Transcripts For CSPAN3 House Foreign Affairs Committee On Iranian Threats 20171018

Today we consider how the United States should confront the full range of threats that iran poses to our National Security and poses to the security of our regional allies and partners and ill give you my view of this, but i believe that president obamas flawed nuclear deal was a gamble, a gamble that iran would choose to become a responsible actor, a country focused on prosperity for its people and security along its borders, and unfortunately and predictedly, the tehran regime clearly sees itself as a movement, one that uses ideology and violence to destabilize its neighbors, to threaten others, mainly the United States and israel. That is why we still hear death to israel, death to the United States. Israel is a one bomb country. Thats why we hear this. In iraq and syria, irans revolutionary guards have taken advantage of the fight against isis and theyre using their shock troops and militia to brutalize syrians and to seize much of the territory. As isis loses ground the risk is real that one version of radical terror is simply replaced by another. Meanwhile, hezbollah ascended in lebanon has thousands of fighters in syria. It is well positioning itself to intensify its original mission, the destruction of israel. This terrorist organization is building a deadly rocket arsenal ready to rein terror on the jewish state. I was in israel during the 2006 hezbollah rocket campaign. Its capabilities then quite substantial are far more concerning today. This is a powder keg. This makes it all the more critical that we stop iran from completing a land bridge from iran to iraq to syria to lebanon. This would be an unacceptable risk, and frankly, a strategic defeat. Its not just israels security on the line. I feel that if iran secures these Transit Route it will mark the end of the decades long u. S. Effort to support an independent lebanon. Jordans security too would be imperilled. This threat grows infinitely worse if iran develops a Nuclear Weapons capability. In this regard, irans continued pursuit of intercontinental Ballistic Missile, funded by the cash bonanza it received when sanctions were lifted is telling. No country has run such an expensive program without also seeking Nuclear Warheads to go on top. These missiles are designed to hit us. While the nuclear deal may have constrained irans ability to produce material, these restrictions begin to sunset in less than a decade, leaving iran with an industrial enrichment capability. The reluctance of International Inspectors today to demand access to military bases means that we dont know to what extent iran is engaged in the complex, but more easily hidden work of designing a nuclear warhead. And thats why clear majorities on this committee and in the house opposed the nuclear deal ultimately however the Obama Administration rammed it through any way and as a result, roughly 100 billion was handed over to iran. Much of this is now in the hands of the Iranian Revolutionary guard corps, an incredible amount of leverage lost. As flawed as the deal is, i believe we must now enforce the hell out of it. Lets work with allies to make certain that International Inspectors have better access to possible Nuclear Sites and we should address the fundamental sunset short coming as our allies have recognized. This committee will do its part tomorrow by marking up the Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions enforcement act. We must also respond to irans efforts to destabilize the region. This includes using our allies in europe to designate hezbollah in its entirety as a terrorist organization and providing the administration with additional tools to go after this iranian proxy. As we voted to do this last week in this committee. Finally, we should be supporting the iranian people who want a better life, who want more freedom, instead of suffering under the brutal repression of an ideologically inspired hateful regime. We have no will towards the iranian people. It is their government that gravely threatens us and threatens our allies. This is their approach that i believe the United States must take for our National Security. Later this week, the president will make a legislatively mandated decision on certification of the nuclear deal. Whatever he decides, it is critical that the president lay out the facts. He should explain that his decision he should explain what it means, he should explain what it doesnt mean and then i hope, as ive tried to do here today, the president will define a responsible path forward to confront the full range of threats posed by iran. I now will go to the Ranking Member for his remarks, mr. Engle. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you for calling this hearing. To our witnesses welcome to the Foreign Affairs committee. Thank you all for your history of service to our country. Its very much appreciated. Theres no doubt whatsoever that iran poses a grave threat to security in its neighborhood and around the globe. In iran, we find the worlds number one state sponsor of terrorism, a government developing illegal and dangerous Ballistic Missiles that could deliver a devastating weapon of critical life line to the assad dynasty in syria and a regime that flouts International Human rights norms, brutally suppresses its own people and unlawfully detains foreign citizens including americans. How to grapple with this challenge is one of the most important questions for our Foreign Policy and for us as lawmakers . Ive longed advocated tougher sanction thats go after irans harmful activities. Earlier this year with the chairmans support we passed into law new sanctions on irans destabilizing activities including its Ballistic Missile program, its support for terrorism and its conventional arms transfers. Thoo week especially we cannot talk about how to deal with iran without talking about the nuclear deal, whether staying in the deal will make it easier or harder to meet this challenge. I opposed the deal. I voted against the deal. Mr. Sullivan i say this with respect and gratitude for your hard work to bring you to the negotiating table but i felt the sunset provisions left too short a time before iran could become a legitimate Nuclear Power. I also felt that iran being the number one state sponsor of terrorism would reap a wind fall in money from this agreement and therefore could use it and would use it to carry out its terrorist activities to an even greater state than they have been in the past. But i was on the lose approximating side of that debate. Since the deal was reached, like the chairman, ive called for it to be strictly enforced while we look for other ways to address the range of nonnuclear challenges coming out of iran. So today the administration seems poised to take the first step in withdrawing from the jcpoa. I must say that i view that course as a grave mistake. The United States, we in the United States, have to live up to our word. If we withdraw from the deal now, iran would be free today from the constraints on their program and the Intrusive Inspections that the jcpoa puts into place. They could race head long toward a nuclear bomb, hold of the benefits of sanctions relief and continue for meanting instability across the region. They need to hold the regime accountable, not dividing america from our closest friends across the globe. If we pull out of the deal, i believe we lose whatever leverage we have to drive that agenda. At the same time, walking away from the jcpoa would announce to the world that the United States cannot be counted on to keep its word. In north korea, were staring down a rogue regime that already has Nuclear Weapons. If we pull out of the iran deal, we would lose all credibility as we try to negotiate with the regime in pyongyang on nuclear disarm ament. One of the arguments ive heard in the last week is that the administration should withhold certification but that we should stay in the deal any way. Thats trying to have it both ways. Doesnt work. I think its a political cover for opponents of the deal who have been saying for years that we should withdraw and are now having second thoughts. I think its a distraction from the real issues involving iran that demand our attention and i think its playing with fire, failing to certify the deal was the first step toward ending it. Thats how governments around the world will perceive it, possibly including iran, which could spark a Second Nuclear crisis on top of north korea. We need to be tough on iran. We need tough sanctions and multilateral sanction to make clear that the regime will face consequences for its dangerous activities. We need to reclaim the mantle of leadership, bring countries together and hold iran accountable. Saying were going to tear up the deal sounds like tough talk, but i dont believe it wont help us meet this challenge. It would merely hamper our ability to make progress to get tougher in the areas where we can. It would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. So i hope the president heeds the advice of secretary mattis and others. I hope he understands the importance of the United States keeping its commitments. If were serious about cracking down on iran, the best path forward is to stick with the deal, despite what i view is its flaws and hold iran strictly to its obligations. That will put us in a far better position to address all the other problems iran is stirring up. So i look forward to hearing from our witnesses on these questions. Thank you, again, mr. Chirm. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Engle. This morning we are joined by a distinguished panel. We have ambassador James Jeffrey with us. Hes a distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute for near east policy. Previously, the ambassador served as u. S. Ambassador to iraq, to turkey and to albania. We have general charles wald, hes a distinguished fellow and cochair of the center Iran Task Force at the Jewish Institute for National Security of america. Previously, general walled served as the Deputy Foreign commander. We have mr. David albright, founder and president of the Nonprofit Institute for science and interNational Security. Mr. Albright has written numerous assessments on Nuclear Weapons, secret Nuclear Weapon programs throughout the world and we appreciate him being with us as well. Mr. Jake sullivan is a senior fellow at the go economics and Strategy Program at the carngy endo youment for International Peace. He served as a National Security adviser to fornler Vice President joe biden and as the director of policy planning at the University Department of state. Without objection, the witnesses full prepared statements will be made part of the record today and members here will have five calendar days to submit any statements or any questions or any extraneous material that they want to put into the record for todays hearing. So i would just ask ambassador jeffrey if you would like to summarize your statement and then after each of you have presented, will have the questions from the members of the committee. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Ranking member, members of the committee. My distinguished colleagues, here on the table, its an honor to be here today to discuss something of such extraordinary importance just before the president will talk to the American People about iran policy. Mr. Chairman, i agree with you that in certain circles in washington and elsewhere there was a belief that this iran deal could do more than constrain Irans Nuclear program. In fact, the preamble to the agreement expressed the hope and i quote, that full implementation of this jcpoa the agreement will positively contribute to regional and International Peace and security. Just last night i heard the eu foreign minister who is basically the spokesperson of the p 5 plus 1 echo a very similar line back when she announced the agreement in 2015. And i think thats one of the core flaws of this agreement and one of my arguments that i will make in a second that we have to look at this agreement in more detail and where it fits is that people think that if theyre okay with the agreement, the iranians are adhering to it then we dont have a problem with them. We have many problems with them inside and outside the agreement. Right now the greatest danger facing the u. S. Is iran allied with various forces. The u. S. As yet does not have a comprehensive policy to confront iran that should include both containing iran in the region and as you both mentioned, looking at the jcpoa. The stakes here are high. If america does not stop the iranians they will soon emerge with their allies as the dominant force in the region. Such a policy, however, has to consider some key elements that any such policy needs to look at. Ill give you my views on them but more important than my views, is that the administration looks at each of these elements. First, iran must be the first u. S. Priority in the region. It must be number one. Specifically, apart from terrorist attacks on the homeland, pefl we need to shift our attention and resources now from the almost finished isis campaign to iran. Thats critical because right now the administration is still focused on isis. Second, we need to know what our basic purpose is in confronting iran. Is it to pushback on irans specific regional moves or is it to effect significantly irans overall goals and role in the region or is it regime change . There are voices on all three here in washington. In view of the need for its broad as possible, an International Coalition as both you mr. Royce and you mr. Engle noted, i think we should limit this on pushing back on irans actions that will allow us the biggest and strongest coalition. Next, as weve discussed the jcpoa cannot be given however the absence of an International Consensus for a new better agreement and our need for such a Broad Coalition to contain irans successfully, we should not abandoned the agreement, rather we should use our problems with it to push at least diplomatically for a potential new agreement, raise our problems with missiles, challenge the commitments weve made i think foolishly in agreement to support irans economic development, and basically make it more difficult for businesses to work with iran. The central front to contain iran is iraq and syria. Irans intent is to create vassal states in that region. If it succeeds it will threaten again as youve mentioned israel, jordan, turkey and the gulf. The u. S. Focused on isis appears to be leaving the day after in both syria and iraq to the russians, i was just there for a week with them and believe me they dont want to and wont help us and in iraq to the government. I know him and the people around him. They would like to help us. Theyre not Strong Enough without a strong american presence. That presence includes not only diplomacy and economic help it includes a military presence on the ground in both countries over time ostensibly to contain syria but contain isis rather but focused on iran. Finally, we need to know do we talk to iran, we need a diplomatic plan, do we talk to iran under which circumstances . How do we signal to it . We need to reunify this alliance, the saudis, the turks, the egyptians are going in all directions. Finally, to the members of the committee, as i am and many others have experienced if you pushback on iran theyll come at you. Theyll come at you real hard. We need to know what we will do in advance and that includes potentially striking them in their homeland. General wald. Thank you, mr. Chairman, Ranking Member engle and members of the committee. