about talking about the attack on september 14 and the impact of it. We have to be honest with ourselves that the Iran Nuclear Deals approach to the iranian Missile Program facilitated missile testing and it also allowed iran to proliferate missiles to its proxies without much cost. The European Union has not taken one sanction against irans Missile Program since the adoption of the Iran Nuclear Deal. Yet during the same period, iran has increased its blissful Ballistic Missile testing and the provision of weapons to its proxies. Ive seen some accounts where there is a lot of interest in the buyers and the sellers in october 18 a year from now so only byn cannot conventional weapons, but also sell them. We see a role for the Un Security Council after the attacks of september 14 in saudi arabia by iran. This is an act in clear violation of the United Nations charter. The Security Council is vested with responsibility for resolving International Peace and security. This violation of saudi sovereignty. It was an attack in so many ways in the global market. Iran is trying to create global shock in the energy markets. They have failed at that to date. Russia that china and will play a constructive role to get serious about irans missile proliferation. Russia and china voted for the arms embargo on iran. , they a resolution supported it before, there is no reason they can sit warded again. There is a clear case to be made for it in light of iranian aggression. Thank you, i appreciate that view. One of the troubling aspects of this for me is that the asked by the world to iran is and ask that iran has thumbed its nose andn a very haughty manner absolutely refuses to even agree what is appropriate international accepted conduct. I view it very different than ,he situation with north korea kim jongun actually capitulated and was willing to talk about when everyone wants, nuclearfree peninsula. The iranians are not even near that from an attitude standpoint. It has not gotten where we wanted, it is a work in progress, but at least it is a work in progress. These things can resolve if you have two parties that have a Common Objective and then once the Common Objective is agreed to, than the two parties acted in good faith. We have neither of those. What is your view on that from strictly an attitude standpoint . Mr. Hook we have not seen a change of heart in the Iranian Regime. They seem to have doubled down on their strategy, which is a 40your strategy of deniable attacks, using proxies in the gray zone to conduct attacks against American Partners and interests. What i think i would highlight are the number of diplomatic off ramps that this administration has offered to the regime. It is not just the United States. Prime minister abe was the first japanese Prime Minister to visit the Islamic Republic of iran and he went there, he asked President Trump if he thought that would be useful, and the president encouraged him to go. He went, the Supreme Leader put out a series of tweets rejecting the Prime Ministers diplomacy and while Prime Minister abe was in country, the regime blew up a japanese oil tanker. Has repeatedlyn tried to intervene. Iran has not met our diplomacy beingiplomacy, despite offered many opportunities. The president has said he would be willing to meet with the regime, so has secretary pompeo. When the United States was in the Iran Nuclear Deal and i attended what turned out to be the last meeting, i requested a meeting to talk about the hostages, so this is an administration that is very open diplomatically these issues. Now that you have seen the e3 also recognize the need for a outdeal, i would also point at the beginning of the uns general assembly, i think david sanger wrote a New York Times article about how they are experiencing a very chilly reception at the United Nations. What they did in terms of attacking the Worlds Largest oil facility is indefensible. So, i think more people are recognizing that and that is a good thing for our diplomacy. I think your observations about their reactions, particularly what they did to the japanese, is very troubling. The attitude issue to me is something that is troubling. Everybody wants a diplomatic result here. Everybody wants diplomatic movement, but they just are not showing any signs whatsoever of going in that direction. Thank you for your thoughts. Comments two comments. This is the first public hearing into and a half years and i believe the public has a right to know about what our iran policy is in we have not had a public hearing in two point five years. Secondly, i would just say is someone who is the staunchest opponent of the jcpoa that in fact to leaving the jcpoa without a strategy at the end of the day, without allies at the end of the day, has not left us in a better position. I dont care for the jcpoa. Leavingme token, without a strategy has not left us in a better position. Isnt it true that iran has hijacked oil tankers . Mr. Hook they did take one oil tanker. Isnt it true that they have struck oil tankers . Mr. Hook yes, they have. Isnt it true that they had a stealth attack on saudi arabias Oil Refineries . Mr. Hook yes. Isnt it true that iran has exceeded the limits imposed on its stockpile of uranium . Mr. Hook yes. Isnt it true that it has enriched uranium to higher levels of concentration and permissible in the jcpoa . Yes. Isnt it true it has begun using more advanced centrifuges for enrichment . Mr. Hook yes. When i listen to that and i could go through a list of other things, we are right now in a worse position visavis iran then we were before. Then we were before. Let me ask you something. Withdrawing troops in Northern Syria and green lighting turkeys brutal incursion gives new life to isis and hands over the keys to our National Security to putin, iran, and assad. All the sanctions in the world are not going to fix that. Does the administration have a plan for countering iran and syria and can you explain what it is and how it will account for recent gains by iran backed Regime Forces filling the vacuum we created an Northern Syria . Mr. Hook i like to answer your first question and i will take the next one. Not pose a first question, i posed a first question as it relates to that. First, answer my question. Mr. Hook the president s decision with respect to syria is not going to change our iran strategy or the efficacy of it. Iran has given assad 4. 6 billion in lines of sent 2500 ofhave their own fighters and helped to support assad. Thatiplomatic work investor jeffrey is heading is to ensure as part of a political solution that all of the forces in iran under a running and leave syria. We are withholding a reconstruction assistance as one of the levers that we have. You really think that after having withdrawn and let the iranians what we have here is something that we, by our presence up devoid we have the possibility of a land bridge that iran has sought over syria to attack our ally, the state of israel what commitments do we have from any of these parties that in fact they will prevent iran from moving fighters and supplies from iraq through Northern Syria . As far as im concerned, iran isnt an agent of russia, they have their own interests, they have spent their own blood. Russia is not going to tell them, thank you, get out. They are going to have their own interests. All we have done is perpetuated their interests and created a greater risk for our ally, the state of israel. Mr. Hook i would say this. I think our pressure on iran threatens their position in syria in three ways. It starves the irgc and hezbollah of operational funding. It disrupts their Financial Support to assad. I talked about the billions of dollars that iran has provided. Our pressure is making it harder for iran to give a sought Financial Support. We are also impeding their ability to sell oil to syria. We have sanctioned one oil shipping operation and we sanctioned russia and a syrian one of the ways that it has been financing its operations is through illicit oil shipments. We are going to keep after the oil, we are going to keep after that, we are going to continue our pressure do we have any commitments from turkish or iraqi authorities to prevent iran from moving fighters in supplies from iraq through Northern Syria . Mr. Hook that is something up and with the secretary to iraq to discuss that in a regular basis. But we have no commitments . Mr. Hook the specifics of this im happy to follow up with you in terms of which minister or leader we spoke with about this, but we have raised this issue repeatedly as a security concern. Well, it seems to me that heres a perfect example of what maximum pressure without a strategy that ultimately brings iran to the negotiating table leaves us in. More attacks, more consequences, greater limiting the breakout to nucleare pathway weapons, a land bridge, a land bridge for iran to attack our ally, the state of israel. If that is success, if that is your measurement of success, that i have a real concern over where we are headed. Thank you. Mr. Hook two quick things on that, when the president got out of the iran deal, secretary pompeo released our iran strategy within a week or two. We did exit the deal with a strategy. And the secretary put in place very clear articulation of the 12 areas where we need to see a change in iranian behavior, so the speech he gave in may 2018 is the same policy we are pursuing. That is a wish list. Mr. Hook it is not a wish list. Going toink you are get everything pompeo listed, you are going to have virtually no relief to iran, and they are just going to succumb. I would like to believe that is the real world, but that is not the real world, mr. Hook. Mr. Hook heres the real world. We dont negotiate with ourselves. The 12 areas, requirements, are a mirror image of irans threats security. Nd most of those you can find in a Un Security Council resolution. Do you believe the more he asked you ask for the more you have to give . Mr. Hook he has taken up my time. Ive heard it often said that there is this that during the Iran Nuclear Deal iran was behaving and since we got out of the deal, things have gotten worse. I would like to submit for the items ofat this is 71 iran regime malign activities during negotiations with iran and during the jcpoa. It is 71 items long. I think that we dont do ourselves a Great Service about understanding the historical record if we ignore what iran did during the negotiations and while the jcpoa was being implemented. I would like to submit this for the record so that people can review everything iran was up to while we were in the deal. Thank you. That will be submitted. Senator menendez, the last word. Let me ask you questions. Isnt it, virtually anywhere in the world, the more you want, the more you have to give . Or do you believe you can get everything that secretary pompeo asked for and just return to what was the status quo in terms of irans relief . Mr. Hook United States tried taking a bifurcated approach. Focusing on one aspect of irans threats to peace and security and it was the nuclear deal and that has enabled iran to expand its missile tests. That is not a response to the question. The more you ask for, do not expect the more that you will have to give austin mark give . Mr. Hook yes, and if you look at the strategy laid out in may, the conclusion of the agreement, which we will submit to the senate as a treaty which we applaud. Mr. Hook i worked closely with this committee to show