Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics Public Policy Today 20240622

That they developed more easily to their allies but they will be able to import from russia and china the technology they need for icbms or surface to air weapons and so forth. Ambassador burns. There is no question the iranians were trying to split the p5 in the last week of the negotiations with this proposal. Point one. There is no way we could have accepted this, so i was trying to dive through the details coming over here, if we can maintain the u. N. Weapons and embargoes for five to eight years, thats good for the United States. Hold on, five to eight years they in ten years they are going to have the capability for undetectable breakout, ten years plus under this agreement. Why would we want to agree to five years lifting and eight years for the russian transference of that capability . Why would the United States sign off on such an agreement ambassador . I am not here of course to represent the administration i am just a private citizen. This is a painful tradeoff and i would have hoped we could have defeated it completely and its a tradeoff our negotiators felt they had to make. How would it work once the emborrows are lifted, we will have to use the power of the United States to work on countries to prevent the sale to iran, because iran has been selling and giving arms to insurgent groups throughout the middle east. Let me just ask general hayden. Very briefly, i find it incoherent, and we have an awful lot of complaints about broad iranian behavior and thats the arms embargo. There are lots of ways of stopping a Nuclear Program. We dismissed the Ballistic Missile part and focused on the nuclear so to get iran to this agreement we have taken a whole bunch of things off the table that we could have included, now we get to the agreement and the iranians are now walking back up that ladder and now including as concessions to them things that they have refused to discuss with us when we went into the negotiations. I dont understand why the Ballistic Missile sanctions or conventional weapon sanctions are even in an agreement on the Nuclear Program. General, as i mentioned in my Opening Statement here, the administration was once on the same page as congress on this issue of anywhere anytime inspections, but the iranians pushed back very hard, and they boasted they will not even be permitted to inspect the most normal military site in their dreams, so now were signing up for something called managed access and a report overnight says that inspectors will get access to critical sites only after consultation with the iranians with the russians and with china and other world powers in this negotiation. We wanted to get this within 24 hours. That was the original idea. Inspectors could get in within 24 hours. This agreement, if we are lucky would get inspectors access within 24 days after all of the steps iran insisted on and thats only predicated if we have cooperation with russia and china in backing the access so my question here as you said in your testimony we never believed that the iranians that that work would be done somewhere else in secret, as you said, so how confident are you in any sort of managed access process that includes iran on the committee that determines whether or not we have access . Mr. Chairman, i have several issues, and i already mentioned one about the conventional arms and snapback sanctions, not sure how that happens, and we eliminated the margin for error, and so a couple very core points. Number one, i would never come to you and tell you that American National technical means will be sufficient for verifying this agreement. Without an invasive inspection regime, i would not tell you its okay, well know enough to give you sufficient warning. So that really puts the weight of effort on the iaeas ability to go anywhere anytime. We have taken that from the technical level that this International Body has an issue that it just needs to resolve. We have taken it and put it at the political level and thats a formula for chaos, and doubt, ambiguity and doubt, and finally we are not going to be able to tell you for sure where the iranians are. Thank you. Your final comment, mr. Lieberman. Thank you, this highlights the greatest specific weakness of the deal announced today. We are dealing with a country that has proven over and over again that they will not play by International Rules and they constantly deceived and delayed inspectors from the United Nations, not from the United States so now were taking a risk of making this trade where we end sanctions on them in return for essentially temporarily freezing their Nuclear Program, if they for the first time in the last three decades do honestly what they say they will do, and the one guarantee or hope that we could have that they would do it was the anytime anywhere airtight inspections and the agreement that came out today is the greatest disappointment in this regard, because it is i mean, basically it sets a highly bureaucratic process that goes at least 21 days during which iran can remove anything covert and in violation of the agreement that they want to so i think this is the point that i urge members of this committee and members of congress, focus in on the section of this agreement on access this is one that iran won hands down, and the consequences for this overall agreement are really devastating. Thank you, senator. Mr. Ted deutsch of florida. Thank you, mr. Chairman. First, i want to thank the witnesses for a really thoughtful presentation and i think that the establishment of a really important tone for what i hope will be a very meaningful and serious discussion over the coming weeks and months about this crucial vote. I raised earlier my concern about access, mr. Chairman, and i appreciate the exchange that just took place, but ambassador burns, i would like to ask you, you walked through i think you gave an excellent presentation on what our negotiators were able to accomplish and the tradeoffs they were able to make, and the skepticism that you have about some of what is in this agreement. I want to focus on one in particular, the goal in all of this, the goal of diplomacy is to reach in reaching a diplomatic solution is to reach a peaceful solution to avoid military force and what i am trying to grabble with in the details of the agreement is what that looks like over time. Initially you said its really important that at the same time we move forward with this nuclear deal that we push back against iranians in the middle east and you detailed the many ways in which they have looked to exert their influence throughout the region, the president of their terrorists infrastructure and i would ask, getting back to the issue of resources, when they satisfy the terms of their nuclearrelated conditions and have access to their frozen assets, whether its a billion or 50 billion if we acknowledge this as the doctor did they will invest in their economy and clearly some portion of the money will be used to support what they are doing in the region. If the goal is peace short term, is it likely that the infusion of additional money is going to lead to less peace and more violence throughout their terror proxies . Thank you very much mr. Deutsch. The goal here has been to deny them a Nuclear Weapon through a negotiatetive solution if possible and if not we resort to military means, and thats what the bush and Obama Administration tried to do, yes, its a peaceful solution, but we think we earned enough at the negotiating table that its worth doing, and thats what i understand obamas logic is, and thats why i support it. But the problem we have is we are dealing with two different iranian governments. Prime minister Prime Minister raw honey, and thats another government, and thats suleimani, and thats a violent organization, and they are the people pushing in in the middle east, and i think some of the money from sanctions relief will go to Economic Solutions because they have economic problems at home, and some of it is going to go into arms and to supporting terrorists groups. So at the same time that i think its in our interest to pursue the nuclear agreement, its definitely in our interest to strengthen our coalitions and push back. Have we spent all of this time negotiating with one government to get to an agreement to see that government then handoff the responsibility Going Forward to the other government that is reeking havoc throughout the agreement . Doctor, i want to ask you that. I will touch on this in the following way. I often hear that you can trance act a arms agreement and maintain pressure on iran and i am not sure thats possible, and if you want to bring in the soviet experience i am happy to go into that as well. The United States trying to discipline them is through economic sanctions, and this agreement stipulates that over a period of ten years the United States will unwind its principle course of students so central bank sacktions bank sanctions, and this is to be waived under this agreement, and the course of menu that the United States has for doing what nick burns want to do, contain iran, its going to lesson diminish and the arms control until soviet american was in 1973, and it was also one of the most aggressive decades in soviet history culminating an unprecedented event. Countries that are revolutionary countries will be more aggressive, and the ability of the United States to enforce contained reverse their aggression tends to diminish. I want to make sure i understand, the reference to our negotiations with the negotiation of arms control treaty you suggest we should view more as a warning sign . Yes, i challenge the thesis that you can maintain an arms control agreement and resist aggression by a revolutionary state. I want to remind by good friend and ambassador burns, while he says there are two governments, both were very much active just this past friday when they were chanting death to america, death to israel. So we like to talk about these two separate entities, the hardliners and the moderates, they have one goal in mind and they say it death to america, death to israel. But we ignore that. According to reports, the white house seems to have caved on almost every one of irans demands, blowing past its own red lines on enrichment, on verifications and inspections and on sanctions relief and on coming clean on past Nuclear Ambitions and military dementions, and along the way the administration has made excuse after excuse justifying every iranian violation of the interim deal to in order to continue negotiations providing billions in sanctions releach and set to provide billions more, and now we know that iran what will it do with its additional sanctions relief and the influx of international economics, it will continue its support for terrorism throughout the world just as it has been doing in lebanon and