Free the palestinians. Expect to be ready for a state in two years. That was meant to say, if we are successful and somehow become ready, in the sense of being able to govern ourselves effectively and handle obligations responsibly and seen this way by the International Community and, therefore, effectively answering the questions that were really put forward in 2001 and 2002 and 2003 and all that. If we were able to do this and reduce this whole issue to occupation period, not occupation but the idea was that this was going to be Strong Enough to bring about the transformation necessary to settle the solution. What the problem wasbility inspiring ourselves to get ready for statehood in three years and tell the people beforehand. The idea was not to try to say, we took a test and passed it without announcement. But to preannounce the. That was an important part pof it. To go out and say and this is what we did in august of 2009, two years we expect to be rae t ready for statehood. We actually said the same thing in a good way. Well be ready. Are you going to be ready for us . Do the necessary things. You know, in a technical sense we succeeded because year and a half into this, we got the commission. Recognition of the reality of this and it was people gave us the reality of state of palestine. April of 2011 was very significant date for us for the palestinians. Very, very significant date. A year and a half into the adoptation of that program we got testimonials by Relevant International institutions. And the United Nations. Capable of delivering stap cards of countries that have been around for a long period of time and whats really most significant . Its too bad that it is not regenerated the information necessary on the political side. Its relevant today. That process of transfar maorma is needed. In order to bridge that gap between the maximum for israel and the minimum acceptable to us, that needs to be allowed to evolve and to emerge. Its not going to really happen to anybody or for anybody. Its going to be in the interest of everyone. It certainly would be the palestinians have been so desperate looking to be able to learn with dignity and freedom of country and thats really what this is fundamentally about and thats something that required building and fluid and serious transformation. Thats what this is about. Thank you. There are so many more questions in the audience and im sorry we havent got time to get to them. Let me just close by saying, first of all, the text of his full statement will be available out in the foyer and also, online at atlantic council. Org. Secondarily, let me quote my friend tom friedman one more time in the article he wrote when you resigned as prime minister. He essentially said to the palestinians, had messages to various people from in his excellent column. People may want to look at because but he said if theres no place, quote, if theres no place for a solemn fayad type of leadership and independent palestine will forever allude you. I think we heard today in these comments why tom wrote that and i think a lot of us in this room and perhaps, jane harmon is right. All of us in this room may agree with that. Thank you so much for your service and joining the atlantic council. Were delighted that we can work what you. And best of luck to you and your people in the region. Thank you. Thank you. In the last 13 years there have been several alternative theories regarding the september 11th 2001 terrorist attacks. Join us tomorrow when we explore the theories. Richard gage, the founder of architects and engineers for 9 11 truth will be joins us and talk about his groups position and take your call starting at 9 15 a. M. Eastern for washington journal live on cspan and and on saturday more on conspiracy theories with news week. And the recent article the plots to destroy america. Hell talk about that and well take your call. Thats saturday morning at 9 15 eastern on washington journal. Live on cspan. While congress is in recess well have events from watergate on its anniversary. American history tv on cspan3. Joo author sylvia dukes morris is our guest on this weeks q and a. She was so beautiful and smart and which they that she became witty, she was so irresifsable to men. Even in old age i gave her 80th Birthday Part party and Richard Cohen the washington columnist was at the party and they sat together after dinner having coffee and at one point she begins to stroke his beard and afterwards he said, heavens, ive never met an 18yearold before that i wanted to leap into bed with. She had this seductive quality her entire life. Sylvia dukes morris on the life and career of claire booth luke and sharing about their personal relationship during her final years. Thats sunday night at 8 00 pacific. The lead u. S. Negotiator with the iran Wendy Sherman testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on tuesday. A july 20th deadline to reach a deal was recently extended by four months. The hearing includes a Treasury Department update on the ongoing sanctions against iran plus the views of former obama and george w. Bush administration advisers. This is just over 2 hours and 40 minutes. This hearing will come to order. We have two may nells today to give us an overview of the status of the p5 plus one talks and looking back what we learned over the last six months and looking ahead at what f what might change between now and november that ultimately gets us the type of deal that we are hopeful for. What id like to hear from our witnesses who have been across the table from the iranians given the underwelshing concession is what youve learned that leads you to believe we can reach a kprae whennive deal in the next four months. I think that everyone knows where i stand. Ive been skeptical of the iranians sincerity from day one. And i cannot say that i am any less skeptical stayed than i was six months ago. I do not believe tehran has had a change of heart about its Nuclear Program. If it did, i would think that the whole militariation part of it would have to be negotiated. I think it should have been up front from the