that we need. Support for what we are doing and if we are able to get into talks with iran, we will be fully apprised. It is also the case that in that , we are prepared to end all of our sanctions and welcome iran into the International Community. That is very significant and has never happened before. Many of our sanctions stayed in place. Many of our sanctions will start unraveling. We have put out incentives for the regime and the decision they face is whether they are going to come to the table and recognize that it is deepening isolation, come to United States , come to the table to negotiate a full and comprehensive deal. Thank you. Senator johnson. I would point out during the jcpoa debate, it was my amendment that would have deemed that a treaty. We would be in a far better place today. Yourook, thank you for service. As somebody who has observed ,ran for a long period of time they want to be a nuclear power, they are developing Ballistic Missiles, they continue to support their terrorist proxies around the world. What is their ultimate goal . Do you have a sense in what they are actually trying to achieve . Mr. Hook it is you have a president , a foreign minister, a military, but it also has this revolutionary guard corps. I highlight revolutionary guard corps. Opaque financial system, so that it can move money around the world for terror finance and money laundering. It is all in the service of promoting clerical oversight, weaponizing shieh grievances, undermining the sovereignty of regimes around the middle east. Did they want to topple regimes and put in place some kind of iranian surrogates or total iranian control over areas of the region . Do they want to greater iran . Mr. Hook yes, they would like a greater iran. When you look at their engagement with iraq, if you look at where they engage in lebanon, where they take a country like lebanon and that military should have a monopoly on the use of force, but then hezbollah undermines that. They are trying to do the same thing in yemen. They have an ambition to become a power broker in yemen on the saudi southern border, so that it will be in a position to attack uae, saudi, bahrain, and also the u. S. Navy. A but to eventually install regime in these countries either favorable or direct control of iran . Mr. Hook yes. We need to understand that. The situation in syria is incredibly complex. I would like your evaluation. What is the current relationship with iran and russia as it relates to syria . I think russia has tried to have it both ways, both with syria and israel. I think russia knows that it is going to have a very hard time getting into a postconflict stabilization for as long as forwardusing syria as a deployed missile base to attack israel. I think there are incentives for russia to direct Iranian Forces out. At the same time, i think russia has also said to the israelis, you should do whatever you need to do to defend yourselves against attacks coming from inside syria. President putin is playing both sides. Hard forng to be very syria, they are not going to see a return to normal. The forcesirect under iranian control to leave. I think there are incentives both for assad and putin to get to a postconflict stabilization, but for as long as they have Iranian Forces there with another agenda there is not a cooperative relationship between russia and iran and syria . They are not overtly cooperating . Both have aey Common Objective of saving assad. What is irans attitude toward isis . Mr. Hook that is something which during the there are people i would probably defer to nea for the more specifics around this and the history of that that occurred in the last administration. In our mission to defeat isis, the president made a priority coming into office of working with secretary mattis to liberate the territorial caliphate from all of the lands under that control. But i dont have anything to add beyond that. Iran, they are kind of agnostic . Happy to have isis destabilize the area . There is no evidence of support in any way, shape, or form . Mr. Hook this is something which i would probably defer to my colleagues who have been on the counter isis campaign. Im happy to take that that far. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Hook, thank you for your service. In your statement, you point out concern over miscalculation in the region that could spread into a much more serious conflict. Clearly, the iranians could make it miscalculation. Clearly, the saudis could make it miscalculation. Now, israel might make it miscalculation based upon the increased concerns about iranian strength. Toant to backup one moment assess the history here. Jcpoa and ie strongly disagreed with the administrations decision to pull out of the jcpoa. And you pointed out that you wanted to go to a maximum Pressure Campaign against iran. I support that. Support you point out that iran was violating international standards. It was not covered under the agreement. They were in compliance under the agreement. As President Trump had indicated , you and i had indications that we now had maximum pressure with our european allies to get their support for sanctions against iran in the Ballistic Missiles and other issues in which they were doing activities against international norms. In fact, we could have had a maximum Pressure Campaign against iran in the activities you are referring to, but the president pulled out of the jcpoa. That is the fact that you when i know that even the eu was prepared to go along with us provided the United States state in the jcpoa. I want to underscore the point of senator menendez, since pulling out of the jcpoa, look at the facts, look at what has happened. , look atboldened iran the attack against the saudi oil field, the capacity to do major damage. They have had they have partnered and strengthened their position with russia and the assad regime in syria, giving them additional capacity. Toy are now closer restarting a Nuclear Weapons program than they were when we were in the jcpoa and we have nobody to challenge that within the jcpoa. Now you talk about the u. N. Vote in the embargo, conventional weapons, and the United States influence is so much weaker today because we have isolated ourselves, we dont have the support of china and russia, and we have lost the credible support of our european allies in regards to iran. When you talk about a maximum Pressure Campaign, it seems to me we gave up that maximum pressure when we pulled out of the jcpoa and isolated america. I want to get to the most recent decision in President Trump inling out of Northern Syria a conversation with president erdogan and then the Turkish Forces going in and out kurdish fighters that worked with us in Northern Syria now engaged in their own military campaign. It is clear from the facts on the ground that it has given additional influence in syria by concernnd there is now that iran can be emboldened, including in the bridge to israels border. So, i just want to get your view. The fact that we now have forces ine turkish embedded without u. S. Presence to go in and fight the kurds, does that help us or hurt us in regards to iran . It is a simple question, i hope i can get an answer to that. We are very comfortable with our iran strategy in syria. But the specific question im asking us about the Current Situation with the kurdish fighters now engaged with the turks, does that help us or hurt us in regards to the iranian strategy . Mr. Hook it does not hurt our iran strategy. So it is helpful for us in regards to iran to have the kurdish fighters who were are stabilizing force in northern iran keeping russia and iran out . That is a positive . Mr. Hook our forces in northeast syria have never had any wrong mission set. But now that we are not there and we now have the ability of russia to take the greater capacity of syria, allowing iran to come into that to be more emboldened in syria, you are saying that does not affect us . Mr. Hook no, because our strategy from the beginning in syria is always been around using diplomatic leverage, withholding reconstruction assistance, so that we can get forces under iranian control out , and then our maximum Pressure Campaign while they were in the deal, they were able to give assad many billions of dollars. I understand the money. Im trying you dont think there is now a greater chance of a miscalculation with israel looking at the iranians having greater access to syria that could use drones in a similar type of attack that we saw against the saudis . You dont think that is a greater risk today because of what is happening in syria . Mr. Hook we dont see it as a greater risk, no, because israel will continue to do what it needs to do to defend itself. We know that, but israel is now in higher alert. Mr. Hook i havent seen that. I havent seen that. If you look at our core drivers from the beginning and nothing has changed with the president s recent decision of withdrawing troops in syria, our strategy is around denying revenue and using diplomatic leverage in syria to get Iranian Forces out. It is undeniable that during the Iran Nuclear Deal iran was able andse the sanctions relief give iran many billions of dollars and 12,500 fighters. That was the big mistake. Now we are trying to do everything we can to put this back in the box. It starts with denying them revenue. Irans military budget is down. Let me make a last point on that. We could deny them support from europe in sanctions, but instead we chose to pull out of the jcpoa rather than working with our european allies. On the table before the president pulled out of the jcpoa mr. Hook let me make one point which i think there has been a lot of the last couple of years. The president directed negotiations with the u. K. , france, and germany, over six months, to see if we could fix the deficiency of the a ron Iran Nuclear Deal. We met in paris, london, berlin and washington multiple times over six months. We made a great deal of progress around the week inspections , at the absence of intercontinental Ballistic Missiles from the deal. The biggest priority was ending the sunset clause. As much as supporters of the deal like the deal, it expires. It did not permanently address irans Nuclear Program. I spent six months working with the europeans. The biggest thing we achieved was largely agreement on inspections and icbms. We were not able to agree on the sunset. We turned down greater pressure noniran from the financial point of view because of the we turned down the opportunity to get europe with us on sanctions against iran, because you wanted a longer term on the nuclear provisions. You turned down maximum pressure in order to get extension of a Nuclear Agreement there was already compliance. It is inconsistent on what youre saying now, that you ducting put original to put additional pressure on iran. Mr. Hook i dont know who supports ending the Nuclear Restrictions on iran, and senator the Nuclear Agreement was a personal was a permanent restriction on iran. Mr. Hook it was not. Iran nuclear deal are dale will start expiring a year from now. Hook chairman risch this is a good experience to go through to litigate this, but lets go through this as simply as we can. my reading is that irans our position has changed significantly as a result of the turks going into syria, wiping out our friends, the kurds. The kurds that are remaining are rushing to assad and pledging to support assad. This changes for the