syria and yemen and iraq, and this deal is a far cry from every red line the white house itself imposed, and its a lower threshold than the six u. N. Security counsel resolutions, and i look back and read these resolutions, and i am like, thats like a fairytale, once upon time the powers got together and said this is going to be what we will demand and the administration lowered the bar time and time again, defending the violations of the iranians every step of the way, and the Iranian Nuclear deal people will be worried about whatever else is going on in there Music Industry and film industry, nobody is going to pay attention, and lets look at the shiny keys. The administration has also reportedly said it would only lift nuclearrelated sanctions, and even though officials would never describe exactly how that was defined, but now reports indicate that the administration caved to the iranian claim that all the sanctions are nuclear related. Do you believe we should be lifting sanctions imposed on iran for its program and support for terrorism, including the arms embargo, and following up on chairman royces exact point general hayden pointed out they must be allowed to inspect the locations, but you told us and your colleagues believe weaponization would never occur at declared facilities and it would be dub in the secret facilities, and now the deal is to let them have access only the consultation with the iranians. Secretary kerry stated that inspecting irans military sites, coming clean on possible military dimensions is not necessary because the u. S. Has full knowledge of irans activity, but many in the intelligence community, including dia director former dia director Michael Flint argued that the limits on u. S. Intelligence in iran makes this impossible. How can we trust iran to give u. N. Inspectors access to suspect sites after consultation with p5 plus one countries, how hard is it to gather intelligence in iran and how can we have full knowledge of irans activities without access to all of these sites, and finally, mr. Chairman, many supporters of iran deal have been floating the ideal that iran will change its behavior because of this agreement and become a better enable and more stable middle east, and how will lifting the sanctions and influx of new money from sanctions relief change irans involvement throughout the middle east, it will have more money to be boulevard in its hedge phaupbic ambitions. There are not enough times to answer all of the questions that i have, and not only these sanctions that the u. N. Supported once upon a time, were done with that and we might as well rip that one up thats not happening. What about our u. S. Sanctions . Mr. Chairman, we talk about what sanctions we will lift, but there are some within our control, but there are so many executive order sanctions that the president can lift so many provisions that he can waive, and i know i am out of time but i am greatly saddened, sickened and frustrated over this deal. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Brad sherman of california. Thank you. Let me first set the record straight, the sanctions, especially the secondary sanctions are the only reason that iran made any concessions at all, and those sanctions were imposed by congress over the objection of the executive branch, and for 30 Years Congress had it right and the executive branch had it wrong except for the occasions when the house had it right and sent it over to the senate and the president blocked it in the senate and i am disappointed for the reasons that have been brought up, and the arms embargo, and the sanctions relief is so complete that we will import things from iran, not oil, but only the things that we dont need and they cant sell to anybody else. Doctor, i think you are right in saying they are going to spend a good chunk of the money they are going to get for domestic purposes, but in addition they will spend it on graft and corruption, and they are going to kill a lot of sunnis, and many deserve it and plg do not, and they will have a few billion left over to kill americans and israelis. A number of people talked about the hope that we are going to see a change in the government. Keep in mind, we impose sanctions to change the government on the theory if you deprive a government and its people of economic benefit you put pressure on them to change, now we are going to shower them with money, okay its their own money, but in any case they are going to get economic benefit is not the way to cause a government to lose its grip on power. General hayden brings up missiles, and i will simply point out you can smuggle a Nuclear Weapon insides a bail of marijuana. Its not the classy way to do it. They can be politicians. We have endorse or reject this agreement, and i agree but there is Something Else we can do, refuse to endorse it and refuse to reject it which is probably what we are going to do. This does have good points. Its in the first year twothirds of the sentra tpaoupblgs. We get the benefits and the detriments of the first year of the deal. The tenth year of the deal is absolutely terrible. Iran has free access to ten times as many sentra tpaoupblgs or 100 times as many sentra tpaoupblgz. I think our focus needs to be what do we need to do to prevent year ten . We can pass a resolution and we can bring up a resolution of approval, and it would be voted down overwhelmingly, and then in the future congresss and president s would be free to take action, hopefully before year ten. That would be the strongest statement against the agreement. What is more likely to happen, unfortunately, we will have a resolution of disapproval. It will pass and be vetoed and the veto is likely to be sustained, and i think it will be sustained. So we reach the same position which is Congress Declared it doesnt like it and we do so in the weakest and most pitiful way the final vote being a victory for those that support the agreement when we dont get twothirds to override. So i think this deal is going to go into force, what i would like and i realize i am out 6 time and hopefully the chairman would be indulltkulindull indull skwrupbt. In the words pf president obama, the breakout time would be almost zero. I will start with general hayden . I i am sorry, mr. Chairman. I dont have a good answer to that question. This deal guarantees the reality you just well, this deal is not binding on the American People or future american president so lets say iran kind of lives within the deal in the next five years and is economically stronger and another president could say all options are on the table. What can a president do to make sure that this terrible year 10 does not go into force . Any other witness have a response . Senator lieberman . Thanks, congressman sherman. First thing i want to say is a respectfully different viewpoint, and i am not prepared to say on the conversations i have had with both parties that this agreement will be a you proved or disapproved and a president ial veto will not be overridden. I think people are concerned and they are going to look at the agreement. I, myself, have said that whether congress would override a veto by the president would depend on the specific terms of the agreement, and now we have seen the agreement and it legitimized iran as a legitimate Nuclear Weapons power, and the inspections are full of holes and dont give us any hope which this country has constantly cheated in the International Agreements will abide by the agreement here. I think its i think its definitely possible that this agreement will be rejected by congress and a president s veto overridden, and to me that would be the best of all results. If its not, the latitude of future president s, i suppose, will be expanded if there is an initial rejection of the agreement and not and the president vetoes it and the veto is not overridden, because a future president could look back and reopen negotiations and ask for sanctions based on iranian behavior, and based on a premise that a majority of members of both houses voted in the senate it will take 60 to vote to reject the agreement. Congressman sherman on page 3, it says iran will be you have to renegotiate that. You have to have a president that demands that. And its not in this agreement and it has to be renegotiated, and its to suggest that after ten years all the parties to this agreement, 5 plus 1 and iran will vote whether to extend the restrictions and when mpt expired, all members voted to extend its particular previsions permanently. President obama and his success fur has to do three things vigilance on inspection, and maintain a coalition, and retain the right to use military force ifness. There is a strategy here where this agreement can be implemented successfully. Thank you for our witnesses. You know, not only has the iranian government just orchestrated death to americans just weeks ago, we have had hearings and they still are incarcerated and subjected to cruel treatment by the regime, and now a deal with them . Senator lieberman, your comments about how this falls short and more risks to america, and ambassador burns, you said its not a perfect deal, and who expected a perfect deal . We hoped for a better deal, with other issues like Ballistic Missiles and the level of enrichment, they are off the table and now there will be enrichment allowed and thats a major, major mistake. In a statement of what i consider to be bad faith president obama vowed to veto or block any congressional move to block this agreement and this is day one, and hes already talking veto. If its such a good deal, why not persuade congress and by extension the American People about its contents instead of veto card goes up and the red card not Going Forward. One of the achilles heels, how is that going to apply. We all want peace, and Nuclear Weapons are not peace, and it will begin a nuclear arms program in the region, and you talk about how about program buys ten years and if iran is infused with cash and the santions were not as aggressively implemented as they could, and there were caveats allowed including oil to china which was a lifeline, and now we have a situation where they will get huge infusions of cash which will hurt the region and will be a multiplier affect a multiplier for terrorism and thats a serious problem, and the threat to israel, and we all know what netanyahu said, and perhaps you might want to comment on that. One of the key questions is whether or not the Obama Administration and the p5 plus one partners can be trusted to punish iran in violation of the agreement as they are likely to occur. What will happen, or are we going to give to it a committee and nothing happens . Thank you so much, congressman. Let me just respond to the question about nonproliferation. This is going to be an ironic and painful result, which is an agreement presumably to reduce the presence of Nuclear Weapons in the