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss responses to the full range of threats posed by iran. I followed iran closely throughout my career including in my current capacity as the cochair of the Iran Task Force at the ginza center. We issued a report on the need to restore u. S. Leverage to understandably current debate is focused on the jcpoa and whether continued adherence to the deal serves our national interests. Our task force has been an outspoken critic of this agreement which gives great financial, military and geopolitical benefits while robbing the United States of our previous leverage against iran. An effective strategy against iran must prioritize restoring our lost leverage. This is urgent because the deal places iran on a trajectory to become an intractable a challenge as north korea is today and very possibly worse. Sanctions relief is bringing renewed Foreign Investment to iran and with it the capital and technology for increased spending on Ballistic Missiles and operations in places like syria, iraq and yemen. The deal also legalizes irans ambitious military buildup. U. N. Security Council Resolution 2231 gives iran and specifically the irgc a major opportunity to advance its Nuclear Capable Ballistic Missile and intimidate our regional allies. That same resolution will lift the conventional arms embargo on iran allowing the irgc to become an International Arms dealer. The irgcs ability to inflict heavy costs on our forces and deny access to the region will grow significantly as it augustments air defenses, submarines, unmanned vehicles, mines radars and missiles. The u. N. Resolution eventually permits the irgc to access highly advanced Missile Technology and materials from abroad. This will Aid Development of a more sophisticated nuclear delivered victim including medium range and intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Its important to note that tehran could push for icbms around the same time as it approaches Nuclear Weapons capability effectively giving it a direct nuclear return against the u. S. Before the jcpoa ends. Its already moving aggressively against us and our allies. Since day one of the deal it has been testing more accurate and multistage Ballistic Missiles with reentry vehicles that are harder to intercept and better suited for Nuclear Warheads. Meanwhile its proxy in yemen to lob dozens of missiles as bases in cities. I was told yesterday that the yemen have shot 63 scuds in saudi arabia over the last days, which, by the way, because of the pack 3 missiles the saudi arabia have been able to defend against. Its growing. Overall, if iran does not material brief the gcpoa the deal is already immuned to its dangerous ambitions. We need a coherent set of responses to reverse this unbalance before it continues from bad to worse. I applaud this committee for its tireless efforts to impact iran. First, american officials should make clear they are preparing contingency plans. This must include threats to shoot down future tests if necessary. Second, we must under take concrete military preparations including a forward deployment Missile Defense fleet to the persian gulf. Congress should consider requiring the pentagon adopt the use and other changes as part of the broader reassessment and Contingency Planning for the region. Third, we need a post isis strategy to prevent iran from dictating the countrys future and consolidating its land bridge. Fourth, we need to augment the new mou by removing artificial caps on Missile Defense especially given iran and hezbollahs presence and fifth, we need to work with vaud on Missile Defense and transfer israeli Missile Defense systems to the country. Finally, we need to ensure the interoperatability defenses between gulf allies to counter irans capability thanks to the nuclear deal. Regardless of the jcpoas future, i thank you mr. Chairman for my time and i look forward to the committees questions. Thank you, general wald. Mr. David albright. Thank you, chairman royce, Ranking Member engle and other esteemed members of this committee. We are one week away from the two Year Anniversary of adoption day, the day when the Iran Nuclear Deal came into effect. It is clear now that iran is no south africa which should serve as a bench mark to evaluate any country giving up Nuclear Weapons program coming into compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty and building a peaceful relationship with its neighbors. In contrast, iran has only temporarily frozen its most threatening Nuclear Weapons capabilities. It is maintained since implementation day as a matter of policy that will not allow iaea inspections of its military sites. Finally, iran has continued its threats against u. S. National interests and has conducted a range of maligned behaviors. Few believer that iran will change enough that will no longer seek Nuclear Weapons once the jcpoa begin to sunset. The First Nuclear sunset of notice eight years after adoption day or six years from now, when iran can scale up advanced sent refugee manufacturing. But there are two nonNuclear Sunsets that lend urgency to acting now. U. N. Security council restrictions on arms related transfers to and from iran end in three years, restrictions on any activity related to Ballistic Missiles designed to be capable of delivering Nuclear Weapons end in six years, and those dates could be moved up if the iea reaches a broader conclusion and signs off on Irans Nuclear program. By the time the Nuclear Sunset start to occur six years from now, irans expected to be conventionally armed to the teeth and poised to develop Nuclear Capable missiles able to strike europe and eventually the United States. By that time, it will have a powerful economy against sanctions pressure. So waiting to undo these sunsets means waiting until the United States would face a well armed, well funded Iranian Military on the cusp of putting Nuclear Weapons on long range Ballistic Missiles. This future is not acceptable. And this dire future occurs by irans simply following the letter of the nuclear deal and resolution 2231. However, iran is neither fully complied with the nuclear deal and resolution 2231 nor fully implemented the nuclear deal. With regards to the nuclear deal, iran has violated the deal on many occasions, exploited loopholes, pushed the envelope of allowed behavior and avoided critical verification of requirements. The Trump Administration is committed to robust enforcement of the nuclear deal, so far this approach has reduced the number of violations, although it is not eliminated all of them. Then of course there are the ongoing wellknown problems of the iea gaining access to military sites. The issue remains unresolved, a new issue with section t which covers bans on Nuclear Development and the implementation of section t was recently confirmed by the director general of the iaea. Could you just clarify that in your testimony . Im sorry . Just repeat that and just clarify. Recently the director general of International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that section t remains unimplemented and is actually asked for guidance on how to treat this because russia opposes the inspectors visiting military sites. The justification and need to better enforce and fix the nuclear deal and associated grievance is clear but what to do . We are waiting President Trumps decision regarding the 90 day srgs under and the administrations rollout of its iran policy more generally. If the administration does decertify, i believe it would be fully justified under justified even setting aside what are called on cure material breach issues which i agree are debatable the president has a solid case to decertify based on whether suspension of sanctions remains vital to u. S. National security interests. By decertifying the president would send a powerful signal that the nuclear deal has fundamentally fought architecture which cannot be fixed by better enforcement alone. My colleague and i recommended a middle course of decertifying. Instead the number of nonNuclear Sanctions should be increased and fixed in congressional legislation. The outline of the approach includes rewriting u. S. Policy to eliminate the sun sets in the nuclear deal and resolution 2231 and tighten inspections. Congress and particularly this committee has done significant legislative work on repairing five year arms and eight year Ballistic Missile sun sets and i believe the legislation that is being put together or set for markup will improve this even farther. The president has not announced that this is u. S. Policy or how the policy effects sun sets in resolution 2231 and how it will be enforced. In cooperation with the Administration Congress should fix the nuclear deal in cooperation with the Administration Congress should fix the nuclear deal legislatively focussing on the nuclear sun sets and inspections. Let me stop here since im over and happy to add to this during the questioning. Thank you. Go now to jake sullivan. Thank you distinguished members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today along side by distinguished panelists to discuss full range of uranium threats. I would like to make four points at the outset. First, the Iran Nuclear Deal is working as intended. It has put a lid on Irans Nuclear program and blocking irans pathways to a bomb. Of course, its not a perfect agreement. We got what we need to achieve the purposes of the deal. Thousands have been dismantled. Irans plutonium has been neutralized. 98 of uranium has been shipped out of the country. International inspectors have new and unprecedented access to compliance. All of this was achieved by diplomacy backed by pressure implemented by this Committee Without the United States having to fire a single shot. Today the iaea, u. S. Intelligence community and Israeli Security establishment assessed that iran is complying with the deal. Secretary mattis has testified it is in interest so it makes no sense for President Trump to decline to certify. The deal does not solve all problems for all time but solves a key problem at this point. The nuclear deal does not preclude the United States from taking decisive steps. The fact that the jcpoa does not address sponsorship of terrorism or regional aggression is this is not a treaty of good will and we design the deal to preserve our right and our capacity to counter iran on all of these fronts. Today we maintain the means to pursue a multi dimensional whole of Government Strategy to counter irans malign activity. We can impose costs, deter and disrupt financing of terrorism, work with allies and partners to curb regional aggression and support aspirations of the iranian people. We can also take steps to address the continued attention of american citizens and while we enforcing the Iran Nuclear Deal. This brings me to my third point. The best strategy to counter the full range of threats is to commit to the deal and borrow a phrase from the chairman, enforce the hell out of it, not cast it into doubt and raise questions about americas credibility. We want our partners around the world to ramp up pressure on irans malign activities. We want European Partners to stop making the artificial distinction between political and military wings. It is harder to get them to focus on these threats that are subject of this hearing when all of their attention is on the question of will he or wont he walk away from the deal. It is a lot harder to get cooperation from our partners to counter iran when they are thinking more about the risks that washington poses than they are about the risks tehran poses. Committing to the deal rather than playing deals with it will not only help marshall, it will help us implement the deal itself. The deal does provide the iaea access to military sites in iran. If our Partners Trust in our good faith they will be more likely to join us in adopting a more assertive approach and our treaties to enforce these aspects of the deal will not be met with suspicion about what we are really up to. Experience has taught us when iran is isolated and the world trusts america we can rally the world to hold iran to account. Lets get back to that. Fourth, walking away from the nuclear deal would be a disaster for the United States. Iran would resume its march towards Nuclear Capability and the rest of the world would be deeply skeptical about joining us in rebuilding global sanctions regime. Without a deal we would be faced with the same painful choices we are currently facing with north korea. These are choices we already have to grapple with one Nuclear Crisis right now as this committee knows well. Why would the Administration Want to create a second one . This defies not only sound Strategic Thinking but also simple common sense. Thank you and i look forward to answering wrour questiyour ques in august i was in the middle east and i wanted to ask ambassador jeffrey a question here because you made it very clear that allowing iran to complete the land bridge or the corridor across iraq and syria to lebanon would risk in your words a strategic defeat. And i wondered if you could explain to us what you presume the impact will be on lebanon, on israel and on jordan. How could we work with our partners on the ground to block this effort . First of all, people have poopooed the idea of a land bridge. I have been out there and you have been out there and a lot of us have been out there. Trucks roll around the middle east deserts all the time. The iranians for good reason fear because we did it with turkey a few years ago and they fear our ability to intercept and force down aircraft if we really get upset with iran. We control the air in the middle east. We dont control the sand. Thats what they want to do. Its a lot easier to move things by semi trailer than it is by even jumbo jet and the iranians dont have many of them. The things they want to move are Weapons Systems particularly even more advanced rockets, Missile Systems in components so that hezbollah can build such systems to threaten israel and threaten other allies. We see how upset jordan is as hezbollah moving close to its border. Turkey is very concerned about assad trying to get revenge for support for the opposition. Turkey thinks it can cut a deal with russia. Turkeys turn to be invited will come. Thats i think what is going to happen. We see this with lebanon particularly the control defacto of the government by hezbollah. We saw that recently with the lebanese governments agreeing to isis fighters being transferred to the shock of the american administration. And the idea that syria and iraq will be dominated by these forces who are loyal to tehran and will ensure that the interests are met. That brings me to the follow up to that. In 2006 i watched those rockets come down. Went out to the trauma hospital where 600 victims. They had at that time in hezbollahs arsenal about 10,000 of these left. Today they probably have 120,000. The fact that iran is building in southern lebanon and in syria across from israel factories to make additional rockets, when i was there each one had 90,000 ball bearings in it. You can imagine the damage it did when it came in on a civilian area. What can we do to help israel respond to this obvious threat since they keep telegraphing the punch that they intend to deliver . Thats the real issue long term. Just up front i would say one of the problems i have with the current at least declared status is it is incremental. The bottom will be the threat to israel and saudi arabia for that matter. I think there is actually a new world kind of evolving in the middle east we need to start taking advantage and that is commonality with enemy with saudi arabia and israel. Two is i think we need to look closely at our Equipment Transfer to both saudi arabia but israel, as well. The number as i mentioned in tie testimony that i think we ought to beef up the foreign aid to israel from that standpoint. I was in israel not long ago and did a study of the conflict. Iron dome is fantastic. The problem is they dont have enough of it because of the 120,000 missiles. They have to have a left of the attack capability which might be a cyber type capability which we cant talk about here. I think our u. S. Policy and strategy i go along with what has been broadly commented here is to let the jcpoa as it is but enforce the sanctions as you point out. I totally agree with you about a week ago saying this is exactly what we ought to do. Number two is i think we need to look strongly at building a stronger, maybe unique or different middle east coalition that would include favorable countries as well as jordan and egypt and start beefing up the capability to deter iran and hezbollah. I go to mr. Elliot engel of new york. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me first of all say that since a number of questions have been raised by witnesses about irans compliance or lack of it with the jcpoa and iaeas ability or inability to verify. I want to encourage members of the committee to attend our classified briefing tomorrow at 2 30 with the Intelligence Community to learn more about this in a classified setting. Its 2 30 tomorrow to talk about the ability or inability to verify and compliance with jcpoa. Let me ask mr. Sullivan. How would President Trumps failure to certify iranian compliance of the nuclear deal effect the likelihood that our partners would be willing to work with us on confronting irans maline activities such as support for terrorism and advancing the Ballistic Missile program . Thats the concern i have. I think it will have a negative impact for a couple of different reasons. The first is that it will put all of the focus of diplomatic discussions between the United States and European Partners on what to do about the deal and whether the president will stay in it and whether he likes it today and doesnt tomorrow. This will he or wont he dance around decertification and what follows will distract from taking on iran. We heard from other witnesses on this panel about how as things stand today United States policy towards syria is permissive in respect to irans capacity to gain strength and gain territory. We need to be working with our partners and focussed on that as job number one right now. The second thing that i think it will do with respect to our partners is make them worried that if they actually worked hard with us on a broader strategy against iran whether or not we would have the staying power or credibility to go with it because we told them we would be with them in enforcing that deal. So from my perspective the best way to achieve the objectives that the republicans and democrats want to achieve we should commit to the deal and make clear that americas word is good and americas faith is good and we will enforce the deal to the utmost and then rally the world to deal with all of these other challenges. Let me talk a bit about my trepidation about the relationship that syria is building with russia. Iran has begun to develop a permanent foothold in syria sinking aa they dont like te cease fire in syria. They are concerned about it that it brings iran too close to the israeli border. Irans relationship with russia which is cemented in the battlefield defending the assad regime has made it possible in my opinion for iran to make inroads in syria and threatening to destabilize lebanon and iraq. Anyone care to answer this, i have three questions. Is the United States relying on russia to influence iran . Would russia agree to keep iran contained and what motivation does russia have in keeping iran in check . Seems to be falling in right with their principles. I will start with my conversations in moscow two weeks ago. I get into the details of who we talked with. We met both officials and how can i put it former officials with close ties to the government. They basically felt that they were able to operate in syria and that as far as they were concerned this whole process in the u. N. Under u. N. Resolution 2254, the geneva process for political solution they just give it lip service. They were pressing us to agree for a Marshall Plan for assads syria to build it up. As far as the Current Administration as i mentioned a few minutes ago on the land bridge when i press them and said this is a what happens inside syria and out of syria is a security concern for our allies and for us, their answer was but the administration doesnt tell us that. They say they are just in syria to fight isis which is why i said we have to shift our 3r50ir9s priorities. Russia does not have the same interests. Russia wants to build up the Syrian Government and regular military forces. Iran wants to at least implicitly under cut them by creating alternative Power Centers politically and particular lly militarily. Russia also realizes that israel and other countries are looking to russia to constrain iran and it may be that russia will be playing the mediator role. That isnt good for us to be a threat to the region that is mediated only by russia and not by us because the way this place has worked is we have been a country that has come in and kept thing under wraps. I do not think that russia is fundamentally at odds with iran in syria. I dont think the differences are that big. I think that we as a government if we have a specific policy which we dont have yet, we might be able to use russia on the margins but not too much because they are basically an antistatus quo power as is iran in the region and we are status quo powers. Its that simple. Thank you so much chairman royce. Its abundantly clear that at this point this fanciful notion that if only we come to a Nuclear Agreement with iran first then iran would be willing to engage on the rest of its Illicit Activity has proven to be just that, fanciful. You raised the possibility of the issue of nonimplementation of section t and that verification of this section would require iaea access to military sites. Has iran been granting the iaea access to military sites . Not since implementation day. In the august 2017 iaea board of governors report on verification and monitoring of irans compliance states the agencys verification and monitoring of iran and other jcpoa Nuclear Related commitments continues including those set out in sections d, e, s and t of annex 1 of the jcpoa. If the iaea is not getting access to military sites to verify section t, how is verification and monitoring of this section taking place and how is iran in compliance . I think it leaves out many things from the report. I spent a lot of time talking to governments in europe, People Associated with the iaea to try to learn things. And its just a decision that the director general made that he is not going to be very transparent and one of the reasons i looked into section t was because it just seemed to be a clear contradiction between what he was saying, the director general was saying and what was happening on the ground. Thank you, sir. I dont think i will have time for responses in this setting but we will talk afterwards and i know we will have an opportunity. You discussed the need to strip the socalled seal of approval bestowed upon iran by the jcpoa and under cutting the willingness of the International Business community to fund irans economy. And you also talk about strengthening the u. S. eu alliance. The nations have been unwilling to take any action. Partly for fear. In large part because they have concluded billions upon billions of dollars in deals with iran and i ask you to your knowledge has the eu imposed any new nonNuclear Related sanction or designation against iran since the jcpoa and how do we get the eu on board when its Member States have given their seal of approval and open up tehran for business . And then for general wald, you mentioned iranian regional aggression under the jcpoa undermining efforts in iraq and syria, support for hezbollah and there are also concerns that qatars restoration of ties with having visited the amir. I ask how bad the consequences are for the region if iran continues to support the huthis and how would we be addressing that . A note for the committee as we here are discussing iran nonproliferation threat i would like to report to the committee that our own was nominated for the position of assistant secretary of state for verification and compliance. Ads many of you know yalin served as chief of staff. I wont have time for answers but i will chat with the gentleman afterwards. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you for yielding back. Chairman of california. Mr. Chairman, i can imagine buying a flawed automobile and deciding it is a bad deal. You can just take the car back to the dealer and get back your money. Imagine if you take the car back to the dealer the dealer keeps the car and your money. Iran is going to keep our money. We unfroze 100 billion of their money that people argue whether it is larger or smaller than that amount. We delivered over a billion dollars in currency. We can announce the deal. Iran keeps the money and is liberated from all restrictions on the Nuclear Program. I oppose this deal because the restrictions on Irans Nuclear programs were temporary but u. S. Obligations under the deal are permanent. What we should be trying to do is extend and enforce the Nuclear Sanctions. If we renounce this deal we dont extend and enforce the Nuclear Sanctions and restrictions on iran, we end them. There are two methods by which we can get to that bad result. The first is on our minds now because it can be triggered, the first stop could be on october 15. And that is the president could fail to issue the certification under the Iran Nuclear Review act. I think if he did that the press might overplay it but all it does is change senate rules. It says that there could be a bill that would get immediate 60day attention or get expedited attention in the senate to reimpose one or more of the sanctions that we agreed to get rid of as part of the jcpoa. They need 50 votes instead of 60. I dont think the senate will use that. I dont think they will impose the sanctions because i dont this can they want to take back the car and let the dealer keep our money, too. The other way that we could reach the same bad result would be in january of next year because the only way the jcpoa works is for the president to issue waivers under four different, at least four different sanctions bills and all of those sanctions waivers expire in the middle of next january. Now, if the president were to fail to issue those waivers then regardless of the wisdom of congress we would get the bad result. So my hope is if the president has to do something for the based on his need to repudiate anything that mr. Obama is associated with that he would take the action that just kicks the matter to congress and congress could wisely refuse to make a bad decision. If he instead waits until january and refuses to issue these waivers not as a result of congressional action but just as a result of his own action then there will be celebrations in the Islamic Republic. What we need is more sanctions with european support. The way we get those is as mr. Sullivan points out, we are free to impose sanctions for the other evils. And a number of us asked john kerry about this in july of 2015 before us. I asked about the Central Bank Sanctions and i said is congress and the United States free to adopt new sanctions legislation or enforce as long as iran holds our hostages or supports assad . His response was we are free to adopt additional sanctions as long as they are not a phony excuse for just taking the whole pot of past ones and putting them back. So we have to convince the world that we are sanctioning iran in a different way for different reasons. The more we say we hate the deal and we are in the process of repudiating the deal the more the stananctions of 2017 begin look like a phony excuse for taking the whole pot of past ones and putting them on and letting iran argue that they are liberated from the nuclear restrictions. The more we say that we are going to live with this deal, that we respect the deal and that we are imposing new sanctions because of irans other evils here i want to thank the Islamic Republic because they have committed such incredible evils, such mass murder in yemen and in syria that they will more than justify any sanctions any of us can come up with. I have used my time. I ask the witnesses to respond for the record and particularly i would like mr. Sullivan to outline what are the toughest sanctions we can impose that meet kerrys standard. Thank you, mr. Sherman. Thank you very much. Mr. Sullivan, during the debate over the iran agreement the Obama Administration repeatedly charged opponents of the flawed deal that somehow we were pushing for war and nothing could have been further from the truth in that false allegation. Let me ask you this, is irans behavior, increased aggressiveness, build out on Ballistic Missiles what you expected from the deal . Thank you for the opportunity to actually make it quick because i dont have much time. I never believed in negotiating the deal from the beginning that producing a Nuclear Agreement with iran that we would fix let me ask you this. Secretary of state john kerry said january 21 of 2016 that money from the deal that the iranians were getting would go to terrorists. To who has that gone . Who are the terrorists and how much . As i understand it the Trump Administrations dia chief has said the bulk has gone to domestic purposes. Do you know how moch is gone . No. It would behoove the committee to get a briefing from dia chief who has laid out we had numerous hearings and the chairman was stellar in insuring we had multiple hearings before, during and after. Even before the inspections, before the deal was signed said he will never permit inspectors to inspect irans military bases. The iranian minister of defense said would not allow by inspecting the countrys military sites. And under secretary of state continue to talk about anytime anywhere types of inspections and went on to say after the deal was signed it was rhetorical. On site verification was key anytime anywhere and you brought up this section t problem. You might want to elaborate on that if you would for the committee. Thank you. First of all, on the money issue i say from my perspective, im not a treasury expert, but 100 billion to iran may not have gone directly to the irgc but freed up money would have given had they had it in their own cou coffers. The money is fungible, in other words. On the inspection issue i dont think any of us should be naive to think iran is not cheating on what we consider is the deal. To me it is almost flabbergasting that we would think that was going to be an acceptable issue where we have frankly underground facilities could be built almost any place. We dont have perfect intelligence. I would venture to say that i would be 99. 9 sure iran is cheating on the deal and that portion of it needs to be looked at closely. I am very disturbed that we are basically void of a real broad strategy in the middle east that we both defend our interest and israels. I think one of the unfortunate mistakes that the Obama Administration 345id made was to down play the importance of getting demonstrated access to military sites in iran and solving what are called these possible military dimension issues prior to implementation day. It set up a very unworkable dynamic for the inspectors. There is a mechanism in the deal to and the International Inspectors dont want to be put in that position. I think that has been part to push this issue. I think one of the things that if the president does decertify or if he doesnt there is a need for congress to start thinking through legislation to fix this deal. I think there is many ways to do that. I think it is a priority to focus on how to ensure that the inspectors get in there. I would add that most of this new talk of wanting to enforce the deal better among our allies, willing to look at fixes is only because President Trump said he would walk away. Before that there were big problems in getting the europeans to take any of these problems seriously. So i think President Trump has done a service while we can all argue about how it played out, but he has done a basic service to try to get people to focus on the inadequacies of the deal. Iran, north korea collaboration, does it exist . What is the status of it now . Certainly there is belief that there is collaboration on missiles. On nuclear it is much more uncertainty but it is a concern for the future. Thank you, mr. Chairman. First i just got to make a comment general wald that your last statement clearly speculation, pure speculation without fact is very dangerous. So i just have to make that comment. I dont need an answer. I need to make that statement. I would say one thing 0. 