this changes the dynamic for iran, i presume in irans view, and a big way, i presume iran was smiling from yeartoyear this changes the dynamic for iran and syria and perhaps smiling from ear to ear when turkey went into syria. This changes the debt, for iran and syria. Has hit the hurt we have gone, turkey has hit the kurds, and the kurds have aligned with assad. Shirley assad is stronger. Assad is stronger. And this isnt good for iran . Mr. Hook our military is in syria for isis, our diplomacy is focused on iran. That is why jim jeffrey and i worked together closely, because what i do on the pressure side and what he does on withholding reconstruction assistance, is mutually reinforcing. But diplomacy has an impact if there is a military that is strong and in the region, and if our ally now aligns with our adversary, assad, that is not helpful for diplomacy and our interest in the region. That is a dramatic perspective on your part that iran is not celebrating what is happening in syria, its extraordinary to me. Let me turn to a different area. I do agree that there is an and normas benefit in putting pressure on iran, whether it is maximum pressure or not, i dont know. But i believe a nation that decides to go nuclear should suffer a dramatic cost for doing so. Whether they are at their knees or not, i dont know, and it is very hard for us to tell from the outside what is going on inside iran. But clearly, it would have a dramatic effect if other nations were to join us in applying maximum pressure. What are the prospects for our european friends, for other nations around the world joining us, either with a snapback not onn being applied or a snapback basis . Prospects of us seeing truly maximum pressure, because it is applied by our friends as well . Mr. Hook there is no president in irans history for the kind of pressure we have put on them. The regime has said this publicly. They are experiencing the kind of Economic Contraction that is and will be worse than what happened during the iraniraq war in the 1980s. Ofhave done a good job drying up irans sources of expert revenue. But we have devoted as much energy to enforcing our sanctions, especially in the case of oil sanctions. The fact that the u. K. , france and germany have acknowledged something we saw some time ago, that the iran deal is insufficient to address irans threats to peace and security, and when you are inside the deal, you cant touch your energy or your financial sanctions. That was the deal. So being out of the deal gives us a great deal more leverage to accomplish the objectives of denying iran a Nuclear Weapon. Ofator romney im not one those who thinks we should be back in jcpoa. I believe there should be and a normas price paid by company that decides to go nuclear. I dont know whether we will ever see iran make a different decision, but is there some prospect of us being able to get other nations to join us in applying maximum pressure on iran, or must we continue to do it alone . Mr. Hook it depends. Europe has done a lot. They have not reimposed financial sanctions that were in what, but when you look at europe has done since we left the iran deal, it is an extensive list and germany and france in the u. K. Have all denied landing rights to an iranian commercial airline, dualuse commercial airline that also fairies weapons and terrorists around the middle east to their proxies. Did impose sanctions on Irans Ministry of intelligence for terrorism in europe. And you have also had the e3 send letters to the Un Security Council condemning irans space launch vehicle testing, Ballistic Missile testing. You had Boris Johnson a few weeks ago, said the iran deal is a bad deal with many, many defects. That has been my position our position. Senator romney letters and speeches are delightful, but crippling sanctions on the part of our ally would make a real difference in exacting a very substantial price on iran, and hopefully causing dissent within their own country. But i think it should be a high priority of our country to get to getations to join other nations to join us in those crippling sanctions. My time is up. Mr. Hook can i say one other thing . Im happy to submit for the record, this is three pages of actions by europe starting july 24, 2019. Ember i talk weekly with my european counterparts. We just pitbulls and in town we just had poland in town. We had 65 nations in warsaw from ,lmost every continent attend so we have made working with priority working with our partners a priority. Im happy to submit for the record three pages of everything europe has done to counter irans threats. Mr. Hook those chairman risch those will be included in the record for everyone. Me how we arel going to proceed since both just started . Is the chairman intending to keep the hearing going as members come in and out for votes . Mr. Hook this is an important chairman risch this is an important hearing. We should get down to the end and then everybody can take a break. I see anxiousness on my friends parts who would like to write the apple. I want tor. Hook, followup up on the line of questioning my colleagues have pursued with respect to syria, because the shift by Kurdish Forces who were our partners in the fight against isil and into alignment with iran and russia will have serious implicates earns serious implications for syria and the region, and it is hard for me to understand that you appear at least to think there is no connection to what is going to happen in syria and our efforts to address what is happening in iran. The president said on twitter that anyone, and i am quoting, anyone who wants to assist syria and protecting the kurds, it is good with me, whether it is russia, china, or napoleon bonaparte. I hope theyll do great. We are 7000 miles away. That is the end of the quote. Does this anyone the president is referring to extend to iran . Are you concerned about a kurdishiranian alliance and its impact on u. S. Interest in the region . Syria is not going to see a return to normal until they direct forces under iranian control to leave. We do have enormous leverage in that space. Can you further elaborate what our leverage is . It appears to me given our pullout of troops, and i appreciate what you are saying about reconstruction dollars, but fact is they are years away from reconstruction at this point, so we had a very small amount of troops partnering with Kurdish Forces to maintain a significant area in northeast syria that was stable. The United States had influence, where we were wanted, and you are telling me now that we have pulled out those troops and we have greater leverage than we had before . Mr. Hook i didnt say that. Campaign, because shiite fighters dont have the money they used to, iran doesnt have the money and used two, to support assad and support its iranes, so i ran so will face a dilemma, they can support guns in syria or prioritize the needs of their own people at home. That is the choice we are tying to force upon the regime. Senator shaheen and have we not empowered them further by pulling out of northeast syria and giving iran more influence in the region, and more ability to negotiate with russia . I heard the Obama Administration talk about how we were going to starve syria of the funds they needed to engage in a civil war, and that never happened. And what our experience has been with crippling sanctions, i think they are important, but they are not the only way, the only tool in the toolbox for us to address these conflicts. I guess i would go on to ask you, in september you noted it is clear we need to reestablish the terms, we are one missile strike away from a regional war. I think that is a quote. Can you speak to how this administration plans to reestablish deterrence against iran, and what specific options other than sanctions are on the table to penalize iran for destabilizing behavior . Mr. Hook the first thing you have to do is stop doing what is not working. There is no question iran increased missile proliferation and testing. Senator shaheen i dont want to talk about jcpoa. What i want to talk about is what the administration has on the table now to address irans destabilizing behavior. Mr. Hook that is part of it. We have to stop doing what we are doing, are we are going to get more of the same or we are going to get more of the same. We broke the paradigm of not having significant leverage. We are really five or six months into having all our sanctions imposed. Because for the First Six Months after getting out of the deal, we granted a few oil waivers. Since may, we were five or six months into this and we have achieved record results. But we have to understand we never promised senator shaheen how do you define record results . Mr. Hook the regime is materially weaker today than it was two and a half years ago. Senator shaheen i appreciate that is the case, but when we look at their behavior both in the region in terms of our interests in the region, they have increased that destabilizing behavior. It is at an increase. I want you to look at all 71 instances of this. For 40or 40 iran years has run a steady state of aggression and used terrorism as a tool escape as a tool of statecraft. They want the world to accept a normal level of terrorism as they define it, and when the world stands up they increase it to put pressure on people so they will return to their normal level. Senator shaheen i heard you make this argument this morning, and i appreciate that is an argument the administration has. Im not buying that argument. What i am asking is, what are the plans . What are the additional plans beyond sanctions that will address their behavior . Up, but i have one final question. Do you believe isis has been defeated in syria . That is a yes or no. Mr. Hook the territorial caliphate has been defeated. We liberated all the land held by isis. It is a separate question on the forces of extremism. Believe theou forces of extremism have been defeated in syria . Mr. Hook there is no one that will claim forces of extremism have not been defeated in the middle east in any administration. There is a crisis of islamist extremism that has been going that has been going on for many decades. Shaheen that we just exacerbated by pulling american troops out of northeast syria. We have given rise to the potential for isis to come back in syria, in iraq, all across the region, and that empowers iran. Mr. Hook it is clearly the case that iran, if you talk to countries in the region, you will hear complete agreement from israelis and other arab countries on the front lines of iranan aggression, that expanded its power over the last many years. And we came into office with a regime that was enjoying a very healthy economy, healthy military budget, strong proxies, and there was a deficit of trust we inherited with our sunni partners and with israel. I would say our bilateral relations with these countries has been improved and we have helped to shrink the iran tumor. But we are only out this for the first, this has only been a manner a matter of a year and a half since leaving the deal. In march, the New York Times ran a frontpage story documenting irans proxies are weaker, and the Washington Post ran a story about how proxies are weaker because of our sanctions. This was a story that was not written prior to our proxy campaign. Paul if we ask, do sanctions work, its a bigger, broader question, do we do more, maximum pressure . If there had been an economic