middle east because it eventually allows a radical state, like iran, to get Nuclear Weapons will in fact encourage other powers within the middle east to invest in Nuclear Weapons capabilities. That makes the middle east, which is already boiling with various kinds of conflict, more literally explosive. Soud saudis officials within the saudi government said if an agreement enables iran to become a Nuclear Weapons power, they are not going to wait until that happens, they are going to be building up their own capacity for Nuclear Weapons. The fact i looked at this in my Opening Statement from the point of view for america, and it has more risk for america and reward for iran and its not the good deal we wanted. Governments in the middle east are also making the same calculations without the arab world and throughout israel, and they are going to take actions based on that calculation. If we think its a bad deal, i think they are going to think its a terrible deal because its their neighborhood, and the result will be exactly what was hoped for here a more peaceful middle east and its going to be a violent and explosive middle east. Very briefly, mr. Smith, the more the administration argues this deal or a vote for war, the more you take off the table the ability for the United States to use military power to coerce the iranians, i dont think they believe that for more than a year or two going back until that does actually weaken our possession in order to get the kind of behavior we want from the iranians. Let me just very briefly ask about in the report itself, this is the actual agreement although the annex none of us have seen yet, and it says iran intends to ship out all fuels for all future and present power and Research Nuclear reactors, and it doesnt say intends, doesnt say requires. Is there a requirement for that . Intends . Thats pretty weak. I understand its a entirement. Why would they put intents . I would say thats a good question mr. Smith, and one that i am sure you and the committee will get answered when the administration comes before you to support this. Thank you. We go to mr. Gregory minks of new york. Thank you mr. Chairman. Let me first ask, i was listening to ambassador burns testimony, and during his testimony one of the things that he highlighted if the United States had walked away if we would walk away, we just said no, and the other partners were trying to stake a deal, so my first question i will ask to general hayden do you think we should walk away even if that meant the dishraougs of the 5 p5 plus one and the university we have had, would you walk away from such a deal . I think what has happened, if we did that today it would dissolve the university of the p5 plus one and we would be blamed for it, but thats a corner we painted ourselves into. Right now, though, would you agree, then, it would make it quite difficult to hold the coalition together if we walked away we would get blames and therefore the sanctions that have brought iran to agree to negotiations when i think it was also ambassador burns testimony that the Bush Administration tried to get iran to agree to negotiations and they would not at that time, so there has been a tremendous there has been a change from what took place at the end of the Bush Administration because we didnt have this outside unity with the p5 plus one and that was to relieve some of the pressure on iran, and the only thing i am looking at in these negotiations what is the opportunity to stop iran from having a Nuclear Weapon . I understand perfectly. I think the russians and the chinese go off immediately because they didnt want to be there in the first place and it was a high level of skill to get them into the circle to pressure the iranians. I think there is greater hope with the ue, the french and british, but we pointed ourselves into a corner by accepting the things we are questioning now and for us to undo those would make it difficult the problem is, which i tend to find out, while negotiations were going on we were not in the room, so how those negotiations took place and who was demanding what within the p5 plus one becomes important, and before we make a decision to try and talk to the colleagues and the p5 plus one to find out where they are on this and what is important, and its important to talk to scientists, not just the politics of it, but talk on iaea, to go to vienna, and i would suggest that members of this committee travel to vienna and talk to the iaea and talk to scientists and can they do the inspections . Will that prevent in their opinion, as scientists, not politically, but as scientists and because from my viewpoint, you know, having had this i agree with senator lieberman, this is a very important vote, and i cant i cant leave it in a vacuum, because i have another important vote, and that was back when we decided, you know, we were talking about iraq. There was questions then whether or not we should have diplomatic relations, should we debate or go further or have verifications, and at that particular point, we said no there was imminent danger of iraq having weapons much mass destruction. They had them. I can remember you know the case went to the u. N. We took the case to the u. N. There was this weapon, and were still i dont want to go back, but i think we should learn a lesson because were still paying for that. We didnt do everything we could first, and if we did everything we could first and they still had weapons, we could have done what we did anyway. Here we are again with the opportunity. I agree this is not perfect. I dont know any perfect bill that has ever been made in this United States congress ever in the history of our country, not one. So i am not looking for a perfect bill. No, no, i agree. The correct question i think you just framed it is this deal good enough that we should avoids sliding from that position into a position that any deal i agree, but we also need to keep in context that we are not dealing by ourselves, we are doing it unilaterally. Everything i hear is us, and forget about the other five partners to this deal. When you have negotiations and i think the leadership keeping this group together thats leadership so that we can get to this point. Because otherwise we dont get here, and we dont have any choices. This at least gives us a choice a chance, and shouldnt we at least look at it and talk to scientists. This deal was struck this morning, for gods sake. We have not talked to any scientists or talked to our partners in the negotiations. Thats our responsibility as congress, dont you think . As opposed to making a decision on what we are going to do . No i think the position all of us have here is the fine print here really matters and there is little or no margin for error. Lets shall we go to dana robach of california. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you mr. Chairman and Ranking Member engel who is not here with us today. Lets note that the agreement that was being discussed today is being held with a Government Entity that holds four americans illegally hostage. Let me note that my staff is preparing legislation that would permit our president to take nondiplomatic iranian officials into custody until their government and their click returns these americans who they are holding illegally. Of course we wont do that because we dont want to make the iranian rule or regime angry by doing Something Like that. In fact, we have refrained they have already won a great deal by this elongated negotiation, because for all of these years we have been refraining from supporting the democratic elements in iran against the moolahs for fear it would upset the negotiations over the nuclear deal, so we have already been a loser even before this supposed agreement. What i would like to ask, does anybody on the panel know whether or not this agreement includes an iranian agreement not to obtain a Nuclear Weapon from another source rather than building one on their own . I think this agreement stipulates that iran will be a member of the mpt, and it has forgone a Nuclear Weapons option. So the answer is yes, part of this agreement is that the iranians have agreed not to obtain a Nuclear Weapon from somebody else . It says iran will become a member of the npt and if it members in Good Standing it foregoes the option of having a Nuclear Weapon and it doesnt identify the source of that but it forecloses the option as a matter of principle. If i may just add, it seems to me that iran has developed a lot of the Nuclear Capability that it has to do in violation of its obligations under the nonproliferation treaty. I am just offering more evidence, they should view this under the mpt and they violated that wantedly once before. If we expect the same type of behavior that they made with other agreements with this agreement, they could easily even with all the other inspections we are talking about, they could obtain a Nuclear Weapon from an illegal source. Now another question for the panel, we have some people that know about u. S. Intelligence, etc. With us today. Are there Nuclear Weapons that some countries or some groups might be able to obtain on the market rather than having to build their own weapon . Of course. Of course. Always watching the north koreans. We saw them build a plutonium reactor in the eastern Syrian Desert and it was detected just at the last minute, and just to spin off what senator lieberman talked about with regard to the sunnis and how they will respond to this. One very possible scenario is the saudis will go to the pakistanis in order to get Nuclear Devices to balance what they view to be the iranian threat. So what we have is basically a situation where we have not refrained from supporting the democratic elements in iran, which is the real solution, and its getting rid of the mullah regime and getting a democratic government in there that doesnt seek to possess Nuclear Weapon, but, of course, we have actually undermined that opportunity by over these last six years, and in fact this agreement may undermine it further and i thank you all for your testimony today and i think that you have given us a lot to think about, and i would hope that all of us here do our duty. I dont think its a tough decision decision. I think its very clear this is a rotten deal but we will keep an open mind to see if we can depend on some other benefits do it. The senator from california. Thank you i have a few questions that focus on the process and the consequences of our actions. A couple people asked questions about our partners from the other countries, so i was wondering about the p5 plus one and wanting to know if they have a similar process where they are voting in the legislative bodies what happens at the u. N. And maybe you can put it in sequence . The p5 plus one group was put together by the u. S. In 2005, and it has been the core of the International Effort and one of the