1 isnt. Number two i only have a limited time. Mr. Sullivan, number one, listening to your testimony earlier i go a church on sunday i would have said amen. Seems to me that it made logical sense. I think people forget how we got to the table in the first place. It wasnt Bilateral Agreement between us and iran. It wasnt even the bilateral sanctions that we had on iran. It is the fact that we did lead, was able to get the other countries to work with us and for them to also apply the sanctions multi laterally that brought them to the table so that we could discuss one issue which our focus was to prevent them from having a Nuclear Weapon as you have appropriately said. And that there was nothing to prevent this because i think we are all united on the fact that we are not sitting back and trusting iran and saying we are not going to do anything of nefarrious activity. We have to stop them. We have to use other sanctions. We have to continue to try to unite and bring our allies together as we did on this agreement to prevent iran from having Nuclear Weapons. I think we all agree, too. I dont know any bill ever passed the United States congress or place else that is perfect. There is no bill that is perfect. We always negotiate and no one gets their way 100 . That being said, i would be interested to know, ambassador jeffrey, you heard testimony of mr. Sullivan. Is there anything that you disagree with that mr. Sullivan said . I was both hoping and fearing that that question would come up, congressman, because jake and i both worked a lot in the diplomatic world and when we disagree these are disagreements of opinion we prove it. Here is the problem with disagreement in allies. Allies in the region are happy if we not walk away from the agreement but we can certainly do quite a bit on it. We are really talking about allize al i is in europe. They have embrace of disagreement because of philosophy which is that International Agreements are the way to deal with all problems. The problem with this is they also have a rapid reluctance to engage or even to support us in engaging during the hard work of containing iran. I dont think that us behaving well with this agreement is going to get them to sign up to more joint action in syria and iraq against iran. I think rather if we question that agreement and say to the degree we are going to hold to much of it will depend on how successful we are regionally and that requires your help. I think that is a way to go forward. And i think go ahead, mr. Sullivan y. See you wanted to say something. I think this military inspections issue is a great case in point. The deal provides iaea the opportunity to get access to irans military sites and iran is not allowed to simply say no. However, it also requires our allies to work with us, our European Partners to work with us to make that happen. When Ambassador Haley goes to vienna to raise the issue of access to military sites and there are reports in the press here that is the reason the Trump Administration is raising this is they want it as an excuse to walk away from the deal, its no surprise the europeans in iaea are reluctant to engage with the United States on that issue. From my perspective the way we were able to build a campaign of pressure against iran to get to this nuclear deal in the first place which the europeans did not want to go along with because they were allergic to biting sanctions it was by making clear that the United States was going to act in good faith and that all of the burden of proof was on iran. What the Trump Administration has done is created real questions about where the burden of proof should lie. I think Ambassador Haley went to vienna for very good reasons to raise issues and learn things. Using false statements in the press to try to repugn what she did i think is unfair. Im not impugning. What im saying is that the Trump Administrations approach, they are putting out publically that one of the ways in which they may want to ultimately walk away from the deal is to point to the provision. To make that part of the Public Theater around this i think is a challenge and has nothing to do with Ambassador Haley. They never said that. Time is expired regardless. We have to go. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Thank you representative engel for your leadership on this particular issue. Let me just if i can ask you a yes or no question. Is iran in compliance with the treaty. Resolution no. No. Not in full compliance. Yes. So we have three of our witnesses are saying that their decision that basically iran is not in compliance. And i have one that sort of both ways and but in the end that was a no as far as im concerned. General, let me just note we have to push buttons here. Yes or no when we go to vote. When you got 99 of something you feel something is right 99 , that is a really easy vote for us to make. Maybe im just talking about myself. You do realize there is always a couple Percentage Points on the other side of the argument. So lets just say already we have the majority at least of this of our Witnesses Today saying iran is not in compliance and is there a question then should the president of the United States lie about it . We gave him the responsibility to determine whether there was compliance. Of course not. We have people who are responsible people throughout our country telling us they are not in compliance and it may mean something really bad for our country in the future if we simply ignore it as we have found out in korea. I was right here when we were told about how north korea deserved to have the treaty and we gave them 5 billion and now where are we at on the edge of a catastrophe. Kicking the cloan down the roads not the answer here. I agree that we owe the president a debt of gratitude for bringing some reality to decision makings like this rather than trying to have what i call irational optimism about the future which always leads us to situations where like we face in north korea today. One thing that we this is not just an alternative, however, of facing the moolahs down on this particular issue or dealing with them in some way militarily. We have other ways of ratcheting up pressure on the moolah regime. We have friends here dressed in yellow today to remind us that the people of iran dont like the moolah oppressors who murder their own people we have people beluch in iran. We have kurds in iran. We havent even ratcheted up any of the pressure on them even as iran, the moolah dictators thumb their nose at us and take the money but dont comply fully with the expectations of that treaty. We need leadership here. We cant wait for more than 99 certainty before we act. And there are avenues that are nonmilitary confrontational. I would hope that we act and i wish our president well. Our chairman ed royce in his opening statement, chairman royce mentioned the fact that there are people in iran who are not our enemies. The people of iran are not our enemies. Its the moolah regime just like the people of north korea are not our enemies. We got to be realistic in our approach and not try to ignore realities if we are going to have a better and more peaceful future. I will give if anyone can mr. Sullivan go ahead and disagree with me. Go right ahead. Given additional time to disagree. I would say first i wouldnt substitute the judgment as much as i believe in myself and respect my colleagues here on this panel i would not substitute the judgment of any of us for the combination of iaea and Israeli Security establishment all of whom have said iran is complying with the deal. As respect to the reality of irans activities in the region i laid out my own views about the threat that it poses and the decisive steps United States needs to take to do it. I think we do that better by committing to the deal than by playing games with it. Thank you witnesses and mr. Sullivan. Does that include a comment from one of our other guests, as well . Go right ahead. Very quickly, the legislation that you gave to the president that he is acting on with this certification, the iran Nuclear Agreement review act has him certify things beyond just whether iran is in compliance including is iran doing things outside of the agreement for its Nuclear Weapons program . Arguably missiles would put it in that category. Number four is it in our Vital National interest . I think the president has room to take one of several positions without necessarily challenging mr. Sullivans view that technically iran is in compliance with the agreement, not the u. N. Resolution. We go to mr. Ted deutsche of florida. Thank you to our really esteemed group of witnesses here today. Mr. Chairman, i opposed jcpoa back in 2015. Like you i said from the beginning that we have to vigorously enforce this International Agreement to ensure that we hold iran accountable where we can. While i continue to have concerns i believe that the president s own secretary of defense and his own chairman of the joint chiefs and opinions that we have heard today that walking away from the deal is not in our interest. You presented some of the dangers of the deals sunset provisions. Beyond the ability of iran and ramping up design and pursue heavy water there are conventional weapons coming sooner. In just three years you have transfers expire and the arms embargo expires. I think people are right to focus on the implications. If we walked away from the agreement tomorrow, if the president pulled us out of the jcpoa, those sun sets would effectively drop from a decade to a day since iran would be freed of obligations under the deal. Thats the implication of what happens if the president chooses to pull us out of this deal. In your testimony you recommend a policy whereby the jcpoa is but one aspect of many aimed at confronting irans malign activity. I cannot agree more. That is precisely why it was targeted earlier this year which includes a host of new authorities for the president to attack, Ballistic Missile development and appalling human rights record. Like noted earlier, i, too, am at a loss for why the administration has been slow to enforce these sanctions. So mr. Sullivan, i would ask you as we engage in a replay of so many of the discussions that took place surrounding the jcpoa, iran continues to destabilize and continues dangerous activities. We have provided tools now to do something about it. What should we be doing . Im afraid that for reasons i cant fully explain there is a significant gap between rhetoric on this administration on iran and the policy on the ground. I think one of the reasons is because they have had an isis only focus in syria. Syria is a critical therter for irans efforts to expand the influence in the region. I believe the administration should come forward with a comprehensive strategy for how to deal with the future of syria not about isis but denying space to threaten the rest of the region and as chairman royce was talking about set up rocket factories near the border with izral. They have to show us how they are going to do that. Beyond that the house and senate produced a set of nonNuclear Sanctions and to my knowledge to date those various sanctions have not been enforced yet by this administration. I ask the administration why not and i would get to work doing that. Part of the reason i suspect that they havent been fully enforced is the administration is putting all of its time at the moment into figuring out how to resolve this completely unnecessary debate around certification and taking our eye off the ball of the other issues. My argument would be because you can and should certify do so and move on to focus on the immediate threats that we face in the region. And you had said in your testimony that the Nuclear Agreement deal is not a perfect agreement. I agree. I just believe that i also think it is okay to acknowledge that. I think that we had an opportunity to try to address the short falls of the jcpoa through diplomatic channels which will be made exceedingly more difficult if we isolate ourselves from International Partners and cut off diplomatic channel that we need to do Something Else which is finally bring home americans who are held there including my ti constituent. Bob, as you know, we have talked about multiple times the longest held american hostage, his family has been missing him for more than ten years now. What more can and should the administration be doing to secure his release and release of others being held . I think senior official s in the white house should talk to the families about what they are going through and how they are suffering. When i was in government i dealt with the families of the brothers and the parents of detained americans in iran who we were able to bring home. I think the administration should be making clear to the iranians that the United States has a number of tools at its disposal to be able to bring pressure on iran as long as they continue this unjustified and inhumane detention. We should put this up to the top of the priority list. These are our people and we should get them home. Thank you. Thank you, chairman. Mr. Sullivan, you mentioned a the word rhetoric. Rhetoric. When the iranians say he wants to eliminate, destroy israel, do you believe that is rhetoric or do you believe that that is the policy of iran . Which is it . I believe that the iranians were trying to acquire mr. Sullivan. Just answer the question. Is it rhetoric or do they mean it . Take your choice. Dont explain the answer. I think they would like to see the end of the state of israel. What about the United States . Number one wipe out israel. Number two wipe out the United States. Is that rhetoric . You are not reading his press releases. Mr. Ambassador jeffrey is it rhetoric or does he mean it . On america it is rhetoric but on israel it is more serious. He doesnt mean it when he says he wants to eliminate the United States from the face of the earth . I dont believe so. Ooer i think he wants to take that position visavis israel and is taking actions to allow him to do it. You think the United States can afford to believe it is just rhetoric, they dont mean it, they love us . You want us to take that position with Nuclear Weapons at stake, intercontinental Ballistic Missiles at stake, working with the north koreans . They dont need intercontinental Ballistic Missiles to destroy israel. They have missiles. They want the missiles for us, maybe the europeans. So you just want us to take the chance that its rhetoric even though he has said that since the day he has been anointed as the Supreme Leader of iran, he wants to eliminate the United States . You want us to take that chance . This is based upon 40 years of dealing with the cultural and religious and historical you want us to take the chance. Mr. Ambassador, im sorry, i have five minutes. Dont ramble. You want us to take the chance its rhetoric . It is not rhetoric he wants to drive us from the middle east and will use every means possible to do so. I am reclaiming my time, i just have a few minutes. I dont want to be combative in the sense that we are not dealing in the real world. I think