effect, nobody questions that. Are they working to bring iran to the negotiating table . They arent really working. It is a lost of it is a loss of trust. Iran feels we are not trustworthy because of pulling out of the agreement that was worked on for so many years. Naivea matter of having expectations that they will agree to 12 points, most of which they didnt agree to in the previous agreement. It is going to be difficult to get it started because of a lack of trust and starting with some things that were not agreed to revis lee and were specifically agreed to different limits, like no enrichment and the Ballistic Missile agreement. Iran sees elastic missiles as a deterrent and i dont think they are willing to give up a deterrent. They see saudi arabia spending 83 billion a year and we are, goodness, iran spends 14 billion. That is one 50th of what we spend and less than one fourth of what saudi arabia spends. If you add saudi allies, you can see why iran might say, please take my Ballistic Missiles. They are not doing this and they are willing to keep pricking and prodding a superpower that could defeat them in a moment because we are unwilling to what we ask, and by pulling out we showed we are not to be trusted. So you have an unwilling partner. Syria is different. We have been unwilling in syria to negotiate in a sense that our assad,as been, remove and no one wants to negotiate with assad. It is going to be ironic because everybody seems concerned about the kurds that actually the kurds permanent solution is more likely to come from assad. He is there, largely is going to stay barring something untoward happening to him from his own people, but the war is largely over, assad stays. If we are going to be realistic and want to protect the kurds, maybe the diplomatic arena has gotten simplified. Now you have turkey on one side in syria on the other. Everybody is going to talk about sanctions, which i dont think will work, but somebody from the state department that is involved with diplomacy ought to be saying, why dont we use our leverage to get turkey and assad to talk . But we would have to acknowledge someone is going to talk to assad. And if we did, the goal would be to allow the kurds to live in the northeastern quadrant of syria, similar to the way the kurds live in iraq. It wasnt always easy there, it has been very messy and there have been a lot of problems, but currently iraqi kurds trade with the turks and have a decent and robust trade over the last 10 years, that has actually increased. Ohshouldnt look at this as, my goodness, kurds being wiped out and all of this. I think we should look at it as an opportunity, as a breakthrough diplomatically, because we have simplified who needs to talk to whom at this point. I would hope, and i guess my question is, is there anybody in the state department looking to take an opportunity of the new dynamic of the last 24 hours that, if assad could reassure erdogan he is going to prevent incursions and respect the border with turkey and use a real government with the stability of a real government, is there a possibility erdogan would withdraw under that guarantee . That is a conversation we have prevented from happening because we wouldnt let the kurds talk to assad. There may be a breakthrough here. Your comments. Is hook my understanding that there is a member briefing in the works, trying to be organized that would focus on syria. That is a question best left to my counterpart jim jeffrey, who is lead on syria. Paul do you see why the kurds could remain in syria by some kind of arrangement with the Syrian Government . I will answer your iran question. Iran has a history of coming to the table in the context of sanctions. We saw that in the runup to the Iran Nuclear Deal, also have seen it in various times. Beator paul you have to willing to offer something. If you offer relief of some of the export to asia for oil so you dont have a complete embargo, they would talk in a heartbeat, but that would be offering something. It would have been easier before they attacked saudi arabia, but six months ago had you offered relief of some sanctions in order to get talks started, you might have had a chance. Now, nobody wants to offer relief because of heightened tensions. It is more difficult now to get started. Mr. Hook sanctions relief is not granted in the runup to what became the Iran Nuclear Deal. You had a little more pressure at that time it also had engagement of the Obama Administration actually talking to them, there was more trust than. There is less trust now because we pulled out of something they were adhering to. Clearok we have made it we are open to meeting. Iran has rejected the offer. They rejected the offer while we were in the deal. Iran rejected the offer to meet what we were in the Iran Nuclear Deal, it didnt happen after we left the deal. So they have consistently rejected diplomacy. I think they have a theory that their resistance is greater than our pressure. We are comfortable with the Foreign Policy we have in place because we know the regime has less revenue to spend on its military budget, and we are forcing them to make very hard choices. The 40yeard at history of it. If talking nicely with the iranians worked, we would have solved this a long time ago, but it doesnt. This regime only respect send understands strength. Senator paul they dont consider an embargo of their main export considered being nice to them. Mr. Hook but that oil goes to fund terrorism. So if you let iran sell oil, they use it for terrorist operations. So we dont want iran to sell oil. That is why we put in place the embargo, the sanctions we have on irans oil exports. And that is tens of billions of dollars in revenue they would otherwise spend on hamas, has ah, hutu rebelsl houthi rebels. Mr. Hook we have chairman risch we have some votes going on and will be back. Thank you. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be in recess. [captions Copyright National cable Satellite Corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [gavel striking block] committeeisch the will come to order. Hastor the president deployed Additional Forces to saudi arabia in recent weeks in preparation of a possible conflict of iran. Is congress required to authorize participation in any war with iran . Mr. Hook the departments acting Legal Advisory acting Legal Advisor testified before this committee. I have nothing new to add beyond what he said. Id for to his answers. I defer to him for his answers. But we are not looking for military conflict with iran. The troop enhanced posture with saudi is purely defensive to help saudi arabia defend itself. Im not so sure iran sees it that way when we take sides like we have. How many times have you met with President Trumps personal attorney Rudy Giuliani about any topic of Foreign Policy, and what topics did you discuss . Mr. Hook when i directed the office of legal policy, i am ends with michael mu Casey Michael mukasey, and he asked for a meeting when i was in legal policy, and he brought Rudy Giuliani to the meeting with him. Meetings were regarding a counselor issue. There was no action taken regarding the meeting topic. Senator and that is the only meeting you had with him . Methook general mukasey with ami met with me twice and Rudy Giuliani was at both meetings. Same topic. Senator are you confirming the meeting about the zarab case . Mr. Hook it is a consular issue. We dont discuss consular issues. Senator you are confirming the Washington Post reporting that you met with mr. Giuliani in 2017 when he was representing zareb, a Turkish National convicted of helping turkish figures make large amounts of money evading iranian sanctions. Was it appropriate for mr. Giuliani to press for president ial intervention in an ongoing criminal trial to free and iranian sanction invader to avoid testimony that would implicate powerful figures in turkey . What actions did you take after that meeting in response . Mr. Hook it was a meeting at the request of judge mukasey, and there was no action taken after either meeting. Senator can you confirm you only met with mr. Giuliani twice . Mr. Hook correct. But it was a meeting at the request of judge mukasey, he was attorney general, doj in the bush administration, i served in the justice department. I have known him for a number of years auntie requested the meeting. That is the nature of the meeting, i want to make that clear. Senator you said to meetings meetings, about the same subject as reported by the Washington Post. I stated the basis of it and you confirmed it. Mr. Hook i said it was involving a consular issue. We dont discuss consular issues. I confirmed i met at the request of judge mukasey twice, he requested the meeting to discuss a consular issue. Issuer and the consular concerned the Turkish National . Mr. Hook i dont have any comment about the nature of the meeting. Atator can you not confirm all what the Washington Post reported . Mr. Hook i cant confirm something i havent read. Senator Inspector General and state Department Emails show you have been working to retaliate against state Department Employees whom you do not believe are sufficiently loyal to President Trump. There are reports you wrote yourself and email with a list of individuals you consider insufficiently loyal, or room you listed as troublemakers or turncoats. Furthermore, you have reportedly received communications from private citizens, such as Newt Gingrich and others in the republican party, to justify firing our reassigning career officials. We have a Civil Service system to protect this sort of politicization of our government, especially diplomats. Herbal who was urging you to take action against Career State Department officials . All, ik so first of cant comment on an ig investigation. I look forward to that report. I think what you are quoting from is from something that was leaked, so i dont have any comment on something that was leaked. So we will wait for the report to come out. It is not proper for me to comment on it. But i will say that as director of policy planning, and in my current role as director of the iran action group, i have worked closely and very well with all members of the career Civil Service, the foreign service, political appointees, all manner of scheduled appointments in the federal government, and im very proud of the work we have done together. Supporterbio im a of the administrations policy towards iran. I also believe you are knowledge knowledgeable about the topic and doing a good job, but you have a very tough job. Not expecting to be able you to be able to do that job i say,ne on everything but i do have to challenge that anddecision on the kurds the turkish incursion into syria, iran is carrying out a counter Pressure Campaign that allows them to conduct attacks in the region with enough deniability to avoid international condemnation. It is a capacity they have built partially with funds generated by the disastrous iran deal. The evidence is clear that the threshold they think they can get away with on some of these attacks is greatly influenced by their perception that the administration is looking to get out of the middle east and not engage in some conflict. I do not believe, although i understand the difficulty of the job you have, that it is credible to argue the decision with regards to turkey doesnt fortify that iranian perception. It is difficult to ignore the implications of that decision on our partners in the