reason why i am supporting the president s initiative, if you keep this group together, thats the leverage and Pressure Point through sanctions and inspections on iran, and it could dissolve. They would have to go back and report to the parliaments, and theyre democratic countries, and i am assured that president putin doesnt have to worry about that too much. Do you have any sense of france and britain will their legislative bodies approve it . What is your sense of that . My sense of the politics innererin europe they are strongly supportive of the deal. I think thats true in europe almost across the board. The interesting country here in russia. We are sanctioning russia over ukraine, and we are going to have to work with russia to keep them on our side, and the weakest is china because they are motivated by commercial purposes, and we almost have to be worried about that because we have to worry about law and order in the middle east. Behind it, of course, you also have the major purchases of Iranian Energy ppl. Its very important that we keep south carolina. How do you see it playing out at the u. N. Security council . Part of the implementation of the agreement will be there will be a new Security Council resolution that will put the new agreement into force and it will take away the sanctions, and if the five permanent members are all in agreement, they will win the need, and they need nine votes and its assured they will win that particular vote. Do you have any concerns that any of those countries will exercise their veto power . No, i think the deal worked out is that they all agree they will not exercise the veto and this is the way to implement the agreement, and theres zero percent probability any country will use the veto. If we turn it down and override a veto, how does it play out on the International Arena . There is reports about people that want to go over and make business deals with various countries, so if we override the president s veto what happens there . If that is overridden you will see the dissolution countries to do business with iran will take over. Iran will be in the position of sanctions relief effectively from most of the world but wont have constraints on the Nuclear Program. How would we hold them accountable . If we back out it is not us holding them accountable. How will the rest of the world in the p5. Iran will be able to proceed on plutonium and enrichment program. This does get to the important point of the question. My question is what is the best alternative and option for the United States. We live in the real world. I think it is this deal. We cant go back and design a Better Process five years back. I also disagree very respectfully with general hayden on one question. If we are worried about proliferation that the saudis or another country might want to compete with the iranians the scenario with that is a break down on the deal that leaves iranians without constraints on the Nuclear Program. The way to reassure is to lock and freeze in the Iranian Program for the next ten years. If we overrode the veto lets say we wanted to bring sanctions back again, how would you be able to bring them back . If that happened hypothetically obviously the president and secretary of state would want to reassemble a sanctions regime if iran had broken the agreement. One last quick question. So whether its ten years at the end of if we get to year eight and nine. Im asking you based on previous experience because it comes across like ten years happens and then everything goes back to normal. Wouldnt a new agreement begin to be negotiated around year eight or nine . Or do you wait until ten years . If you have the radical government you would have to put together, i think, another sanctions regime, Pressure Points on iran, threaten them reserve the right to use military force. You would be back in that game. Thank you. I will begin with you. As already mentioned Prime Minister netanyahu has referred to this agreement as a mistake of historic proportions. What position does this put israel in . Thanks, congressman. Obviously, Prime Minister netanyahu and the leadership of israel is better prepared than i am to make a statement about that. This is a room full of friends and supporters of israel and it is very clear that based on the violent antiisrael rhetoric of the Islamic Republic of iran, based on the support by iran of the terrorists who threaten israel including hezbollah and hamas the idea that the iranians would have a Nuclear Weapon in the foreseeable period of time assuming they kept promises they made about the first ten years is very threatening to israel and i think will lead to Israeli Government to make its own decision about what it can do to better protect itself. One of the interesting things the israeli political system is quite lively. A lot of opposition. But from what i see the feeling about this agreement and the worry about it in the weeks preceding it is shared across a very Broad Spectrum of the israeli political establishment. To be more specific to minister who was the leader of the opposition has basically said the same things about an agreement on Nuclear Weapons with iran. When you combine lifting of arms embargo and this agreement isnt it shouldnt it be greatly concerning to us our security that the concern that intercontinental Ballistic Missile technology and information goes from russia to iran and that puts us directly in harms way here from a Nuclear Armed iran somewhere down the road . It certainly puts us at a position of being more threatened by a more capable iran with or without a nuclear device. The senator talked about israel and position on Nuclear Weapons. I think there is another element to it. Yesterday iran was international outlaw. Today they are not. And that will allow the normalization of a whole host of relationships as youre suggesting that will allow the iranians to grow in strength. The comment about we need to work hard to make sure that doesnt happen because they are engaged in egregious behavior is certainly true and aspirational. I think for the rest of the world this is welcoming this iran, the one that is not changed, back into the family of nations. That is very problematic. Thank you. I am going to put two questions to you if i can. One is isnt it likely this deal that you are going to see a pretty significant reaction by the gulf states and the saudis that they have to counter a much stronger iran that ultimately will have Nuclear Weapons as a result of this so that you are going to see an arms race there . And secondly given two weeks notice before you can inspect, you can move a lot of incriminating evidence with two weeks notice and then negotiations probably after that as well . Wouldnt that be accurate . I will give you whatever time i have left. Whether this can lead to proliferation my guess is that the saudis are going to try to match irans capability. Ambassador burns said it would happen in absence of a deal. It hadnt because the trust and confidence that those countries had in the United States and its intentions to severely restrict that intention is no longer in practice. This agreement says iran will be treated as amputee. I would like to hear a defense of the sunset clause. If it is about to expire we are going to try to not have it expire. Thats not a defensive. If you defend this agreement you should defend why it should expire in ten years. In terms of verification demands, the procedure will be in place once the iaea has evidence. That is not a card you can play every day that there is something suspicious happening and then will ask the government for permission to deal with that particular. In the annexes that i have seen i dont know what that means in terms of inspecting the military facility. Do you do Environmental Testing . It is not obvious to me in the annexes i have seen. If there is a dispute to go to resolution dispute committee every Arms Control Committee has once it says iran is wrong and should have access iran says no it will go to Security Council. Ambassador burns knows all about the Security Council. Security council cannot impose economic sanctions on iran. It can recommend National Measures but those will have to be negotiated on a case by case by the United States government as was done for the past ten years when diplomats went to europe and elsewhere. During that long period of time that you have set out, there are no inspections . In that particular side . No. Thank you. I yield back. We go to mr. William keating of massachusetts. Thank you. I would like to thank the witnesses for the seriousness in the tone with which they have conducted themselves in the hearing and the thoughtfulness. I hope this is a harbinger for the way we discuss this issue Going Forward. I know i speak for most of congress that we are just beginning to digest this and no position to take a position on this yet. Many of your comments have been thoughtful and i share many of them. That being said i want to go back to a few areas of interest. Ambassador burns talked about how the coalition is likely to unravel and then we lose our strength in terms of the sanctions. There is another area that might change if this is stalled or if we walk away from this. Thats the issue that we are negotiating with iran before they have Nuclear Program in place. What would the negotiations be in your mind after they have that . How much more difficult would it be . I think that is an important question that hasnt been asked. May i just take this opportunity to say im one of your constituents from westport, massachusetts. Thank you for representing us in congress. I am glad that i commended all of you on your i am, too. You know we have had a bitter experience with north korea korea. We have all been involved in this. Once north korea obtained Nuclear Weapons it has become almost impossible to negotiate with them. Of course, they have protection from china as well. I think both president bush and president obama have been right to try to go at this in a more direct way and try to stop free negotiations, the iranians before they cross the nuclear threshold. What president obama has been able to do in my judge is buy us ten years. I gree with ray and everyone else here. We cant hope the iranians will change. We will have to go through the ten years with a lot of vigilance and maybe replay all of this but we bought ten years. We do have international unity. In an interesting way the russians have not broken consensus. I think this is the time for negotiations. I do believe reflecting on the history of post s 9 11 era we should exhaust diplomacy and if it fails then we have the military and the military option to rely on. I think that is proper sequencing. One of my concerns was raised by ambassador burns and you addressed your opinion on this. The idea that if this agreement would result in gulf states moving forward, they are at the 1 