irational optimism is a good phrase. We are dealing with irational optimism if we can trust the iranian government. They have done everything they can to move to a place where they can destroy the United States. The human rights abuses against their own people, we dont spend a lot of time talking about that. You have a group of people here, they have families and friends that have been tortured, disappeared, locked up in prison over the years because of the regime that wants to destroy the United States. I commend them for being here. Talk to these people and find out how their families were tortured in iran and continue to be tortured by this guy who uses rhetoric to say he is going to destroy the United States. Everywhere in the middle east you find iran mischief making. We had a hearing in our terrorism subcommittee last week. We used this map to talk about the fact that the iranians are using terrorist groups in afghanistan, iraq, syria, yemen, west bank, the gaza strip, lebanon, everywhere there is turmoil in the middle east there is the iranian government doing what they can through the terrorist organizations. We need to take these people serious when they say that they want to eliminate israel and want to eliminate the United States. I think we are dealing in irational optimism if we think anything different. Without using trump rhetoric, i think the president is being a realist about the world situation. We are over here and the europeans especially who had a history of not dealing with actual facts especially when it comes to countries that want to take over the rest of us. So we need to do what we can to stop what they are doing. Maybe its the deal. Maybe its i got a refund on that 150 billion we gave to them. Maybe its to stop the intercontinental Ballistic Missiles because thats not rhetoric. They are actually developing those, in my opinion with the north koreans and you have two rogue states in the world who keep talking about their want to destroy the United States. Maybe we should say we are going to be prepared rather than say you really dont mean it. I know i have gone over, mr. Chairman, i apologize. Thank you, gentlemen. General wald had to leave us for a previous commitment. We appreciate his time and willingness to continue the conversation as he has indicated to us with the members here. We now go to Congress Woman karen bass of california. Thank you. Thank you mr. Chairman as always for holding this hearing. I wanted to get at a couple of things in my questions. One is the differences between you when i think it was two of you said iran was not complying and you, ambassador, said iran was complying but not with the resolution. I wanted to understand what the differences were where you think iran is not complying and what is the difference between mr. Sullivan and i wanted to ask a couple of questions related to the consequences of us walking away if we did. Maybe you can begin. In my testimony i gave several examples of where they have been violating the deal. Just give me one and i would like to ask mr. Sullivan. The centrifuges that they were operating. I can name five or six others. I want to make another point. The International Atomic Energy Agency does not rule on whether iran is in compliance. Its a misstatement to say that their reports or statements are saying iran is in compliance. Thank you. Mr. Sullivan, can you please respond . I think mr. Albright would agree the examples he gave were not material breaches of the agreement. In fact, that is why in his public writings he has tended to rely on the its not in our interest prong. I would also say what ambassador jeffrey said in terms of distinction between u. N. Resolution and the deal is correct. The u. N. Resolution bars iran from testing Ballistic Missiles, they are doing so. So iran is not in compliance with u. N. Security Council Resolution, which is steps by this committee on Ballistic Missiles are not only justified but necessary. So being not in compliance with the u. N. Resolution, what is the implication of that for the deal . Ive talked to the iranians on that, and they say, well, we didnt agree to that, but it turns out that the u. N. Resolution is under chapter 7, which has the force of international law. Its not just the missiles, its also arms transfers. In fact, thats stronger language than the resolution. What it does, again, it casts into doubt what iran is trying to do in the region, why it doesnt adhere to that resolution. And again, it raises questions about the political environment in which this deal was done. This is not a country coming in from the cold. This is not a country giving up its as the congressman had said its rhetorical threats to israel, real threats to israel and rhetorical threats to us. This is a problem. So in terms of consequences of walking away from the deal, that part is difficult for me to understand, considering as my other colleagues have said, this was not a Bilateral Agreement. So one of the consequences for snapback sanctions would be sankdsing Chinese Companies for doing business with iran. How then would this impact u. S. Strategy on north korea . Again, we have different opinions here. Im not for walking away from the deal. Okay. I think that the deal is flawed, and i think that there are things we can do. I would frankly, i would be in violation if i could of the two articles that call for us to help iran economically, and i would push for a new agreement. I would pressure iran through financial constraints on companies and such, and i would raise the possibility that were going to do more against the deal, because this deal is part of a larger context. Walking away from the deal is, as everybody has said, is not going to get a new and better deal. The europeans, the russians and the chinese neither are going to negotiate a new deal, nor will iran, furthermore, they will not apply the u. S. Sanctions multilaterally against iranian oil. You think we should walk away from the deal . No, i didnt say that. I separate the decertification process. Do you think we should walk away from the deal . No, i think we should fix it. How do we fix it unilaterally without all the other countries . I think we should wait to see what President Trump says, but i think we can rewrite the conditions of the deal. My last 30 seconds, if can you respond to the snapback sanctions in china, what i was saying . Yes, both with respect to china and any effort to negotiate with north korea, saying, work with us on a deal, you can count on us to enforce it, that would be laughable if we walked away from the iranian deal. Thank you, thank you. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you, we go to Adam Kissinger from illinois. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you all for being here. One of the things thats been mentioned, but bears repeating, there are a lot of dead american soldiers as a result of irans intervention in iraq. When i was in iraq, there were operations against these, whether its the efps or intelligence assets, et cetera, i think thats something we should never forget. Big picture, this deal, whether it violates whether iran is violating the technical letter of the deal, theres no doubt theyre violating the spirit of the deal. I found it interesting that foreign minister zarif blamed the u. S. For instability in the region when its their support for Bashar Al Assad with the russians in brutalizing and murdering plenty of innocent people in syria is one of the most destabilizing forces in the middle east in a very long time. And our inaction there is actually shameful. Mr. Sullivan, just a couple of questions respectfully for you. Based on your role in the erkz nos, why was it so important for the administration to separate the terrorism support and the Missile Development from cspoa . And more specifically, in the opening salvo of our negotiations, was Missile Development on the table and then was it taken off . We made a strong push to curb irans Ballistic Missile activity as a part of the deal. It was clear to us that we were not going to get a deal on the fissile materiel, the nuclear materiel, and we made a decision that not allowing iran to get a nuclear bomb was worth doing even though we have to pursue the missile issue separately. With respect to terrorism, that requires a regional location that goes way beyond what the b 5 plus one can do. But secondly, trading off what iran can do in the region against particular constraints in its Nuclear Program is a very strange way to conduct a negotiation. Its better, from my perspective, to do an arms control agreement with a country that is an adversary of ours and then go after their activities in the region, including as you say, the killing of american troops in iraq. The broader thing as mentioned a few minutes ago, lets wait to see what the president unfold when is he talks about this. Theres a lot of speculation about what the president will do. In some of my discussion, i think its well thought out, but we need a broader engagement of iran. I think the nuclear deal is a small part of the bigger piece of the pie. Developing the delivery mechanisms for Nuclear Weapons is an extremely important part of the Nuclear Weapon question. So i think thats something i hope we can address. Ambassador jeffrey, weve talked extensively about syria in the past and as we mentioned, iran continues its support of Bashar Al Assad. And instability. On numerous occasion, iran backed militias have threatened our forces with the moderate Syrian Opposition on the ground. Every time iran has poked the bear, we respond with force, which i commend. But if we allow iran to gain more of a foothold in syria, there will be no stopping them from tehran to the mediterranean. What do you think a permanent iranian presence in syria would look like and what actions do we need to do to prevent them from establishing this presence . It would look like present. It would have iranian advisers, the quds forces, foreign legions of militias from as far afield as afghanistan, hezbollah present there, it would have weapon systems such as medium and longer range missiles focused on israel initially, but also on turkey and jordan potentially. And it will sooner or later use those forces to roll up our, as you said, moderate friends and allies, such as the pyd, such as the Free Syrian Army elements that were still working with in the south of the country. The goal of iran and assad is to totally retake all territory in syria and put it under assads brutal rule. Iran will support that. Russia has some doubts, but in the end will support it, unless they fear that theyll face a military pushback from us. So far, theyve seen no sign of that. In fact, we havent always pushed back from the iranians. We abandoned several sites where we were present on the ground with our troops and some of our allies close to the iraqi border a few weeks ago. Thank you. And at risk of going over my time, ill yield back. Mr. Bill keating of massachusetts. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I think its properimportant to of the three witnesses we have in floront of us, from both sid of the aisle, all three say we shouldnt walk away from the plan. There are areas of agreement where to go from here. Theres a political narrative im concerned about right now, thats the fact that if the president fails to certify the plan, and then congress doesnt do anything for that period, then no harm, no foul. Well, evidently a lot of people dont agree with that, including the secretary of defense. Id like to ask mr. Sullivan, whats the impact of that . This idea that theres no harm in this, it sends a message, its a political message, you know. I dont think its only dangerous, its foolhardy. Id like your comments on it. I agree with you that its dangerous. Its dangerous because its destabilizing. Because it creates doubt and it creates uncertainty as we go forward. And it makes all of our partners think, you know what, the United States isnt actually committed to seeing this thing through. And from my perspective, working to address issues not dealt with in the deal whether its Ballistic Missiles or working on what happens after some of these provisions expire in the out years, is much easier to do with a set of partners who has confidence in your good faith and your willing tons hold true to your word, where iran is the one with the burden of proof and where theyre sitting, theyre constantly worried at any moment youre going to walk away. Youre playing with fire, if i may, because in that period, there could either be a coincidence of a Major Incident in the area, or it could be orchestrated to occur. And that could affect the way congress deals with that 60day period, and thats dangerous as well. Theres a huge range of unpredictability here. Lets imagine we have a circumstance in which the president declines to certify, congress doesnt act. The president is upsatisfied with the state of play, now hes thinking, whats my next move . And that next move could be a further unraveling and so forth down the line. Or, for that matter, he decides as i think some have suggested, im just going to unilaterally rewrite the terms of the deal myself. And i think that would be a way of a sure way to end up collapsing the deal over time, without the rest of the world joining us and then reimposing pressure. So i agree with you that it is playing with fire is a very good term. Thank you. And i want to commend the witnesses, the ones that remain here, because in their testimony, at least theyre offering alternatives. Theyre saying, you know, i dont want us to walk away, but theres things we should do. Thats the precise discussion we should be having. And thats my concern. Now, so many other people have commented, even with some of the questions, criticizing the situation, even outside the agreement, which isnt what were here about today. But also its a very narrow agreement, but also not offering where do we go from here, which invariably goes two ways when you unpeel the onion. It says were going to use our sanctions by ourselves unilaterally, trying to influence our european allies on this, that would walk away, or theres military intervention. Those are the two alternatives left. Id like mr. Sullivan to comment on 1996 with the isa, what happened when the u. S. Was left with that alternative of saying, we dont want iran to grow its Energy Program the way it is now, so were adopting these Strong Financial sanctions in place. Explain to us what happened then when we tried that as one of the two major alternatives left. So in 1996, when the United States passed the iran sanctions act, the europeans and part of that was about trying to stop European Companies from investing in iran or doing deals with iran. The europeans pass protected measures telling their companies, dont worry about u. S. Sanctions, well have your back, you go ahead. And in fact, over the course of democratic and republican administrations, the isa was never effectively enforced against European Companies. We developed an entirely different strategy over the course of the past several years with help from this committee, but that relied on a predicate, that the world could trust the United States, that the United States was going to be the constant source of predictablity and strength and that iran was the one that had the spotlight shown on it, and weve reversed that in a way that is make the iranians walk around with a smile and is making the europeans think, we dont necessarily have to listen to washington. I want to thank you for mentioning the committee, because i do think we played a role in developing a strategy. As ive listened to all ourness withes he witnesses here, i would say this. Its not in the confines of this deal, the problem, its the lack of an overall strategy and resolve Going Forward, that we can work on and be strong on, have resolve on, as a country, working with our allies. Thats the problem we have now. Thats what well work forward in a bipartisan way on this committee, and thats whats lacking right now with the administration. I yield back, mr. Chairman. We go to the gentleman from new york. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Earlier mr. Sullivan, you said this deal is working as intended. You spoke of how this deal is providing the iaea access to irans military sites. I would agree thats an important part of the deal to provide the iaea access to irans military sites. Is iran allowing the iaea access to its military sites . So far into the deal, iran you answered, no. Thank you. So, i dont know what exactly you meant by this deal is working as intended. I think we would both agree that its important for the iaea to have access to irans military sites and i appreciate you admitting to the fact that the iae that iran has not allowed the iaea access to his military sites. But then later on in your testimony id be happy to answer on that if you like. You said no. You were going after President Trump, youre you said its President Trumps fault that the iaea is not allowed to have access to irans military sites where the iaea has never had access to irans military sites. But youre here blaming President Trump for not having access to something we had never had access to. President obama said this deal is not built on trust. Its built on verification. Have you read the verification agreement between the iaea and iran . I have not read it, no. I have read the deal, though, which says very clearly you have not read the verification agreement between the iaea and iran. And when secretary kerry was here, he admitted that he hadnt read the verification agreement between the iaea and iran either. So a deal thats built not on trust, but built on verification, the leaders of our government never read what the verification agreement was. The entire deal was built on verification. So what we have learned [ all speak at once ] my time, not yours. We have learned that irans sperkting some of their own Nuclear Sites, collecting some of their own soil samples. You said earlier that 98 of irans enriched uranium was shipped out of the country, correct . I did. Where is it . Its in russia. How do you know that . Because theres a supply, an accountancy procedure to ensure where the uranium is collected in iran, moved and stored. Where in russia is it . Sitting here today, i couldnt tell you. Okay. Because in my conversations with the people who are in charge of knowing that i dont know where in our government we have anyone who has any idea where the uranium is, but i appreciate the fact that you, sir, you know where the uranium is today. For my colleagues who oppose the deal strongly and are now indicating that we should uphold it because its not perfect, i was here witnessing ought of the statements, the testimony about why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were aopposing the Iran Nuclear Deal, and they were opposing it because its deeply flawed. Mr. Smith earlier asked you, mr. Sullivan, how much money went to terrorism and you responded that the bulk goes to domestic purposes. I would offer that when you provide 150 billion frth of sanctions relief and we ask how much goes to terrorism, were not asking for 60 or whatever the other number of bulk of as going to domestic purposes. The question was, how much is going to terrorism . The question was one that was worthy of an answer. And standing here in calling for an improved syria strategy to combat iranian aggression, i would offer that if you, sir, and the Obama Administration was that serious about combatting iranian aggression, we shouldnt have been providing 150 billion of sanctions relief to the iranians to be able to conduct all of their bad activities. Their bad activities by the way, this is a deal were talking about. We never even asked for a signature. Put that aside. When ten of our navy sailors are held hostage, they are embarrassed. When they are released, secretary kerry says thank you. And he says its because of the iran deal that this went so smoothly. With iran financing terror, overthrowing foreign governments, testing intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, chanting death to america, calling israel the little satan, america the great satan, i would say its the wrong answer for us to be propping up the wrong we regime with a jackpot of sanctions relief and we should be doing our parts as the leaders of the free world, leading in fixing this and turning it into a reasonable deal, not one thats very onesided and not one where we got ridiculously played at the table. I yield back. David sis leany of rhode island. Id like to give mr. Sullivan an opportunity to answer the question he wasnt permitted to answer on the military side. Right. So the deal expressly states that iran that the iaea, if they have a basis to believe that there is Illicit Nuclear activity occurring at any site in iran, including any military site in iran, that they can get access and that iran cannot stop them. That if the United States and europeans and the iaea come forward and decide we need access to the site, iran cant say no. Now, in the last two years, the United States actually hasnt gone to the iaea and presented a particular military site and said, i want to get access to that. Nikki haley generally had a conversation with the iaea about how to do this. I believe that american policy and strategy could yield access to irans military sites under this deal and i have no reason to believe that based on whats happened in the last two years that that is not the case opinion. Thank you. You also say in your written testimony that because the administration is has spent so much time focused on will he or wont he certify debate, and ill add something, in the reality show tv sort of way, that its resulted in the administration and key components of the intelligence and security communities taking their eye off the ball on the larger questions, or the broader iranian threat. And so id really like to you to focus on that point. We can all sit here and posture about what we think would be a better provision and if it were just up to us as an individual member of congress, i would put this provision or that, but thats not what an International Agreement with five, six other countries produces. So i think its really fruitful to think, what should we be doing Going Forward to respond in a serious way to iranian aggression in the region. Secretary kerry when he testified, said, one of the advantages of this agreement, we can put an end to the Nuclear Threat of iran, so that we will be in a stronger position to push back aggressively in a variety of other contexts. What specifically can we or should this administration be doing with respect to that . And secondly, is it not the case that this agreement permanently forecloses iran from having a Nuclear Weapon by its own terms . Theres a permanent ban on iran acquiring a Nuclear Weapon in the deal. Theres a permanent ban on weapons related Nuclear Activity in the deal. And theres a permanent provision for an inspections regime to monitor that in the deal. There are expiring nuclear restraints. These are things we can work to deal with, but we should by committing to the deal and moving forward with our allies. On the issue of the region more generally, i think syria for me looms largest because it looms largest in the iranian strategic calculus and its a moral and humanitarian catastrophe to boot. And what we have seen over the course of the past several months is effective action against isis building on the Obama Administration strategy by no meaningful thought given to what comes next. And as a result is ambassador jeffrey and others on this panel have made clear, the iranians are on the march in syria today, to a much more significant degree than even one year ago. An israeli concern about that is reaching new heights, to the point where israeli leaders are publicly warning about how this threat is metastasizing. So we need to be sitting with our partners across the region, including israel, as well as european allies and others, and thinking about a broad multi Dimensional Strategy that includes everything from further economic pressure to how were postured in the region, to intelligence led operations, interdictions of weapons shipments, on down the line, and i would simply submit that having put a lid on Irans Nuclear progro that today we dont have to worry about them racing for a bomb, because of this deal, we do have the opportunity to focus on this and thats where we should turn our focus. And to followup, in doing all of that work, the word of the United States, our credibility in terms of honoring International Agreements, and continuing relationships with our allies in the region will be key to that. So the point you made earlier is an important one. Mr. Albright, you said that theres legislation that could be imposed unilaterally by the United States that would fix the deal, as you suggested. Id like to know what you think congress could do unilaterally to an International Agreement that would fix the deal. Let me answer that in a different way. I think you have a problem with inara. Inara does not certify compliance with this deal. With all due respect, i have limited time. You made the statement in this hearing that kocongress could te an action to fix the deal. Youre testifying before this hearing, what could congress do unilaterally that would fix an International Agreement . The same way it created inara, it can fix this deal. And i think that the purpose of that is to straighten out one fundamental problem that is tough for this administration. That inara makes it look like President Trump is certifying compliance with this deal. Inara doesnt actually do that, but its putting him in position to defend an intractable position and that Congress Needs to fix the 90day certification requirement. It needs to define what a material breach is. We use violation because no violation is too small to correct. The language of material breach and noncompliance defined in inara is unworkable. I would argue the excess centrifuge numbers you think the congress of the United States has the ability unilaterally to change the terms or meaning of terms in an International Agreement . You dont need to answer that question. First of all, this is not an International Agreement. The nuclear deal was never signed. Its more you cant call that an International Agreement, first of all. The other thing is, if you look at what what would you call it . On the conventional arms and on the Ballistic Missiles, the congress is actually redefining u. S. Policy on the bans, the fiveyear and the eightyear bans in 2231. Theyre setting up a situation where if the ban ends, lets take the conventional arms transfer restrictions, ends at five years in the u. N. Security Council Resolution, a country, a, goes and sells heavy armaments to iran, they would be sanctioned. So the United States is already under congressional leadership, rewriting the bans on conventional and Ballistic Missiles. Time is expiring. I think wed better go to ann wagner of missouri. Thank you, mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. As north korea captures the worlds attention, we must make the point here of remaining vigilant in responding to iranian aggression throughout the middle east. General wall who has left, i know that he wrote that the iran deal positioned iran on a trajectory to become possibly more challenging than north korea. Ambassador jeffrey put it well in his written statement, the u. S. Must set clear final goals for our iran policy and make those evident and persuasive to all those at home and abroad. Embarrassed jeffrey, there may be as many as 60,000 iranianbacked troops in syria. Its no secret that the irgc quds force and affiliated militias are taking over areas from isis on behalf of the assad regime. Such activities are not in the interest of the United States of america. How should u. S. Policy change to counter the growing role of iranianbacked forces that target syrian civilians, undermine regional stability, and threaten u. S. Security interests . Well, first of all, congresswoman, we have a u. N. Security Council Resolution, 2254, and a process to deal with the internal situation in syria because when that was put together by the last administration, i think 2012, there was an understanding by everyone, including even russia and iran, which are part of this process, that that internal situation is a concern for people in the region and for the International Community, not just for mr. Assad and the people of syria. So we need to build on that and restore the centrality of that process, and it needs to be backed with an american presence in syria. The problem is, under the authorization for the use of military force, that has to be fighting terrorists, but were never going to completely wipe out isis and al qaeda there, and theres a good argument to be made to keep limited forces to protect those Syrian Opposition in the north and in the south, while we try to sort this thing out politically. Thats pushback against iran. General wall also raised important military recommendation and i offer this question to anyone who would like to speak on his behalf or about it. Would you suggest forward deploying our aegis equipped Missile Defense fleet to our existing bases in gulf countries . And how can the u. S. Better coordinate with israel and gulf countries to establish a comprehensive Missile Defense system . We have our aegis ships already in the mediterranean. One of which is on station all of the time off israel. We have thad systems and radars in the gulf and in israel. Phased ray radar in turkey and there are sm3 missiles designed to intercept iranian rockets in romania and poland. You feel confident in our coordination with israel and i think on that particular matter, yes, but i yield to general wall. I just have one point. This is one of those areas and maybe there arent as many as there used to be, where theres real bipartisan cooperation on the Ballistic Missile. I think the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration have taken similar lines on this, one building on the last. Its a constantly evolving threat to our posture and our cooperation with our partners has to evolve. But i think were on a decent track with this issue. You wrote that military and diplomatic resources should be shifted away from isis and toward iran, paying more attention to iran necessitates paying more attention to irans activities in iraq and syria. Why do you think the administration hasnt designated proxy forces backed by iran and hezbollah has terrorist organizations . I think one reason is for its protection. It fears that particularly in iraq, but also in syria, that the quds force as i mentioned in my testimony, will respond and they will respond, its just that we shouldnt be in the middle east if were worried about people shooting at us. Weve had a lot of experience with iran shooting at us and the answer to that, is to shoot back. But i think thats part of it. The other thing is, there really is almost an obsession with the isis fight. When the quds declared their independence, the statement out of the u. S. Was, they should stop doing that, because it interferes with the fight against isis. That fight is almost over right now. Thank you. Im out of time. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you. We go to dr. Amid bear of california. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Sullivan, you were integral in negotiating the Iran Nuclear Deal, is that correct . I always hate to say integral. Part of the team. I was part of the team that began the negotiations that arrived at the sbim deal and worked towards the final agreement. Yes, a proud member of that team. And youd state that the ultimate goal of the deal was to reduce the iran Nuclear Threat . Correct. Would you say that the deal has reduced the Nuclear Threat given what was prior to the deal . I think theres no doubt about that. And indeed if you ask the chief of staff of the Israeli Defense forces he would say that the Nuclear Issue has gone down the list of strategic threats to israel today compared to where it was before the deal. Ambassador jeffrey, would you agree with that just on the Nuclear Issue . For temporary period of time, and there i would disagree with mr. Sullivan. For a tenyear period, yes. But no less than what barack obama said. After ten years, in off the cuff comments, theyre going to be on the way to, if they want to, Nuclear Capability. Okay, so but at todays point in time, the threat is lower. At the time the deal was being negotiated, mr. Sullivan, what would in open source contaminates, wh open source contaminate estimates, how close was iran . Before the deal was done, it was a matter of weeks. At the most, two to three months. But probably a matter of weeks and shrinking. So, walking away from this deal, do you think that would reduce or increase the Nuclear Threat from iran . Well, lets say, if we walked away from the deal, right now, weve put iran in position where weve extended that breakout time to a year. If we walked away, and they begin with the centrifuges, working to build the plutonium reactor that we r disabled, over the next couple of years, they would be in a position incredibly rapidly to move to a Nuclear Capability. And our capacity to stop them from doing so, by reimposing the sanctions that were on before, if were the ones who walk away from the deal, will be very limited, because the rest of the International Community would say, what the heck are we coming along with you for on sanctions . The only point was this was to get the deal you just walked away from. And in your assessment, with our hands full on the Korean Peninsula, it would be a pretty unwise time diplomatically to try to engage with two Nuclear Threats, is that whats interesting about what north korea presents is an example today, is what happens when you dont have good choices, when you dont have an opportunity to produce the kind of deal that we did with respect to iran. And so today we are faced with a rapidly accelerating north korean capability and a completely unstable situation. We walk away from the deal, we produce a very similar dynamic in the middle east. And all of a sudden youre dealing with a Nuclear Crisis in the heart of east asia, and a Nuclear Crisis in the heart of the middle east, both of which the United States needs to manage. The crisis in north korea is generated from kim jongun. If we walk away from this deal, we would be largely responsible for the creation of that Nuclear Crisis today in the heart of the middle east. And given our strategy on the Korean Peninsula is one of increasing pressure, increasing isolation, in hopes of getting to engagement, and, you know, reducing tensions with north korea, would decertifying this deal make it easier to get a north korean agreement, or would it reduce our ability to find a diplomatic solution to the Korean Peninsula . I think any fair reading would say, would make it harder for us to get a deal in the north korean context. How much harder is a question we can debate. But the idea that the chinese would say, you know what, the fact that youre decertifying that deal and potentially walking away from it, that makes us more confident that we should join you in something we havent wanted to do, which is sanctioning north korea, because we trust that youre going to end up agreeing to something in north korea. Same thing goes for the north koreans themselves. So i think the motion that if the United States walks away from the iran deal, that it would be easier to get a deal with north korea, is not based in either logic or fact. I would agree. I dont think it will affect our north korea deal at all if President Trump desetifies i think it will affect [ all speak at once ] there are two different things. And i think Ambassador Haley laid out in a speech several weeks ago that there are various pillars that need to be addressed and considered. And i think thinking that decertification would affect the north a great deal is but on the issue of reducing the Nuclear Threat, the deal has accomplished that. Now we can speculate where were going to be ten years from now. The concern here is, weve given the administration the tools to address what were really concerned about, the Ballistic Missile issue. Cracking down on hezbollah. Weve, through this committee, have given the administration some tools that theyre not currently using. Id ask the administration to use those tools. And i would add too, theres a lot of agreement on this panel. At least i hear, the sunsets are a real problem. I hear it in the committee. Theyre a real problem. What im saying and i think theres support in the Trump Administration, is that we cant wait to deal with those sunsets when iran is a strong, wellarmed, powerful, regional force. We need to deal with it now. We need to go to tom garrett right now from virginia. Thank you, mr. Varm chairman. Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. This has all played out before, ill start with a little bit of a sillil quee because im so disgusted. The United States credibility on the global stage relating to deals, the iranian credibility is far more in question than the United States credibility, in so far as the stability of our nation. Its well demonstrated over centuries. Whereas this regime has a record that hasnt been touched in this room, but spoken to by the people who sit here. In the green revolution, people stood up against this regime and on most occasions, the United States sat back and did nothing while they were murdered by the quds forces who are their cousins and brothers and sisters in the streets in iran. And we did nothing. And with all due respect, mr. Sullivan, as Daniel Patrick moynihan said, youre entitled to your own opinions, but youre not entitled to your own facts. Dont talk about how theres agreement on Ballistic Missile defenses when the Poland Administration first action was to withdraw from a commitment to defend europe and the polls from the very missiles that we contemplate today. Lets go back in history. I heard mr. Sullivan state, mr. Chairman, that if the iaea has indications that are violations, they have a vit to inspect, really . Worcester versus georgia, when Andrew Jackson was period, he was credited with saying, the Justice Marshall has made his ruling, lets see them enforce it. The iaea and what army will go in and verify . That you know where the uranium is . Thats news worthy. Because that would be an interesting departure from those who dont trust russia on anything except where the philadelph fissile materiel would be. Understand that the current regime of iran has burned the effigy of every single president of the United States since carter and depicting a lynching of our first African American president in 2015, while this deal was being finalized. And they referenced the great satan and the little satan. And they chant death to america, and they talk about the death to the devils stringel, the United States, the uk, and israel. And if thats not bad enough, if we adjust for population, the murder of iranian citizens by the current regime would be comparable to the deaths experienced by the United States during the entire second world war. So im very curious, in fact, im delighted to have someone here to claims credit for having negotiated the jcpoa, how it is that we talk about the International Community not being willing to agree to harsher sanctions as it relates to Ballistic Missile development when u. N. Security Council Resolution 1929 of 2010 read, and i quote, iran shall not under take activity related to Ballistic Missiles. I think at least mr. Sullivan went to a pretty prestigious law school. And u. N. Security Council Resolution 2231 of 2015 which mirrors the jcpoa which reads, iran is called upon not to undertake activity as it relates to the development of Ballistic Missiles. If strikes me if the u. N. Security Council Agreed on 1929, which said shall not, that we have evidence in the International Community will agree to stronger sanctions which will prohibit the Delivery Systems of Nuclear Weapons of being developed by the iranians and its been done. And the jcpoa with verbiage created more latitude. Everyone who knows about this issue, knows that the irgc controls the bulk of the black economy in iran, probably over 90 . And funnels the vast quantity of the real economy in iran through its own coffers. So i heard someone say that the isa was never fully enforced. And ive created a paradigm because im not that smart, but this makes sense to me, that i would wager that if we said to our allies in particular, and ill call out some european nations if anybody wants to asks for specificity. They can choose between doing business with iran and the icgc or us and we put some teeth in the sanctions, we can watch this monstrous, murderous regime, which has repeatedly called for the destruction of everyone in entire nations, wither on a vine and the millions of iranians who have been displaced against their will, and the hundreds of thousands who have been murdered might then be justified and then we can know that theres hope for peace and no Nuclear Exchange with a radical, defiant iranian regime. I apologize for running over. Thank you, mr. Garrett. We go to robin kelly of illinois. Thank you, mr. Chair. I too agree walking away from the jcpoa would weaken the United States position to increase pressure in the future while endangering any further nonproliferation agreements the u. S. Might seek to make. This committee passed legislation that cracked down on irans nefarious actions. How should the u. S. Continue to put pressure on iran while adhering, excuse me, to the jcpoa . And is there a red line for iran with certain sanctions, would push them out of the agreement . Just on the second point, on the question of red line, to respond to what mr. Garrett said, the iaea and what army, if iran violates the provision of the jcpoa, that would be a violation that would trigger the reimp zition of sanctions and the United States would have the capacity to martial the International Community because it would be iran violating the deal, not the United States. So we retain tools under this agreement to make sure iran stays in compliance. If they violate those terms, i would be the first one to say the United States should snap back sanctions and the deal creates the capability for the United States to effectively do that. It maintains the sanctions architecture. With respect to how we go about dealing with iran in the region, i believe it needs to be a whole of government approach, it needs to be multi dimensional. It needs every aspect of our power, our economic power, military power, intelligence, et cetera, working with allies in partners in the region, to put increasing pressure on iran and to raise the cost for their destabilizing behavior and their sponsorship of terrorism in the region. It also means that we need to invest in the defensive capabilities of our allies and partners as the previous discussion about Ballistic Missile defense indicated. I have a different view on the issue of poland, but my answer to mrs. Wagner earlier was about Ballistic Missile defense in the middle east where i actually do believe there has been strong bipartisan cooperation and we should continue that. So that is just some of what i think the United States should be working on as part of a multi dimensional, multilateral strategy to push back against iranian aggression in the region. Thank you. Ambassador jeffrey, in your testimony, you talked about communicating with iran. Do you believe the president s tweets and treating certification like reality tv show, cliffhanger, are productive ways to communicate . Do you think this is helping . I think that when i talk about communicating with iran, im talking mainly about doing it quietly, as we did between ambassador crocker and the iranians during the Bush Administration and on baghdad. The tweets are unique to President Trump. I think that the world recognizes he does it. I dont think theyre a major problem. I dont think theyre a major plus. I think theyre just there. But theyre not a substitute for diplomatic communication, ill answer your question that way. Very diplomatically. The other two witnesses. If i could go back to another question you asked. I think the directorgeneral of the International Atomic Energy Agency is asking for guidance because he does not feel he has the resources or the authorities to go and implement section t, which would involve going to military sites. Its different than saying we have a suspicion of going to and we need to go. This has to do with more routine verification of bans on Nuclear Weapons development and so i would say theres already a big problem in implementing the jcpoa inspection architecture. And the United States is going to be called upon to deal with this. Russias already made its opinion clear. It said the iaea cannot go to military sites. Should not go to military sites. So we already have a problem. And its beyond what was envisioned in the language of the jcpoa. Thank you. Just to respond to that, first of all, we anticipated the possibility that maybe russia would say, were not that interested in having the United States get into iranian Nuclear Sites. They dont get a veto over that. If the europeans and the americans and the iaea agree access needs to be granted, the russians cant stop it, nor can the iranians. The fact that the iaea is seeking guidance from the United States and others on this issue is not in and of itself a problem. Whats a problem, is if the United States rather than bringing our partners together and saying lets work it out, and enforce the deal, saying this deal doesnt work, screw it, thats going to make it harder to effectively enforce this critical provision. And i agree with mr. Albright that access to military sites is an important part of the longterm enforcement of the jcpoa. But the structure of the jcpoa puts an unfair burden on the iaea. If they demand to go to a military site and they invoke this cause, then it brings down the entire deal. So i think that its incumbent on the p 5 plus one and the United States leading that, to straighten out this issue and strengthen the deals conditions on access to military sites. That it isnt put on the iaea to have to ask the question, if we ask to go, do we have to are we really risking bringing down the entire deal . Thank you, my time is way up. Thank you. We now go to mr. Ted yoho of florida. Thank you, mr. Chairman, thank you, panel, for being here. Appreciate the great information on this. The era of strategic patience, as far as diplomatic and negotiating policy or foreign diplomacy, i think, was a mistake of the last administration. It led us to pulling out of the support of poland with the Missile Defense system, led to the russia unnamed army to invade ukraine, even though we were supposed to protect them, and allows them to annex crimea. It allows chinas aggressive enyoe encroachment to the south china sea, as we stood by with strategy patience, hoping it would go away. When you have benign neglect, thats when you look at something knowing it will probably get better on its own. These things rsht going to get better on their own. We cant have strategic patience. My question, the jcpoa, it states the iaea can inspect any time, any place. Does that happen . As weve discussed at some length, not military sites. But the military sites in particular, it gave iran the ability to pick up the soil and have it tested, is that correct . On the one iaea intervention on inspection, that was what the iaea negotiated with the