region, and their views on our security assurances, whether it is israel, jordan, the uae or saudi arabia. Frankly, beyond the middle east, it is not difficult to argue other countries dont see that decision and see themselves there one day in a moment of conflict and crisis. I dont expect you can opine on it, those are my views and i feel strongly and i suspect many others do as well. If there any if there is anything you said that i if there is anything i said you disagree with, i would be happy to listen. The security counsel revised the embargo on conventional weapons in iran on things like large caliber artillery combat aircraft and the like large caliber artillery, combat aircraft and the like. September, an opinion piece in the wall street journal argued the u. S. Should trigger 2231 and the mechanisms there for snapping back u. N. Sanctions against iran in preserving the arms embargo and missile and. The snapback would go into effect unless the Un Security Council adopts a rub is adopts a resolution to the contrary, which would be subject to american veto. The oped said some might argue that since the u. S. Withdrew from the jcpoa, it is no longer a participant and cannot argue this, but it includes the u. S. Without qualification. Do you agree with the assessment that the u. S. Could trigger the snapback mechanism regardless of whether the u. S. Is observing the nonlegally binding deal . I think we need to have lawyers from the nsc and state department and other agencies look at this question. The broad procedure to force snapback is, a member of the deal would go to the Un Security Council, the Council President would table a resolution introduced by the member, and the member that introduced it would then veto his own resolution and that would then end the Iran Nuclear Deal. The question you raised is who has standing to initiate that sequence of events that leads to the Iran Nuclear Deal and the snapback of the u. N. Sanctions. You haveis, since asked, and i have talked to staff on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, this is a question you would like to have answered and i will take it back and work with the interagency to come up with an answer. Rubio in july i raised the problem of chinese individuals and entities helping the Iranian Regime export oil in violation of the sanctions. Thes pleased to see secretary of state announced sanctions against the chinese firm for purchasing oil from iran contrary to u. S. Sections. Without getting ahead of ourselves and alerting people, are there other such actors out there available for us to go after . Is there more to do in this space with regards to entities, chinese or otherwise . For raisingank you what we have done to enforce sanctions, especially oil sanctions, because that is the chief source of irans export revenue. We have now sanctioned chinese inpany a Chinese Company july, and in midseptember we sanctioned six chinese entities that were importing iranian crude oil. All the oil waivers ended six months after we left the deal, so we have said we will sanction any sanctionable activity. We also sanctioned five chinese , icutives in these firms have met with the chinese to talk about this. Historicallya is irans biggest importer, so it is important that its largest importer not import crude oil. The argument i made to the chinese is that, you would like to see greater space Greater Peace and stability in the middle east, and for as long as iran is able to sell oil came a they are going to cell oil ll oil, they are going to use that oil to fund unrest. Oil is not an exotic grade. We have a well supplied market. There has been no disruption of Chinese Energy needs during this period, so there is no need for them to be importing iranian crude oil. Senator murphy mr. Hook, the reason senator udall is asking about Rudy Giulianis request on behalf of the turkish businessman, it is twofold. Number one, we are very concerned there is a shadow Foreign Policy operation that exists, being conducted by the president s personal lawyer, a representative of his political interests. We know that because we have transcripts of phone calls in which the president tells foreign leaders not to call your boss, secretary of palm secretary pompeo, but to call Rudy Giuliani. But we are concerned about this case because it seems as if it is evidence that the president s personal lawyer, his shadow secretary of state, is working to undermine american sanctions against iran, the very sanctions you testify to us are crippling their economy. Udallssk senator question in a different way. Have you spoken to Rudy Giuliani about u. S. Sanctions policy zarab. His client, reza mr. Hook the meeting was a couple of years ago. I was listening. As i said, judge mukasey organize the meeting, i listened and there was no action taken. Murphy but you did have a meeting with Rudy Giuliani regarding a client to wanted to get out of sanctions . Mr. Hook i had a meeting with judge mukasey, he raised a consular issue with me and there was no action taken. Senator murphy there is a report from three people familiar with a meeting with President Trump and secretary tillerson, who you were working for as perhaps his closest advisor, and which President Trump asked for secretary tillersons help in working to drop the case against zarab. Are you familiar with the meeting . Mr. Hook i was not familiar with the meeting. Chairman, ity mr. Is important to set the record straight with respect to some things mr. Hook has said about our policy visavis iran and its connection to developments in syria. I appreciate that you have a tough job and i dont imagine you would have given counsel to the president to abandon our kurdish partners in syria, but it is simply not credible to say that we didnt have a counter iran element to our syria strategy. Multiple individuals testified to that before this committee and would still testify to that. It is not credible to say abandoning the kurds doesnt irane the efficacy of our strategy. Iran absolutely benefits, unequivocally, from a new alignment inside syria, in which the kurds are forced to align themselves with bashir al assad. And it is not credible and doesnt pass the straight face test to try to convince us that europe is helping us with a maximum Pressure Campaign on iran. To the extent i have a question on these topics, i will give you one to try to clarify the record. You have this list of actions that europe as taken, but lets be honest. Europe is attempting to work around our sanctions. Europe is trying to create financial vehicles so there businesses can continue to trade with iran. They are talking about an of credit to prop up the iranian economy. They are talking about a new the of credit to prop up iranian economy. It doesnt pass the laugh test to say the europeans are working with us. I your billing trying are you really trying to convince us the europeans are assisting in our maximum Pressure Campaign, when we know they are actively engaged in trying to help their businesses work around u. S. Sanctions . Mr. Hook so you said europe is working around our sanctions. To be more precise, europe, European Companies is what we are talking about. European companies have made a clear choice to choose the United States market over the iranian market. The eu does more trade with kazakhstan than with iran. It is not even in the top 30 of trading partners. So we have seen nothing but full compliance by European Companies on our sanctions regime. European governments are frustrated iran has lost some of the benefits under the Iran Nuclear Deal with our departure, but that is a secondary consequence. As it pertains to European Countries European Companies, there is no daylight. There is more daylight between European Companies and european governments then with the u. S. Anator murphy you sent us list of action that European Companies have been taking. Its a stretch to say you have had success convincing nations in europe to join the Pressure Campaign. The Pressure Campaign is unilateral, not as effective as it could be if you were successful. Mr. Hook our unilateral sanctions have been much more effective than multilateral sanctions that were in effect before the deal. Indisputable. Andwhen you say it is true, maybe this is a matter of just making distinctions, there is our Pressure Campaign and then there is europe working to confront and address iranian threats to peace and security. And sometimes those overlap, and sometimes they separate, but when i look at this list of european actions, it is dozens of actions, everything from statements, austria, belgium, france and germany exposed in annian plot to bomb opposition politician and arrested several iranians. The netherlands arrested several iranian diplomats in connection with an assassination. The French Foreign minister condemned iran. Serbia wrote revoked visa free travel for iranian citizens. I would welcome you reading this. Europe has done a lot in the time that we have left the deal, to try to raise the cost of iranian aggression. They have not joined our maximum Pressure Campaign, but have adopted our position that we need a new deal. Boris johnson said the Iran Nuclear Deal was a bad deal. Senator murphy the proof is in the pudding. Iran is not at the negotiating table. You have a year left on your term. Their level of activity in the region is worse than ever before. If you had evidence all these actions were bringing them to the table, we might be having a different conversation, but there is no evidence this has gotten us to appoint where you can effectuate a negotiated settlement, and you only have 12 months on the term. We are not going to get the agreement you have sought with the time we have left. Chairman risch im not complaining about the time because this is an important discussion. Im listening and im hoping we are not talking past each other. Europeans, wethe know what their view is on this. They are despond didnt over the fact we walked away from the jcpoa, but on a transactional basis they have certainly done some things to help us move the ball forward. They have also done some things to get around us by establishing credit and what have you, but the debate should be, and apparently we disagree, that the sanctions that have been put in place indeed are causing great difficulty within iran. Has it gotten them to the table . No. Are there indications of them coming to the table . No. Where do you suggest we go . Back to the jcpoa . Do we beg them to come to the table . Im not trying to rankle anybody, i think we need to pull together as far as iran is concerned. I just hope we are not talking past each other on this. Senator murphy there is evidence today that you are crippling the economy. That is supposed to be leverage to get them to the table to negotiate a deal that was better than the jcpoa. Many of us would argue you are never going to get them to agree to something that is better than the jcpoa, but you cant even get them to the table because they see europe as a lifeline, the ability to work around our sanctions through lines of credit and financial vehicles from europe. I just dont think we should let the administration get away with telling is europe is our partner in trying to get iran to the negotiating table. They are not. They are trunk to work around the sanctions the Trump Administration has enacted. Trying to work around the sanctions the Trump Administration has enacted. That is the primary reason this strategy hasnt worked for three years and is not going to work. That is a fair opinion. I would disagree, but the point about sitting it out until trumps term is over it may be good, but they have a tough year ahead of them. They have 14 months ahead of them of some pretty dark times, if you accept what is happening particularly iran, with the depreciation of their currency and that sort of thing. That is a fair opinion you have, we just have a fair disagreement. With that, we have to go vote, so we will do that and come back. We are anxious to hear from senator markey and senator cruz, our last questioners. If we can have a short break, go vote, and we will all come back. Fair enough. [gavel striking block] ]gavel striking block chairman risch the meeting will come to order. Senator king. King i dont like being lied to. You said something twice that has been said to this committee before that is completely wrong, and that is that the jcpoa, the iran deal, one of the reasons it was bad is that it expires. I think you know that is false. There are provisions in the agreement that expire, that is correct. The agreement has a set of provisions with centrifuges and you are right, some of the or 30, butexpire, 25 to say to the American Public that the deal is bad because it expires is wrong. The first paragraph of the deal, preface. It is not the first sentence, it is the first paragraph of the deal. Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will iran ever seek to develop or acquire any Nuclear Weapons. That is permanent. Ever. Under no circumstances. Any. That is a permanent provision that they assigned to that they signed to that never expires, unless the United States tries to blow up the deal. Second page of the deal, preamble, i guess they felt that was important enough they wanted to repeat it twice. Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will iran ever seek, develop or acquire any Nuclear Weapons. And that is not the only permanent part of the deal. While there are some provisions that expire, and everybody can feel free to like or not like those provisions, there is a provision that i believe that i believe at year 30, extra examination of their s expire, but by year 30 iran agrees to permanently abide by the protocol set up. Exceptnt dwell on it, other administration witnesses have looked us in the eye and said the same thing. I get it that you guys want to say the deal was bad, but by lying about it and suggesting the deal was bad because it expires, you tremendously weaken your credibility. I believe the administration backing out of the jcpoa was incredibly foolish. Who cares what i think. Im a democrat. I dont think the administration cares one whit what i think. How about secretary mattis . How about secretary tillerson . How about the chair of the joint chiefs of staff, jodi for . Joe dunford . , they said that the deal was in the United States interest. Forget about them, maybe they dont know anything. Our european allies expected us to stay in the deal. Who cares about european allies . The International Atomic energy said Atomic Energy agency said iran was abiding by the deal. So this is a deal that had some provisions that did expire, but it was a permanent deal where iran suggested they would never seek, purchase, acquire, develop Nuclear Weapons. That promise was enforceable by sanctions. That promise could potentially have given legal justification for military action against iran if they violated their provision. The Additional Protocol that was permanent gives the u. S. Not only intelligence, but intelligence plus inspection data if we ever needed to take military action, we could target it in a more sophisticated way. And i see the administration telling the American Public that the deal expires, it infuriates me. The administration should have stayed in the jcpoa, and then done exactly what you are trying to do, sanction iran for all the other bad activity you have testified to today, and many of us on both sides supported iran for missiles, human rights violations, aggression in the region. We should have capped the permanent promise in our pocket werked capped ept thehave k permanent process in our pocket and worked with our allies. The withdrawal has made the region less safe and made it much more difficult for you to do what you want to do, which is getting other deal, which is get another deal. Why would the country do another deal with us . They would think we would back out of it. Backing out of the deal has made it much harder to get a deal with north korea. When north korea sees the u. S. Backing out of a deal that the iaea says iran was complying with, it makes it much more difficult for them to get on board. That is why i was agitated. You can be against the deal, against the expiration of provisions of the deal, but to tell the American Public the deal was bad because it expires, it is alive. Would you like to respond . Im sure senator kaine will give you the rest of his time. Mr. Hook it is the case the deal will expire. It is not a material distinction to say that after all the substance of the deal expires, that the deal doesnt expire because iran makes a commitment to never get a Nuclear Weapon. That is a misreading, and a misleading account of the Iran Nuclear Deal. Kane d think i just misquoted what i read . Do you think i just misquoted what i read . You said you think it is a misreading. Did i incorrectly state those provisions . Said that because iran reaffirms that under no circumstances iran will develop or acquire any Nuclear Weapons, that that means this deal never expires. The provisions of the deal expire. Senator kane that is a provision of the deal. It is in the preamble. Mr. Hook but it is a preamble, not an ocular not an operative paragraph. It is oratorical. In 2031 the restrictions are lifted and the nuclear deal. Senator kane except for the agreement to follow the protocol into perpetuity . Mr. Hook what were they doing with that atomic archive in the heart of lebanon israel had to liberate . I did not misrepresent it. I stated clearly the iran deal will expire. Kane senator kaine the wording stands as it is. Im willing to let people look at the first paragraph of the deal in the preamble and compare it to this witnesss statement. Chairman risch thats fair. The language of the agreement cannot be argued with. The opinion as to whether that is an expiring provision is subject to debate. Some of us feel one way, some feel another, that is a fair statement. I hope that that and i understand how it agitates anybody if you come and tell somebody facts are different what they are, but there is a lot more important issues here over whether that provision was expired. We can go forward with what we have to do about the situation we have in front of us, without agreeing on whether a provision or an agreement that is no longer in effect had a provision that said this or that. Frustration as you do when people try to tell me something that i believe differently. Event,in but in any it would be productive if we go forward with other parts. And nobody can argue with you that the language in the agreement isnt what it is. . Enator cruz my frienduz i know from virginia is speaking in good faith when he talks about this deal, but the Iran Nuclear Deal was flawed in every respect. The threat of a nuclear iran is the greatest Security Threat facing the United States, and the obama Iran Nuclear Deal was the most catastrophic agreement since Neville Chamberlain led the u. K. It was flawed on multiple fronts. To the 150 billion worlds leading state sponsor of terrorism. It did so while the ayatollah was chanting, death to america and death to israel, literally, as we negotiated the deal. The ayatollah would lead mobs chanting, death to america. History teaches us, when somebody tells you they want to kill you, you should believe them. The deal would have led to a nuclear iran. It was designed to be unenforceable. On the face of the deal, numerous sites redeemed exempt naturally where the iranian engage in d Additional Nuclear research. Advancerequired 21 days notice to the regime before any nspection, a provision certain to encourage cheating. And, indeed, in some agreement es, the provided that iran would inspect provision so laughable, the only consequence of the deal is that iran would weapons. Nuclear e now know thanks to israels heroic work, seizing iranian ecords, that iran has cheated from day one and continues to cheat, and the only question is, iran better off with 150 without 150 billion . And i believe pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Deal is the single most important decision that the administration has made and the maximum Pressure Campaign is exactly the right approach. Iran remains profoundly dangerous but i would much weakened iran with billions of dollars of less resources to use to pay to kill americans and o fund nuclear research, than an iran flush with cash racing to catch up with north korea and weapons and icbms to threaten the lives of of americans. Talked about you major provisions of the iran provisions g, major such as the arms embargo and the expiring and ban i agree that thats highly troubling. Obvious remedy to that, which is under the terms resolution 2231. You have the snap back sanctions, and we now have a situation where irans conduct worse. Tten even even our european allies that acknowledge committed a serious of war in bombing saudi arabia and taking out about half of their Oil Production capability. Of war merits a real response. Two questions. Does state believe the united trigger the e to snap back mechanism . Nd number two, should we trigger the snap back mechanism . And senator, thank you for question. I read your letter from july 2. Believe secretary pompeo raises this question, and its rubio ng which senator and i discussed earlier, about whether we an and tould reimpose, use the 2231 trigger the snap back of the sanctions. Our e raised this with Legal Advisers office. I know its been in discussion nfc legal adviser. Ts a procedural question, an interpretation of 2231, that turns around what the definition of what some of the various terms are, like participant and other things. Very k yours is a plausible reading. Hat weve done since leaving the deal is allow other countries to decide whether to stay in the deal. Obviously, i think even as the French Foreign minister said the attacks on a seminole , its event, a game changer, i cant remember exactly how he its something we should take another look at nd i appreciate you raising it to our attention. Senator cruz i would certainly encourage you on my reading that we have full authority to vote for the snap back sanctions and recent arly given this attack against saudi arabia we should invoke the snap back sanctions. I think thats a natural response. Second question, you and i have conversations about the city civilian nuclear waivers. S you know, another round of waivers is coming up in the next couple of weeks. Now ve waivers right allowing them to continue construction at the underground bunk, thats built into the side of a mountain to build Nuclear Weapons. We also have a waiver allowing to continue working on the iraq plutonium producing secretary pompeo has rightly said needs to be down anyway. These t time to end waivers and shut down the Nuclear Bunker and the iraq producing facility . You are correct, that the urrent there are five restrictions that are currently in place. Ecretary