yard line to getting to the Nuclear Program. There is no doubt in my mind going 99 yards they are going to go do that. So if they are going to get that anyway wouldnt decisions, wouldnt they have done that anyway . I hope you are following this. Its not any agreement that is going to make them go forward with their own Nuclear Programs but in the absence of an agreement they are Going Forward anyways. So i think it is kind of a moot point about the other countries moving forward. I understand what you said. Do other panelists have a view on that . The gulf states have not moved forward. If this becomes a reality they are likely to. I will have a quick view. Right now they really havent. And they havent because we go into the huddle with them. We are part of their team. There is going to be a perception that we have not quite switched sides but have gone to the League Commissioners office and no longer playing on their squad. One more question in. Of course, im very sensitive to going to the league for sanctions, being a big fan of the new england patriots. Thats another issue. Quickly i will raise the question. I think the real concern too, is that if the Coalition Unravels that creates a problem. If iran violates, how easy will it be to reconstitute that coalition for sanctions again . That is a real concern. I think i should reassure that i have a lot more confidence in tom brady. So you know its been great to have the p5 plus 1 together. It strengthened our position. We have to talk about tradeoffs. I would rather have us reject a bad deal and run the risk of having the p 5 plus 1 coalition dissolve than to accept a bad deal. I think in my opinion part of what is lost here is that the iranians need a disagreement more than we did. They are in a lot more trouble than we are certainly economically. They benefit a lot from this. If for some reason the p 5 plus 1 Coalition Falls apart we are still the economic superpower of the world. Access to our Banking System is Still Necessary for economic growth. So we have the capacity ourselves to reimpose sanctions on them. I have gone over my time. Other members want to talk. Thank you all. I yield back. Joe wilson south carolina. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I am grateful just as mr. Keating for the bipartisan explanation of threats to the American People and grateful for the panel being here today. You are making a difference explaining this to the American People. I am disappointed the president has made dangerous concessions. This regime sponsored terrorists to attack and openly calls for death to americans and our allies. This bipartisan concern i believe has been expressed so well today by the courage of senator joe lieberman. Your testimony that this is a bad deal. Thank you for your courage. William crystal wrote it is a good deal for the Iranian Regime and a bad deal for america. Congress should pass resolution of disapproval. Congress should override the president s veto and return americas iran policy to dealing from a position of strength. The coming days i hope the American People are allowed to consider the agreement truthfully and hold the president accountable. In an effort to achieve political gain president obama has ignored congress and the American People and i believe is establishing a sad legacy of a murderous regime with nuclear Ballistic Missiles targeting american families. I agree with israeli Prime Minister this is a mistake of historic proportions. With that in mind, senator lieberman lieberman, it should be remembered that the secretary of state designated iran a state sponsor of terrorism january 23 1984 over 30 years ago in response to the october 1983 bombing that the u. S. Marine barics killing over 300 marines marineses. This was perpetrated by the Iranian Regime. Keeping that in mind has there been a change of course by the regime leading up to the negotiations that have occurred today or been agreed to today . Thanks, congressman wilson. This is a very important point. Its easy to get focused on today and forget tomorrow. Tomorrow tells us who this agreement is with. Let me be really explicit about it. This iranian government has the blood of a lot of americans on its hands. The marines at the barics the soldiers incidentally hundreds of american soldiers were killed in iraq by shia militias that were trained in iran. So your question is a good one. Has the government changed . There is no evidence of it. Somebody said before that iran has two governments. I dont think so. Iran has one government and two faces. The government in power is the irgc the face that they put out occasionally is president rouhani and foreign minister. Does anybody think they could are really representative of their government . No. Not in the final analysis. So your question as you consider this agreement because you have to remember who who you are making the agreement with is important. Devices killed hundreds of americans in iraq and afghanistan. I had two sons serve in iraq and another in afghanistan. They had to face iranian weaponry and for this to be disregarded is incredible to me. I want to thank you, too. You brought up about the government sponsored newspaper in tehran. They predicted the u. S. Will one fine day cease to be visible on the map of the world. Goodness gracious. What are we facing . And general, by lifting the economic sanctions what will this do to our efforts to stop the degrading of terrorism . What does this do to the stability of iraq, syria and yemen . Congressman, it just increases iranian capacity across the board. That is an unavoidable consequence of this. It may be something we are willing to pay the price for. I dont think so because of the Nuclear Portfolio but unavoidably iran is more capable of continuing the policies it has been following for the last several decades and no evidence that this agreement or anything else will make iranians change that course. We go to davide rhode island. Thank you for assisting us in a very consequential decision for the country and the security of the world. I think the objective of these negotiations as presented to me was always preventing a nuclear iran. And that it is important as we decide whether to support or disapprove this agreement it should be measured against that objective. And there is lots more work to do and lots of action and pushing back that needs to take place. Nobody should have imagined that this agreement would solve all of the challenges we face and result in a complete transformation of the ideology behaviors or intentions of iran. If that is the test there is no question that the agreement fails. Does it achieve a nonnuclear iran . Senator lieberman you testified that it allows iran to be a Nuclear Weapon state. The president this morning said that it is a comprehensive long term dean with iran that will prevent it from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon. Who is right . The objective is to prevent nuclear iran. Senator leebieberman it is inevitable. That is the question we have to decide. I respect senator liebermans position here because he spent decades on this issue. I dont want to take issue with him at all. In this sense. I dont think it is possible to say that this agreement will 100 prevent iran from becoming a Nuclear Weapons power. They can achieve that. I think that would be the wrong way to look at this. I think it gives us the greatest probability of preventing that. That is why im supportive of it. I see the down sides. I think congress will have to struggle through what we have talked about this morning. Will the inspections be Strong Enough . Can you reimpose sanctions . What is the nature of this regime . I am convinced we have to try this first and we have to be vigorous in trying to implement it. If it works we are ahead of the game. If it it doesnt work we have other options. I dont think i wouldnt say if you are opposed to the deal that somehow leads to war. I think that is false too. I think if a deal holds the iranians are smart enough they wont go to the nuclear threshold. They will be behind that that would not invite a military response. I think the rhetoric if you are against it you are going to get a war. If you are for it you can assure the American People there will be no Nuclear Weapon. I think the reality is very complex between the two. Building upon that, much of the argument has been made even today that what this agreement attempts to do is buy a decade buy this period of peace or period of at least iran not moving towards a Nuclear Weapon. The argument being that the end of that period some would argue iran would be stronger. There will be greater economic success. They will be able to withstand better than they are today. Our argument on the reverse side is that we will know more about the Nuclear Program than before as a result of intrusive inspections. Seems that is one of the other questions is where we end up because presumably according to the agreement no options are off the table at the end of the period. Military options, all the options that are available today remain available. The only question is what is the difference in the strength of our positions. I think one way to look at this is there is a lot of risk in Going Forward. There is a lot of risk in not Going Forward and disapproving. You have to weigh the risks on both sides. I think there is a legitimate case to be made. There is a possibility this regime is going to change become less aggressive. We cant bank our strategy on that. Hope cannot be the basis of that strategy. We have to be prepared for either outcome. We have to be very tough if ten years from now this regime hasnt changed and tries to turn back towards a nuclear future. Can i follow with you, one of the things you said is you challenge the supposition that you can challenge a revolutionary state and have an arms agreement which is of course, exactly what this proposal attempts to do. Why do you think we cant do both . I think in the context of u. S. Relations, what i was suggesting it is difficult to maintain an arms control agreement because the principle course of leverage is economic. We have never responded to military attacks on the United States. The agreement commits the United States to unwind over a decade. So your menu shrinks. Once it shrinks you have military at your disposal. I just dont think there is a military solution to this. Basically, if you want to pressure iran and the historically have pressured through economic sanctions that option is becoming less available as youre committed to unwinding the sanctions. If i can ask one last question of you, what do you think happens if the deal is disapproved by congress the veto is sustained. What do you think happens next . We are in absolutely unchartered waters, congressman. It would depend on the strength of the american argument the willingness of the administration to go to our allies and explain