iranians. Right. The iaea claims that they were monitoring that with cameras and all of that. But of course it raises a really it looks strange, lets face it. It would be analogous to a drug addict collecting his own urine sample and saying, heres my sample . Its not quite that bad. Its a strange formulation. Its a stretch. Is the over mr. Albright, is the overproduction of heavy water allowed under the jcpoa . Theres a cap of 130 tons. And theyve bypassed that twice . And irans exploited what i guess youd call a loophole, that theyve been able to take overage of heavy water and deposit under their control overseas. And so thats another problem in the deal, that iran has exploited loopholes. So we should talk to somebody who negotiated that deal, how that loophole got there. Mr. Sullivan, you want to explain how that happened . How what what happened . That there was a loophole that allowed to overproduce heavy water and store and it monitor it on its own . Its under accountancy by the iaea in russia, right . Im not sure where. In oman. But theyve overdone that twice and thats in this agreement with the jcpoa . I think if you had a strict interpretation of it, yes. Has iran built and operated more advanced centrifuges than allowed and misused the Quality Assurance limitations to conduct testing of centrifuges . Yes. And thats in violation of the jcpoa . Yes. And i can remember the past administration and john kerry sitting right here, that no deal would be better than a bad deal. And they were already in violation of so many things on it. This is a bad deal, and were talking about if we dont stand up to this, you know, were used to a strategic patience from the last administration. What we have now is a commander in chief that says what he means and hes going to stand up, and the world isnt used to this. The world community. But we have to have somebody willing to do that, because this will strengther our negotiation with north korea. Ambassador jeffrey, do you think so . I dont think we have a negotiation with north korea. I think we have a military confrontation with north korea. I think these two issues are totally separate. I dont i agree. But i hope we dont have a our goal is not to have a conflict. But if we come to the table weak and we dont show resolve, we have a weakened hand and we wont get anywhere in negotiations. Very quickly, because ive wanted to say this at several points. Walking out of an agreement is a perfectly legitimate diplomatic activity. It doesnt mean that were a bad person or that nobody trusts us anymore. Violating an agreement that you claim youre adhering to is very different. We walked away from the abm treaty and International Relations survived. I think that north korea will judge us on the basis of how strong we are deterring iran across the board, period. And that you got out exactly what i wanted to hear. Thank you all for your time. I yield back. Thank you. We go to Brad Schneider of illinois. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you for having this meeting. To the witnesses, thank you for your sharing your perspectives, but also the endurance of staying here for all of this, i greatly appreciate it. Let me echo earlier remarks in saying while i oppose the jcpoa, now that its in place, i believe we have to aggressively and rigorously enforce it. As we enforce it, its vital that we acknowledge the jcpoa, like any agreement, has inherent risks, but that this deal in particular has serious shortcomings and gaps, cltding but not limited to the sunset provisions. The urgent responsibility of our government in conjunction with our European Partners and our regional allies is to develop the comprehensive strategies and commit the necessary resources to work to close the gaps and reduce the risks. I believe we must clearly and fully articulate as a matter of National Policy that the United States will never allow iran to have a Nuclear Weapon. And that we will work to confront irans malign activities in the region and around the world. These are clearly tommics for a much longer exchange than we have time for with the five minutes today. I only have a few minutes, so let me turn to a couple of focused questions. In the context of the jcpoa, do you believe iran has changed its ambition to have a Nuclear Weapon, ambassador jeffrey . I believe its always had that option open. They were very close to a weaponization program until they stopped it in 2003. Theyre ready to turn that on again when they deem it necessary or useful. Mr. Albright . I think theyre, under the Current Conditions extended, yes, i think theyll seek Nuclear Weapons. Mr. Sullivan . I think the way that ambassador jeffrey put it is right. Theyve wanted to maintain the capability, they still want to maintain the gabelt and part of what a diplomatic solution has to do is deny them the opportunity to exercise it. Has iran moderated its regional goals in the context of the jcpoa . No, it has not. I want to say something. Iran was aggressive before the jcpoa. You helt multiple hearings on that before 2015. It was aggressive during the negotiation of the jcpoa and it remains aggressive. I do not believe that money has been the limiting factor. Its been opportunity. And they see more opportunity in the region now than they did before. Mr. Albright . No, i dont think its more. Ambassador jeffrey . I think its gotten worse. I cant do a cause and effect specifically with the agreement, but it has definitely gotten worse. They feel more liberated to do what they want. So the broad question is, will the United States, withdrawing from the jcpoa at this time, help or hurt our goals of keeping iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon and thwarting their regional goals . I think its an interesting and important question, and certainly the administration has been wrestling with this, that lets say you just abrogate the deal. I personally believe thats not the best way forward. But there is an argument for those who say abrogate the deal, that you can actually deal with this situation again. You can repair relations with the europeans after youve reimposed all the Nuclear Sanctions. And put them in a dilemma. Do you want to do business with iran or the United States . And then you would have a free hand to do whatever you want with iran. So i think theres an argument to abrogate. I personally dont want to go down that path, but i think its something the administration has certainly been considering. Ambassador . Very quickly, i agree with mr. Albright. Were using imprecise terms both in the certification and in walking out of the agreement. You can walk out of the agreement and frankly i think the iranians and the europeans and russia and china would continue with it. If you walk out of the gream agreement, try to impose the ndaa oil import sanctions on the rest of the world against iran or use the snap back provision and bring back the u. N. Resolutions, then iran would move towards that three or four weeks away from a Nuclear Device very quickly, and thats the risk. Mr. Sullivan . I think it would, as ive said over the course of this hearing, put us in a materially worse position with respect to the iranian Nuclear Capability. And anyone who says we can just tell the europeans and the chinese and the rest of the global economy, either trade with us or trade with iran, they should read the top sanctions official adam szubins piece in the Washington Post because as he said in the piece, nobodys making that argument has sat in his seat to build and execute these sanctions regimes and i think its not nearly as simple as that and i dont think the sanctions architecture would come back. One last question for the record to follow up in writing. But part of the jcpoa is this Additional Protocol under the nucle Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty. How important is the Additional Protocol to making sure iran doesnt get a Nuclear Weapon during the terms of the agreement and afterwards and would withdrawing from the agreement put the Additional Protocol at risk . Ill leave that for record. Thank you and i yield back. Thank you. We go to mr. Scott perry of pennsylvania. Thanks, mr. Chairman. General, what was irans original claim regarding their Nuclear Ambitions . Was it that they wanted to have a Nuclear Weapons program or for Domestic Energy purposes . They consistently claim they want it for peaceful purposes and we believe thats a false claim. Right. Does anybody on the panel disgray with that . Ive heard Senior Iranian officials informally say, okay, we did certain studies on weaponization, but it wasnt a weaponization program, so they stopped at that level. But i mean, they know we have them dead to rights on the weaponization information. Mr. Albright, you might as well. Theyve always claimed its a civil nonNuclear Weapons pr premiersh program. The point of the question, iran in the rest of the world, theyre known liars. Theyre liars, cheaters and stealers, and if you dont believe me, ask all these folks back here. Stalin told the let me ask you this. How many iranian have been sajz sanctioned by our European Partners in their breach of u. N. Resolutions of Ballistic Missiles . How many individuals have our european allies sanctioned for those breaches . I know of none. The europeans did sign a joint statement with us stating the missile activity but no sanctions, right . Youre exactly right. Im not aware of it but im not read into the strategy. Part of my argument is that should be the focus. The strategy. How Many American members are on the ieea Inspection Team . Zero, right . Ive spent time sometime in the military and to me you dont look for military Nuclear Weapons down at the power plant. Thats probably not where theyre going to be. Theyre going to be on the military sites. But unfortunately we cant inspect the military sites. I dont know if it was our genius or irans but for someone who says its a program dealing with medicine and power and so forth but really in reality its a military program, the last place youre going to put them is where were going to find them and with all due respect i appreciate your good will to these other nations. But the reality is that iran wants to be a Nuclear Power, just like north korea wanted to be a Nuclear Power and theyre going to tell us whatever they want to tell us, whatever the rest of the worlds going to believe, as long as they get there and it strikes me as curious if not just down right scary that we seem to be willing to trade security now, at some level or stability now at some level by saying theyre not going to have it for 10 or 15 years. Everybody in this room knows whats going to happen in 10 or 15 years and it strikes me that maybe that plays into irans bigger strategy while theyre in yemen, syria, lebanon. Supporting hezbollah. To coalesce all that territory and power so at that time theyll be able to spend more money on their Nuclear Weapons. Who develop as Ballistic Missile are they going to drop leafletsn on the United States with that . Everybody knows where this is headed. 40 years sinl s since the shah deposed, weve been playing a game of we hope theyll do that and well have this negotiation. Who signed this agreement . Its not a treaty. Who signed this agreement . Did iran sign it . No. This isnt a treaty. Ir its not a signed document. Its some kind of an agreement between somebody here in the United States. Who from the United States signed . Nobody signed the agreement. The executive branch of the United States signed the United States up to the commitments under the deal. And who from iran . The foreign minister of iran and the secretary state of the United States were the ones in the room along with the Foreign Ministers of the p 5 plus one nations who reached the agreement. Iran signed it . As ive said a couple times we dont have any agreement. You cant walk away from an agreement nobody signed it. Were in agreement on Nuclear Weapons with a lying, cheating nation who wants to kill us and has said so. There is no agreement, sir. The issue wasnt their signature, it was ours. We didnt want to sign it because we wanted to maintain maximum flexibility. Thank you very much, general perry. We go to tom swauzy of new york. Its so good to have spent this time with you. I want to thank all of our witnesses so much for their attention and preparation, the good work that they do. Lets assume that the deal has flaws in it. Lets assume that we will not walk away from the deal, especially after weve already given so much benefit in the form of monetary payments to iran. Lets assume that the iaea hasnt done the inspections they need to do. Lets assume that iran is pervaing eval and instability and terror throughout the region with their teheran backed milit militias. Lets assume all thesie ing tth for argument sake. What is the number one thing we can do to one enforce compliance of the treaty of the agreement. And number two, what is the number one thing number one toughest sanction we can impose without violating the deal . Ambassador . Number one enforce the agreement, number two, tougher sanctions without violating it. Use the joint Committee Process to start challenging iran on all of these issues weve talked about today. The militarization, the access to the military bases, the issues that have been raised by mr. Albright and some of the other actions that are in 2231, the u. N. Resolution and press the iranians through that process because at the end of the process there are steps we can take short of walking out of the agreement that can limit some of our commitments. For example to provide them technicical use the joint committee to . To challenge irans violations and behavior. Thats on the agreement. What would you say the number one violation is . The missile program. Okay. Put your speaker on, please. U. S. Should change its policy that it no longer accepts the sunsets and work with its european allies to create a joint so that wouldnt be enforcing the existing deal, that would be to change it . Yes. Using the joint commission to try to um, to um, getting access to military sites. So youre saying ballistic mit missiles, youre saying military sites. Toughest sanction we can do without violating the agreement. Step up nonNuclear Sanctions on iran. So what would the biggest sanction we could do . Im not an expert on sanction. But i see many possibilities and think those are very sound things to do, including the ones in the bill to be marked up tomorrow. Thank you. I think we should work with our European Partners on how to interpret and enforce section t and q of the agreement which goes to the militaryrelated potential military related activities of iran and in terms of additional sanctions we can impose that are compliant i think that our key two areas of focus should be economic pressure around teherans proxies. Meaning trying to disrupt the financial flow sdwhz means of payment to hezbollah through the state department and Treasury Department . Treasury department chiefly. I believe our Treasury Department is Gold Standard if they have it resources and authorities they need to do it. And i think we should give that to them and i believe we should be thinking about how to tighten the screws on the supply chain for Ballistic Missiles. Thank you very much. And i also want to thank the members of our panel here today. We very much appreciate these informative exchanges that youve had with the members including the ability to get into some clarification of some issues that i think are very helpful. I think theres a broad and bipartisan agreement that iran is in fact a threat, a deadly threat to the United States and to our allies. I think our intent is to continue our oversight work but then to drive policy with respect to countering this radical regime and i think the ideas that come out of this hearing can be very helpful in terms of how exactly we do that. The hearings adjourned. Thank you again