pompeo extended those restrictions on june 30. Youre correct. Hose will expire very soon on october 29. What we have done is, we have, a couple of se of years now tightened the restrictions on irans Nuclear Program. Did sanction the Atomic Energy organization of iran in november 2018. Of this year, we imposed new sanctions on nuclear linked to who were irans wmd proliferation activities. Secretary pompeo on july 30 restrictionse five around iraq, the teheran esearch reactor, and so hell have a decision to make coming up. Thought leader on this subject, and well make thats all before the secretary before he makes this decision. That ould strongly urge you not extend the waivers articularly given irans spectacular ular bad conduct. You, senator cruz. Markey. Pompeii 3, secretary poe said before the Trump Administration came into office, hey violated the new deal and continued to work on their nuclear pompeo. R. Hook in your opinion was iran working on a Nuclear Weapons program during a period compliance with the jcpoa . Was is the case that iran hiding under armed guard in a of house in the heart materials. Lf a ton of was it out of compliance with jcpoa, in your opinion . Ani think if iran is housing atomic archive and keeping it rom the International Atomic energy association, that they are not in compliance. Disagree with secretary mattis, secretary the rson and general, generals and the joint chiefs of not out of hey were compliance with the jcpoa . In this case, n under, i think a statute passed by congress, the president had o certify on a fairly regular basis whether iran was or wasnt in compliance of the deal. Atomic overy of the rchive happened just a couple of months before the president left the deal. I think that was a factor. Secretary gree with tillerson and secretary mattis . Believe they were out of compliance is that what youre saying . No, i would have to look at both secretary tillerson and secretary mattis said that, so that is relevant because the atomic archive was discovered on the the jcpoa nspectors have not found that iran is out of complains and efinitely was not out of complains before Donald Trump Took Office . That hink in the reports the jcpoa they dont certify that iran is in compliance. Thats something which the Member States do. But i think that the iran deal sets such a low bar for compliance. From whether rate or not they are in compliance. Is secretary pompeo correct that they were not in compliance . I would have to see exactly hat he said and when he said it. Let me just say this. Secretary pompeos suggestions the consequences because crown prince of saudi arabia stated in march of 2018 that doubt, if iran developed a nuclear bomb well follow suit. That gets into the question of 123 agreement with saudi united in terms of the states agreeing that saudi arabia would not have to, in with the Gold Standard for securing iranian territory. N saudi so that would just call into question whether or not, that saudis, would, in fact, act in a way that would be reacting an iran active Nuclear Weapons program. That . Uld i speak to from my perspective, the goal be that the trump dministration is not saying that there is an active program, thats been certified by the iaea. Not the case, it triggers a reaction in saudi rabia thats very, very dangerous. I want to read you one other that is the issue, not whether or not we might iffer on the Iranian Nuclear deal, but we know that turkey iran sanctions across administrations. Do you agree with that . Iran an only speak to the file. Turkey has been in compliance with the iran sanctions. Think they are in compliance in . Terms of the key factor on importing is not iranian crude oil. You dont think turkey has been out of compliance which is understand. Or me to the problem is right now, is endangering u. S. Troops after another rash President Trump, but thats happening near the syrian reportedly we tore 50 u. S. Weapons at the air base inside of turkey. So the question then is, will we country remove those turkey . Weapons from they are right now endangering assets inside of syria. Border. E at the we have Nuclear Weapons, 50 Nuclear Weapons on has ir base and earther become a less and less reliable partner. He said hes competent that the secure because they are at a large, powerful air its inside of turkey with erdogan right now American Security in a way thats almost impossible to fully understand the agnitude right now, ripple effect, the law of consequences has just been happening and appening and happening and turkey has actually previously estricted our access to that base during a crisis. Instead y perspective, our responsibly pulling troops back from the turkish border, President Trump should e pulling our Nuclear Weapons out of turkey instead. Thats the right kind of signal send. Thats an accurate reflection of reliability of the Erdogan Administration in terms of security. This whole dynamic in the Trump Administration has tremendous effects, pulling out of the iranian deal. With the saudi n terms of a 123 agreement thats less than a Gold Standard. The saudis say they are going to pursue Nuclear Weapons, effect, tes a ripple and then turning a blind eye to turkish aggressive military action along our border that bankgers our interest, and potentially, if hings really go awry, could potentially endanger the weapons of the nuclear usa. De turkey made in the all of this points, from my Nuclear Weapons of the United States in turkey is a relic of the cold war. They are not necessary. Not be there. And its highly unclear that the to be ould ever allow us using those weapons in a etaliatory strike against russia with whom at least ostensibly right now they are this effort in syria. Its a crazy policy. Weve got to get those nukes out of turkey and do so immediately. Thank you. Do you want to comment . I just say on the first of the question about weve had many conversations about for oliferation, advocate nonper liver ration. Prior to the Iranian Nuclear eal the u. N. Security Council Passed resolution 1737 and under chapter 7 article 39 it iran from enriching. Way, that is the standard. Nd i know you like the 123 agreement that was negotiate in thebush administration with uae that. Agreement allows them to have a peaceful Nuclear Program but cant enrich. Unfortunately the iranian uclear deal lifted the prohibition in 1737 and then that ininc oint iran can enrich. Once you do that, you cant sign 123 y up for a agreement. Youve already breached it and to the 123 e agreement because we had no iranian deal the has caused all these countries to ask themselves, why cant i enrich . To restore, so if you look at secretary the verylist of 12, at top is to restore the standard of no enrichment and thats the that. Hing we can be doing standard was voted unanimously all ina, russia, the p3, 10 elected members of the council repeatedly. It was the mr. Chairman, i have been patiently waiting, and could you please put this in writing and ill say, a bad deal with iran should not be the justification for a bad deal saudi arabians. We should not create that as a precedent that allows for a bad with russia. Lets turn to senator graham. Assad a friend of the United States . No. Do you consider him a war criminal . Yes. Okay. Aligned with is he iran . Iran has been supporting ad without iran helping assad he would not be around because to his aid when no one else would. Would you agree with that . Yes. Russia and iran keep functioning. Youre a good man, a good choice for this, so my questions are really not about you and your policies, its about this president s policies. Could not agree more with markey. When the president said today of turkey, nvasion turkeys invasion of syria is us. Lly of no consequence to do you know we sanctioned turkey hook . Ats true, mr. The president did threaten sanctions on friday and imposed some of them on monday. And i cheered them on. Dont know how in the world pompeo and pence bring an end to the bloodshed if syria wants thats up r the land to turkey and syria. I view the situation on the border with syrian to be or the United States strategically brilliant. I dont see anything brilliant about this. Are u believe the kurds safer today than they were before turkeys invasion . Thats a question for ambassador jeffrey. I understand im the special representative for iran. Enough. I can answer the iran questions on syria. Okay. Do you see iran moving in to the oil fields in syria if we withdraw all of our forces . I have not seen any intelligence on that yet but that doesnt do you think that would be a move for iran if america abandoned syria . Irans interest in syria are mostly around supporting assad creating the oil fields are there for the taking and we leave, whats that iran will go in and would it matter . Something which im at liberty to speculate on. Ill speculate. Borders assing at the as i speak. If we withdraw all of our forces iran andon the oil fields will sure go in and seize the oil fields. It will undercut the maximum ressure campaign and our friends in israel will be in a world of hurt. Do you agree with this. Iran gets stronger, then syria is to the detriment of israel . Yes. Do you agree it is in our National Security interest to partnership have a in syria that will contain ambitions . Yes, thats our strategy, to reverse irans power projection revenues. Y them the do you agree with me that if it willes roaring back, be very difficult to contain time rds will have a hard fighting turkey and taking care prisoners . S thats a bad spot for the kurds do be in, do you agree . In terms of the position the are in its a question for jim jeffrey. Who would be the biggest a breakdown in syria . Would bit the iranians . Created by a vacuum the american withdrawal do you see iran as a potential big winner . I think we need to this is obviously a very fluid situation. Anything done in syria to be to the detriment of policy. Iran policy is to contain ran, reduce their ability to project power, and create [inaudible] didnt hear the last part . Create upheels. Yes, were trying to minimize to do that. Ty do you agree if they seize the oil fields in syria they stronger and have more resources, not less . I dont know the odds of iran taking the oil fields but i can say what weve tried to do is that iran simple question. If they did seize the oil fields in syria, would it help their in terms of their capability . To get more e able revenue its always a bad thing. All i can say its not a hard question. Answer is yes. My view is that the biggest by the f this decision president , if he follows through with it to abandon syria, will iran, isis, and the biggest our s are going to be kurdish ally who is fought bravely with us, ow friends in do you see turkeys actions going into syria as policies toward iran . Diplomacy, i would say our troops in the northeast are there to ensure the enduring of isis. Our diplomats working on syria are there to talk about the troops are there to ensure the by ring defeat of isis partnering with the kurds, is that correct . Syrian Democratic Forces . Isis mission and how its accomplished but we arent there in large numbers. Were there in hundreds. Its the thousands of kurdish fighters and arab fighters and syrian Democratic Forces that we rely upon, do you agree with that . Think, s a question, i for the person i am the u. S. Represent never mind. This. Nd i asked you a very simple question. Does erdogans invasion of syria, putting our kurdish at risk, driving