why we have chosen a new course of action. As the senator pointed out, we are a powerful nation on our own. We can impose very powerful sanctions on a variety of fronts across the economy. But as ambassador burns points out the more International Consensus we get the more pressure we can bring. If this agreement is rejected by Congress Nobody can predict what will happen, i would hope the administration would try to regather the p5 plus one and go back to iran and say we couldnt sell it. We got to do a better deal here. Again, i believe that iran needs a deal much more than we do. The other thing is that at that point we probably want to look at increasing sanctions to give another motivation to come back and making credible president and congress that we are prepared to use our military power if our intelligence tells us that they have turned the corner and are beginning to nuclearize their program. I yield back. We thank the witnesses. I in some respects feel like the train has left the station. Even if we disapprove of this its vetoed and we override a veto this goes before the yooun Security Council and unless the administration exercises leadership those sanctions will certainly be lifted. Regardless what we do in the United States. And i think thats maybe something we havent discussed here today and from Homeland Security standpoint that means we have billions of dollars being restored to the iranians that can then go into these terrorist operations. We know they control five capitals now tehran baghdad, damascus beirut, yemen. That is what greatly concerns me. I dont know if we can turn the clock back on this now. When i was in europe you are correct, they are supportive of this deal and primarily i think because they have a lot of money to be made on this. So i dont know what we can do to stop it. I can tell you what im concerned about is last minute arms embargo being lifted which can lead to Russian Technology and sanctions being lifted as well. Not to mention when you look at the track record of the iaea and whether they can truly perform this mission with unfettered access which i highly doubt the iranians are going to give us access to. When i look at what they are giving us access to Nuclear Facility sites not including military facilities which arguably is where a lot of this could potentially take place and then the Ballistic Missiles talked about a great deal mass produced in general, intelligence estimates indicating by the end of next year could have capability hit the United States of america. There is only one reason why you produce these things to deliver a nuclear war head. All of these things put together in addition to the rhetoric i think i agree with senator lieberman is more risk for america and more reward for iran. I want to end with this because this is probably the worst when i was in saudi i think senator and general as you mentioned they asked me why arent you negotiating with iran . I met with netanyahu. Why are you doing this . This will result in a Nuclear Arms Race in the middle east. As you indicated saudis are taking steps now maybe working with pakistan to produce Nuclear Capability that turkey is going to want that and egypt will want it and on and on. I think that is one of my biggest concerns here is the result of all of this back firing and a not so great result. If you could both comment on that. Well, its good to see you. I agree with you, all your concerns and question about what happens at the United Nations if Congress Rejects the agreement and president s veto is overridden. The most direct sense you think the deal would be dead so that it would not be a basis for going to the United Nations but based on having read it 1 1 2 times this morning im not sure i could swear to that under oath. So its a really interesting question. Again, i come back to what i said before lets never under estimate our power in the United States is not only a military power but an economic power. If we continue to imply sanctions that deny iran to our Banking System it will effect the iranian economy. Lets never forget that. General hayden. Very briefly, mr. Chairman, trying to place catch up with the agreement and read the fine print this morning. Its not at all clear to me that this will not be resolved in new york before the congressional review period has expired. So we may have the administration going to one deliberative body about this before this deliberative body has the chance to vote. If i can echo that point i dont know the answer to that either if the Council Approves this before congress has a chance to vote on it. Are the sanctions lifted by the International Partners irrespective of what the United States does . I dont know the answers to this as this agreement just came out. I think thats something we need to if i may say so and take the liberty. You raised a really interesting question. It may be one of the points as you start your deliberation that you could achieve bipartisan agreement on is to ask the administration not to go to the United Nations before they come to congress. Thats our constitution requires that kind of respect first for congressional consideration. I agree 100 . I yield back. Lets go to Louis Frankel of florida. Thank you, mr. Chair. I want to thank you gentlemen for this anxiety producing discussion. I know we all agree that iran should not get a Nuclear Weapon. It would put the most dangerous weapon in the hands of the worlds foremost sponsor of terror and lead to proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in the middle east region. I want to say this. I think because of the seriousness of this issue that we have to all take a very objective, nonpartisan scrutiny of this issue and this perspective deal. I think mr. Meeks made a point that i wanted to echo which is not knowing what went on in the room with our partners makes some of the deal not understandable to me. This is one of my i dont mean to simplify what is a 70page agreement that has taken so many literally years to get to this point but this is one of my biggest Anxiety Points raised which is we are going to give iran billions of dollars. They are going to continue their terrorism all over the world. And then at the end of 15 years they are allowed to continue to enrich. So this is the point i dont understand. What happens in 15 years . I suspect we will know more which is a good thing. But is iran going to be nicer . Or are they going to less acceptable to economic sanctions . Thats to me a sticking point. On the other side of the coin, though, to me another Anxiety Point is if we walk away and we went to lets put more sanctions on, do you think an us versus them approach in other words, i know we need our partners to help us with these sanctions, do you think they would be amiable to you have to be with us or there will be other economic consequences from the United States . So those are my two questions if someone wants to take a shot at it. I would be happy to. I would say that i think all of us agree on iranian support for terrorism on the american hostages are vital issues. There is a reason why both the last two administrations have focused more on the nuclear issue. It is the greater immediate danger. In government you have to make those choices. I think the choice is right to have this negotiation. We have to pressure them on the other issues but you have to go at this issue first and foremost. Second, i dont believe that sanctions, u. S. Sanctions alone can work. I agree with senator lieberman that we are the biggest economy in the world and we can do a lot of damage to the iranians. What drove them to the negotiating table is that the rest of the world got involved, too. If Congress Disapproves and sanctions regime dissolves you have lost your leverage. In that scenario you and a previous member asked my colleagues to my right about that scenario if there is disapproval what will the United States do . We could go back to the p5. I dont think russia and china would want to form the same coalition and go back to the first step ten years ago in trying to pressure the iranians. I think we would be without leverage and our president would be weakened and all of the work of the last ten years i think would have been under cut. That is why i am strongly for it despite the misgivings and tradeoffs i see for congressional approval of this agreement. Iran will be stronger in 15 years especially economically. I would assume they would be stronger economically. We dont know what kind of country they will be like in terms of their behavior because we cant look into a crystal ball. We cant build the policy on hoping they will change. There has been too much talk i think, from some parts of the administration that somehowq i rj a honey moon and United States and with it. I think we have to go back to sanctions. I think i would have loved to have this deal that closed the door as we said we would to iran becoming a Nuclear Power and that would have allowed us to end our sanctions on them that would have had a very tough air tight inspections regime which you have to have with a country that has such a record of cheating and deceit. This is not it. Thats the problem. Therefore, they are going to get money. I think of course we never know what iran will look like in 10 or 15 years. Ratifying this agreement will make it more likely that the radicals who are in charge of iran will still be in charge of iran because they will use some of this money that they get as a result of lifting sanctions to strengthen their position inside the country let alone what they will do to expand what they have done through terrorists and others in the region generally but will have money to use to make people in iran happier than they are now and it will be harder for the opposition which is there not supported by us or anybody else but its there to have a chance to overthrow the extremists. We will go to tedpo of texas. Appreciate your expertise on this very sensitive, important subject. I look at the ruling party as a wolf in wolfs clothing. He made it clear he wants death to america. He said that numerous times. Now it seems to me that the wolf has made a deal with the sheep not to eat the sheep for ten years. And then what . Supper . We dont know. My concern is was there ever any discussions that there needed to be free elections in iran and let the people decide who should rule over them . Do any of you know of any discussion about that in this deal that has been taking place for some time . Senator lieberman . I dont. I assume it was off the table and wasnt mentioned along with a lot of other things that bother us about irans behavior such as support of terrorism and deprivation of america. Public hangings of political opponents. Exactly. Do you agree or not that the best hope really for security and iran is that they had a regime change with Peaceful Elections . I certainly do. That is the ultimate answer. We havent tried or done very much to bring that about. During the cold war even while making arms control agreements with the soviets we were supporting opposition movements within eastern europe, for instance. We were supporting russia. So there is a precedent for that. Do we does this deal the hope in this deal, based on the premise that we will trust the iranians to comply . As i have said here already, i dont think there is any basis in iranian behavior to trust them. You can recite the litany of the ways in which they have justified that conclusion. The one way you can have confidence in this agreement is if the verification inspections provisions were really air tight. But they are not. They create a whole negotiating process. 14 days, 21 days appeal to a board. Its an invitation to the iranians. If they are caught with something wrong to have the time to get it out of the view of the international inspectors. In the area of inspections whatever youre inspecting, giving notice to whoever you are going to inspect always allows them to hide or fix the problem before you get there. It seems to me with 24 days you would be able to hide the grand canyon or something. I find that as a problem. Big picture. Is it still the policy of iran today to destroy the United States . Until we hear otherwise we have to say it is. Israel, as well. The demonstration vizbly brought saudi arabia into those that they want to destroy. Iran wants to be the big player in the middle east. Does this deal that i have here does that encourage saudi arabia turkey and egypt to develop Nuclear Weapon capability to deter iran . It does in my opinion. As others have said it does Something Else. It raises real alarm in the minds and hearts of our traditional allies. And the sunni muslim world and in israel about whether the u. S. Has changed its Traditional Alliance relationship with those countries and now is either tilting towards iran or at least pulling back to a kind of nuch rality. If this is allowed to go into effect a great imperative is for the u. S. To not do whatever it can. It has to be hard to reassure the muslim countries and israel that we are still with them. And unanimous consent for one more question . General, this question. Icbms, when iran gets icbms, what would be the purpose and intent and where would they be able to go to from iran . Well, by definition means intercontinental. As the chairman pointed out those weapons have no real military or coercive political utility but have a high explosive war head on them. It doesnt have to be nuclear but a weapon of mass destruction. And, of course where could they go . If they are intercontinental Ballistic Missile they could reach north america. They could even reach texas . Yes, sir. Jerry connelly of virginia. Reaching texas now we are talking crazy. Thank you all for being here. What a stimulating and challenging conversation. I theng we members of Congress Face a very challenging vote sometime probably in september and senator lieberman welcome back to your home. I must say, senator lieberman, i am troubled. You agreed with congressman mccall. One thing he said was why engage with iran at all . Do you think it was a mistake to engage with iran at all . Thanks, congressman for welcoming me back. On that particular point i think i have said that. I didnt oppose the negotiations. I did not oppose the negotiations. I thought it was encouraging that the negotiations were occurring. Much preferable to have a peaceful resolution to this conflict. Im saying i think the result on first look came out a few hours ago is that this deal is not a good one for the u. S. Or our allies and is a very good one for iran. I heard you say that. In fact, i heard you council us we should vote no. Seems awfully early to do that. Apparently you made up your mind. I have. I havent. I wanted to share with you based on what was agreed to in april which basically says this will be a temporary freeze on the Iranian Program if they keep their word and then they clear to become a Nuclear Power. I think questions you raised are absolutely legitimate. I think we have to weigh the alternate. Absolutely. We cant pretend that there is a perfect alternative if we only choose it. I think that is some of the problems, some of the discussion we have around here. You also said we can just go back to the p5 plus 1 and say we couldnt sell it and start over again and reengage iranians. Senator lieberman, i dont know anybody who believes that has high probability of success but the very opposite to happen. If we disavow this p5 plus 1 falls apart and iran races to accelerate the program and not about to come back to the table. You can see that is just as likely as the scenario you laid out . I dont know. I actually agree with what ambassador burns said if the agreement is rejected that iran will not rush to build a Nuclear Weapon. They will retool their program but they wont do it because they will worry that either the u. S. Or israel if there is clear intelligence showing that they are breaking out to a Nuclear Weapons capacity, that the u. S. Or israel will attack them mill militarily militarily. I take your point. That is one thing we can consider. Surely there is a chance that is not what is going to happen. When we are thinking about voting we have to weigh the risks. Absolutely. At least the agreement in front of me limits the risk. Its a completely unlimited risk they wont do that. What if you are wrong . There is a hard line element, as you pointed out that is licking chops to see this agreement fall apart. I think that it is good for them economically and it strengthens their position in the middle east, doesnt do anything to stop them from supporting. Helps them support their proxys throughout the region more than now. Congressman, i want to say im going to agree with you that i cant predict what will happen. I cant predict with certainty more than what anyone can what will happen if Congress Rejects the agreement. I can say from what i have seen this morning and based on what i saw come out in april this agreement has more risk for the u. S. And more reward for iran than i hoped it would. One final point. By the way, i would note for the record there were hard line elements protesting these negotiations in iran. I do not agree this is a great deal for iran. The evidence suggests otherwise. Your also in your statement said this will strengthen the hard line iran freeing up resources for bad things. Would you concede that, again, there is an alternative scenario which that is not what happens and reinforces the element and others that engagement with the west produces good economic things and we should do more of it . Isnt it at least worthy of conceding that could be true . It is possible. It is. I think the much more likely is that the billions of additional dollars that the iranian government and economy will get will be used by the irgc powers in iran and will be the ultimate ben fishiaries of this additional money and not the moderates. Can i comment on one thing . On the issue of what happens if Congress Rejects this deal i went to college in 1980s and majored in something called arms control. I went back to all of those. It happened all the time. Renegotiated in various provisions because of congressional objectives. Senator liebermans idea that upon disapproval the United States administration has to renegotiate is actually the way arms controltypically happened with soviet union. Let me play out the strain put here. Lets say United States disapproves this agreement and overrides the president s veto and the entire International Community blames the United States and iran begins to develop capacities and rush towards a bomb surely the International Community will not continent that. They may think americans were irresponsible, unwise for destroying a deal. If they see iran edge towards weapons threshold they would rejoin the United States in imposing some sort of measure to prevent that. My time is up. We go to matt salmon of arizona. Senator lieberman, during your time as a senator you were afforded the opportunity to vote on a few treaties, i suspect. When do you think the administration pursued this as more of a political agreement than a treaty . What was the rationale for that . I have heard several times that this is probably the most important decision congress has weighed in on. Some have said in the last 30, 40 years. Some said in the last 50 years. With that important of a decision, why would it be pursued as a political agreement rather than a treaty . So you mean literally . I dont think the administration if they were here would say it is a political agreement but would say its a dip lot malomateic agreement. What is on the line as a result of this agreement between the p5 plus 1 and iran is much more consequential than any treaty i was asked to vote for or against in my 24 years in the senate. If it was considered a treaty it would require twothirds to pass and not the other way around. That is the president under the constitution has clear right to make the decision he did. This is not a treaty but it is an International Agreement and has to meet different standards in congress. I think that many of the cynics believe that the reason is because the president could have never succeeded in crossing that twothirds threshold in the senate and given the fact that you voted on treaties that have far less consequence than this document, general hayden, you stated that the inspections have become a political, not a technical issue. So one of my questions is that whether you believe the Obama Administration and its p5 plus 1 partners would ultimately make the political decision to call out violations of the agreement, whether they are technical in nature or small in nature or large in nature, do you think is that administration who is kind of staking its whole reputation on this agreement would have the political will to call out any infractions and make them public knowing the political ramifications could be quite stark . You bring up a great point, congressman. It seems maybe a little counter intative because we are concerned about iranian cheating. Once the agreement goes into effect the burden of proof on let me go back into my previous life and walk into the oval office and say you know mr. President that treaty that was so important to both you and the country, i think these guys are violating it. The time i would need and the body of evidence required to turn that into Political Action is the dynamic we used to call the dynamic of the unpleasant fact. It takes more evidence and more time to generate action. Beyond that though, congressman, that is just inside the american bubble. Look at it from the p5 plus 1 and how many other folks have a real vested interest in not admitting that violations have taken place. I am really concerned about the managed access regime since it will be at