President Trump out of syria in our military presence, do you think over time that will benefit of iran . I believe the strategy that eve put in place will accomplice our objectives to deny iran does your strategy include erdogan to slaughter the kurds . Our ats not part of strategy. Does your strategy include leaving the oil fields in syria iran . E taking by ive not heard any enable iran to take oil fields in syria. You very much. Senator menendez. Disassociate myself with senator grahams line of questioning. Ts a very legitimate line of questioning and its a very serious one. Mr. Hook, you referenced the e. U. Actions, some of which you read, are nowhere in line with the sanctions that we have iran. Against thats a fair statement, right . True because the e. U. Im sorry. Unfortunately, and this is one of the weaknesses of deal, is that the European Union, i think youre ook, im sorry, an excellent lawyer and youve developed the expertise of the state department to go on and on being specific to an answer to a question. I have a very simple question. The e. U. Sanctions line up with our sanctions against iran . Or no . Yes. They have all the sanctions we have i didnt they are not as strong as the United States sanctions. Our efore heralded that sanctions were more powerful and more consequential than when we e. U. With us, the e. U. Sanctions are not the same as ours. But they are, i think, cement tri because i didnt ask you if they are complementary. Asked you if they are the same as ours. Whats so difficult about that answer . Said they are the same. I never you can read the transcript. There are a series of e. U. Sanctions, e. U. Sanctions and have that i said european. Let me finish. I didnt say e. U. I get to ask questions, you them. O answer ill be happy to. The e. U. s actions do not equate to the sanctions that the United States has led against statement, s a fair is it not . Can you repeat it so i understand it precisely. Actions do not equate to the sanctions that againsttates has levied iran, is that fair . They dont equate and i never that. Fine. Now, you also said that iran has of coming to the table because of sanctions. Most of author of those sanctions. He reality is, however, those sanctions were multilateralized and e European Union others, and therefore, the magnitude of the consequence was greater. That brought them to the table. Unilaterally ions have not brought them to the table. You talked about having syria to leverage in deal and thwart iran from where we want them. The president just made a statement that russias the u. S. Departs is fine, and all their fighting is a lot of sand. Well, when you have 14 to 18,000 isis fighters, when you have another 10,000 that were by the kurds that may be released, several hundred have already been released and regrouped with them, thats about more than a lot of sand. When you create a land bridge iran to come into syria and attack our allies in the state thats about a lot more than sand. Leverage know what youre referring to that we have in syria, because we have syria to russia. And talking about reconstruction as our leverage, not only is it years away, but im sure the void l fill economically with syria when and if that time ever comes, because stake inady have a big it. I. E. , russia, just to mention a few. Really have any leverage in syria. That which we have we just expended. So my question is, at what continues to enrich and do all the things that you admitted they were doing, as a result of them feeling like we walked away and they have no obligation anymore, to do that, at what point will the size and nuclearcation of irans Program Force the administration to consider whether military necessary to restrain irans Nuclear Program . Is think that question probably best left to a classified briefing. Well, without getting into to specifics, have you come such a determination . A determination of what . Is the size and sophistication of Irans Nuclear rogram that would force the administration to consider military action . We have without getting into what it a have you come to conclusion . In an unclassified setting i discussion. Hat its a simple answer that has nothing to do with classification. It does because youve asked iran to a Nuclear Weapon and youve also asked matter of public information. I dont need you to testify to that. Or to speak to it. That. T asking you about im asking you, have you come to iran lusion that if reaches x dimension and x that will cause necessity for military action havent worked . Were always prepared for a military thats not the answer. Full enforce. The of sanctions on iran is incredibly important, right . Correct, yes. And our sanctions regime it weaker when people figure out how to evade them to the benefit of iran, is that not a fair statement . Correct. Do you believe those that to evade the u. S. Sanctions should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law . Policy, yes, well sanction any unsanctionable behavior. In the case of who ran the biggest sanctions invasion in recent history in which turkish gold was traded for iranian oil, you paid off government officials as well as firms at the to the transactions, erdogan, who was the prime inister at the time reportedly knew about the scheme. So he was arrested march 2016 by and then hired Rudy Giuliani and former attorney general to represent him. Here that ed general asked you to come, to come see you. Hen he asked to come see you did you know that Rudy Giuliani would accompany him . I dont recall if that was mentioned. Know that he was there. He was there. Up. Just showed he came the second time, did you know he was going to accompany mr. I may or may not have. Im not sure how i just the request of the general to do a meeting and i did the meeting and then no action was taken. Price must have been right because both were willing to put their reputations on the line to represent someone who so hard to undermine u. S. Security interests. Are you familiar with the report Washington Post had hat both mr. Giuliani and directly appealed to the president to exchange for i am policeened americans in the of 2017 in an Oval Office Meeting that then included tillerson . I havent read the post story and im not aware of the meeting. Tillerson never spoke to you about that effort . No. The october 10th report also says, as youve stated before, addition iuliani, in to mr. Mocasey met with you to state the case at the department is that true . There were two meetings Early Administration and it was about zerob. Said t first of all, a counselor visas, its about whether or not a visa has been visit for work, for investor permits, thats a counselor issue. Trying to hide behind the term counselor issue when this who meeting about someone was imprisoned, seeking to evade on iran through turkey. Issue. Not a counselor it was presented as a counselor issue. Counselor issue. But it was presented as a counselor issue. Cat thatd call a dog a doesnt mean that its a cat, right . Anything. L it try to avoid but that doesnt mean thats what it is. The meet being concern a counselor proposal, and it was not acted upon. Knows me ybody who knows that i vigorously enforce all sanctions against iran. Have the hen we highest office in the land empowering people to seek to deal when you have the biggest violator of u. S. Iran, its hard to believe that we have a universal that our iran sanctions will be vigorously and preserved. It breaks credibility at the end of the day. It does. T see how weve had in place, there is no administration in history that sanctions on re iran than this administration. There is no historic precedent of our ter enforcement sanctions, and there was nothing that impacted our sanctions at of those onsequence two meetings. Biggest rob was the violator of u. S. Iran sanctions, individual, is that not true . In the Prior Administration, jail. And hes in the bottom line the bottom line is it wasnt the Prior Administration who was letting deal tonts go to make a let him loose. Come on. Come on, stop with that prior stuff. Stration but this is a question this is a question that you not the Prior Administration. And took no action. So were in full agreement on this, that we need to vigorously enforce our sanctions and we have. Thank you very much, thelemen that will conclude hearing, and a sincere thank you to you, mr. Hook. Said at the beginning of the hearing that you were the right man for the job and certainly that to be the case. I thank you for your service to country. I think youve been an excellent witness as far as describing how attempting to handle a ery difficult situation, and i want you to know that the appreciation of the American People is there for you. Thank you so much for the information. The record will remain open on l the close of business friday and we would ask, if you et questions, to respond as promptly as possible, and those responses will be included in the record. Committee adjourned. [captions Copyright National cable Satellite Corp 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] washington journal, every day has news and policy issues that impact you. Thursday morning, former u. S. Senators, connecticut democrat chris dodd Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum discuss their work on he Bipartisan Policy Centers task force on paid family leave. And a look at the battleground races to and senate watch, and Third Quarter fundraising reports, with roll call. Watch cspans washington eastern ife at 7 00 morning. Join the discussion. Heres a look at our life coverage on thursday. On cspan the house is back at 10 00 a. M. For general speeches legislative business at noon. On the agenda a bill requiring on the conduct testing effectiveness of proposed sec Disclosure Rules concerning investments. Then in the evening, President Trump holds a rally in dallas. 2020 reelection campaign. On cspan 2 the senate is back a. M. And will vote to veto, de the president s declaring his National Emergency declaration at the border, and from onsider a resolution the democrats that will reverse the Trumps Administration rule emissions standard for power plants and in the morning on cspan 3 the house dministration subcommittee on elections hold a hearing on voting rights. Way at 10 00 r a. M. Eastern. Thinking about participating in cspans student camp 2020 competition but youve never film before . Ntary no problem. We have resources on our web site to help you get started. Our Getting Started and downloads pages on studentcam. Org. For producing information and video links to footage in the library, teachlers also teacher urces on the it rials page to introduce to students. Find a topic youre truly passionate about and pursue it can. Uch as you were asking middle and High School Students to credit a Short Documentary on the issue that you would like the to idential candidates address during the 2020 campaign. Cspan will award a hundred dollars in total cash grand plus a 5,000 prize. Get a camera, microphone and produce the and best video that you can possibly produce. Visit studentcam. Org for more information today. Congressional leaders were at the white House Wednesday for a the ng on syria, following recent withdrawal of u. S. Troops in the region. Same eting took place on day that the house passed a bipartisan resolution opposing the decision by the administration. Leaders left the meeting sooner than expected and poke to reporters about their interactions with the president