the political, not the technical level. In the snapback whether it is a snapback of our sanctions or of International Sanctions has immense financial implications to many of these countries involved and so the likelihood that they would speak out of a violation, im worried that those violations will be swept under the rug and that we will never see the light of day. As described, i cannot and i will not support this deal. Iran has proven time and time again it cant be trusted to meet International Obligations and agreements. I believe this administration is naive to suggest that hundreds of billions of dollars iran will gain access will not be used to continue the proliferation of terrorism across the globe. Those terrorism efforts will only get better funded and despite the president s bold statement the agreement will ensure that the Islamic Republic of iran will not develop Nuclear Weapon it puts them on a path towards developing and possessing a nuclear bomb in just ten years. I am wondering this administration has had a pension for doing things that only has a shelf life during his administration with no thought or consequences to our children and grandchildren. I think this is a frightening deal and it didnt address the americans that remain hostages in iran. Im really disgusted that they werent really front and center in any of the negotiations. They were sideline comments, at best. For all the reasons stated above i cannot support this deal at all. And i yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, congressman. We proceed to congressman higgens of new york. I want to thank the panel. You have been very professional and have a body of knowledge individually and collectively that is invaluable to our deliberations on this issue. A lot has been talked about the nuclear infrastructure, proliferation of them. This deal cuts them by twothirds which i think is very, very significant. Also, the material that is used, nuclear material. You have under this agreement as i understand it less than 4 of enrichment of that distance from bombgrade material, and then you have the inspections process, which i think is important. But i dont think enough has been focused on the iranian people and the politics of iran which i think are very significant here. The military historian, david crist wrote a book and he says since the 1979 revolution there have been seven attempts and they all failed. Against that history, this nuclear deal or anticipated nuclear deal, when he was writing at the time was unchartered territory. And i think when you look at whats going on in iran today you know in the last five years, their currency has lost half its value. Theres been 50 inflation. Meaning that whatever you had in the bank prior to all of this was worth half. And whatever you were buying cost you twice as much. Rouhani won an election as a reformist. Within that context. Its not the american projection of what we would view as a reformist, but, you know, he was pretty vocal about how bad the iranian economy was. Not only during the election but after he won. The difference, in large part from 79 to currently, iranian officials are turning on each other. And i think that reflects that in this nation of some 80 Million People, youve got probably 65 Million People who are very, very young and want normalization with the rest of the world. And then you have the hard liners made up of the revolutionary guard and koods forces sul man any its been said what a Destructive Force he is relative to stability in the region with his work in being on the ground in iraq the shia militias saving al assad in the 11th hour and their support of hezbollah. But because of the deteriorating Economic Situation in iran the koods forces and revolutionary guard benefit. Why . Because they control all the smuggling which is made necessary by the horrific situation economically in iran. Im just here to say that, you know, i think this tenyear period is very, very important because really nobody knows with certainty what will happen. But what in fact could happen is a normalization with the rest of the world. The promotion of a more diversified, legitimate economy in iran could in fact undermine the returned regime and produce the kind of changes that the vast majority, vast majority of young iranians want. And just kind of wanted your thoughts on that. I think some of your diagnosis is correct in terms of the notion of population estranged from the regime and the effect of this particular agreement on the regime. I think whatever the life span of the regime has been extended by an agreement and leads to infusion of economic resources. You can make a case and, frankly, quite a good one, that the longevity of dynasty in north korea has had something to do with the Nuclear Weapon and leverage that from gaining they love their isolation. They dont want anything to do with the rest of the world but Iranian Regime at this point, at the level of institutional arrangements. Yeah, but again, i think whats going on here is there is a dichotomy within you know, the politics of iran. And there is a significant and growing population that wants normalized relations with the rest of the world and wants to see the economy unleash the potential with the iranian people. You can say exactly the same thing about north koreans. I dont think he want to live in this her mettic kingdom. Iran is not a monolithic culture. Theres a strong reform movement. Demographically the young people are in the ascend antsy. Theyre trading culture, intrapraur newerintra entrepreneurial. If you want to make a change, chaens thats the change you make. I agree very much with your comments. Congressman, i think its plausible. Not likely but quite plausible. Clearly the ayatollah has decided this agreement will not facilitate regime change, otherwise he would not have signed it. I agree. Plusible optimistic scenario. I wish it were so. I think not likely because i think this agreement strengthens the current government of iran, which is the ayatollah and the republican guard. But the hope here, but weve never really as america, supported it is clearly whatever the numbers are, theres a very significant number of iranian people who would like to be freed of this fanatical regime. Fortunately, this regime will not let go of power. In the event of an uprising is more likely to respond the way their proxy assad did in syria, which was to turn their weapons on the people. Okay. Thank you very much. We now proceed to congressman darrell issa of california. Thank you, chairman. Senator lieberman does that mean youre pessimistic about peace in our time when it comes to iran . Yeah, i must say if my wife were here she would say im an optimist by nature, and i am. But i am pessimistic about peace in our time with iran because i dont see any fundamental change in their radical ideology and their aggressive support of terrorism. Well, ambassador burns i normally agree with a great deal of what you come up with from scratch yourself based on your experience, but in this case im going to ask you questions more related to the deal. The distinguished senator once he left office hes by definition extremely distinguished, would not be considered to be a dove, so lets lets view this as doves. If this is the chamberlainesque appeasement thats going to work, lets review the next ten years. Under the agreement with the clause during the next ten years, incrementally, iran is clearly going to have more money, more access to weapons, more freedom of movement than they would if we did nothing at all under the current sanctions. Isnt that true . Congressman, there are tradeoffs here no, no, i dont want tradeoffs. I just want answers. Isnt it true that under this agreement there will be a gradual easing that will give iran access almost immediately to some, over time to others but over the next ten years they will have access to more money the ability to buy weapons and the ability to continue developing their at least the nonweapons portion of the Nuclear Ambition correct . And my answer is, their Nuclear Program is going to be frozen for ten years. Theyre going to be set back let me significantly and i appreciate your talking points. I know you were here with talking points. I would just like you to answer my question. Im trying to be very very proactive and positive here. Clearly, this agreement does let them have access to money. It will let them have access in five years or less to large amounts of conventional weapons that they already have a lot of and have been providing to hamas and hezbollah. These are all sort of the gives in this give and take. So, the real question is, if theyre going to have a phase out in ten years from now by the way, they clearly do continue to get to work and to use Nuclear Materials for purposes nonweapons related, so theyre going to continue to know more about nuclear during this ten years, even if they dont cheat. The question i have to you is very simple. Ten to 15 years from now, under this agreement assuming that the side scenario that they simply break out in peace and love for their neighbors and democracy, assuming that happens, we will be safer. Assuming it doesnt happen, isnt it true that iran will be more able to build a Nuclear Weapon and to wage war if they choose to ten years from now from where they are today ten years from now, theyll be able to do that with more money and more sanctions, under the current agreement, yes or no, please . I was asked to testify here and to give you my best perspective. No. I tried to convey a sense of how difficult this is how complex it is. Okay. Well and i wasnt brought here with talking points. I came on my oe volition. My view is ambassador, i appreciate that. My view is we can stop them from becoming a Nuclear Weapons power ten years from now if the president at that time is toughminded enough to do that. Okay. Well and then that brings up sort of the history of appeasement of the soviets. Jimmy carter forgave them their debt. Gave them a week they put the hammer and sickle on and told their people it was russian wheat, not u. S. Wheat. And then reagan took a different tact. Every president has that ability. General hayden, let me go through some factual ones. Ten years ago, you were in the administration, correct . Right. Ten years ago is it true, without disclosing any classified information that iran was behind weapon enhancements in iraq that led to americans dieing on the fields in iraq ten years ago . I actually told National Security adviser hadley it was a policy of the iranian government, approved at the highest levels of that government, to facilitate killing of american and other coalition soldiers. 20 years ago, without disclosing any classified information, to your understanding, is it true that iran played a critical part to the u. S. Airmen who were killed in saudi arabia . That is my understanding. 30 years ago 32 years ago is