beginning in order so we could define truly the nature of these negotiations in a way that the world would not just suspect but iran was pursuing a Nuclear Weapons but would know it. I believe that the iranians want relief from sanctions and thats why theyre at the table. I also believe we have leverage in this negotiation. And that we should use it to get a good deal and if not a good deal than no deal at all. On that ill say that i joined with the Administration Many times and secretary sherman has on different occasions, publicly and privately, said that no deal is better than a bad deal. But lately i hear refrains from the administration, if no deal, what . Which suggests that, in fact, if we have no deal or or those that suggest thats a choice between getting some type of a deal or having to go to a military action, i reject that as a choice. I believe that there are significant steps in between that lead as far from that ultimate conclusion. And im also concerned when i hear, if no deal, what, because that implies that you have to get a deal at any cost. And so, i know that there are those at the disarmament community and the editorial pages who suggest that those of us who want to really make sure that we get a good deal, somehow, have this pension for words. I find it particularly amusing as it relates to myself. I was one of the handful of people that voted against the war in iraq at the time it was overwhelmingly popular to vote for war. So as someone who has followed this for 20 years from my days in the house of representatives on the house Foreign Relations committee to the president , i know that the iranians have gotten us to a point that if i define the International Community, we now accept things that we would have never thought were acceptable. Levels of enrichment. Changing their facility. Not closing their facility. Changing the nature of their plutonium reactor and so they have succeeded in moving us well along the lines of what they ultimately wanted by defying the International Community. And including the present president of iran who has boasted about that while he was moving that program along he was able to keep the west from significantly sanctions iran. So if past is prolog my skepticism is well rooted. I i want to know if you think a extension would give us a good deal, postpones breakout. Dismantles irans elicit Nuclear Infrastructure and puts us in place in a longterm inspection verification and monitoring regime. And calibrates sanctions ree leaf to specific bench mamarben. I want to be very clear. Im not looking for the state departments talking points today. I want to hear from our panelists why they believe, based on their experience over the last six months for, four additional months will make a difference. The committee needs to hear what happened at negotiating table that brought iran closer to their view of a deal if only they had another four months. Let me close by saying, what i have always said. I support the administrations diplomatic efforts. Ive always supported a bipartisan twotrack policy of diplomacy and sanctions. At the same time, ive always believed that we should only relieve pressure on iran in exchange for longterm verifiable concessions that will fundamentally dismantle Irans Nuclear program. And that any deal be structured in such a way that alarm bells will sound from vienna and washington, months you and beijing, should iran restore its program any time in the next 20 or 30 years. I also want to be clear that i do not support another extension of negotiations. At that point iran will have dpaused its opportunity to put real concessions object table and ill be prepared to move forward with sanctions. With that, senator corker for his remarks. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to say that i think those are excellent opening comments and i think there has been bipartisan concern about where iran is. Actually, looking at the notes from october of 2013 where i think, wendy and david both were here. And we talked about the extraordinary effort internationally, that had been put in place to get iran where they were when these negotiations began and i think the statement you mentioned, and hopefully, this will play out in this way, but irans compliance with the u. N. Security Council Resolutions, would be the ultimate test as to whether theyll really were willing to deal with us in the appropriate way. I think all of us wish you well and i dont know a sole that doesnt want to see this resolved in a diplomatic way. I know weve had a number of brieftion, classified and some unclassified and ill say in fairness, the chairman is right. In each case, on the important issues, we feel the goalpost move. In march the issue of enrichment was basically agreed to. Its going to be difficult to walk that back but then on so many other issues that are related and tied to this, we see the goalpost, again, continue to move. I know that davids testimony today has done a good job, i think, with sanctions. Hes going to talk about the relieve that iran is getting during this next fourmonth extension. All of us are concerned that the, rightly so, i think yall are concerned too, the International Community having come together to put pressure on iran the way that we have, is dissipating and will be very difficult to bring back together if we end up in the wrong place here. So ill close. I think the chairmans comments speak well for most of the committee, candidly and ill close by saying this. I hope that today you will publicly commit that there will be absolutely no more extensions. None no matter where we are at the end of this fourmonth period there will not be additional extensions. Well either come to a final agreement or not because i think people are very, very concerned about what happens if we have a series of rolling interim agreements, if you will, and secondly, i hope youll commit as jean kerry said, there needs to be congressional buyin. I hope youll agree to some format that gives congress the ability to weigh in on this final deal. I know everybody says sanctions cannot be weighed without congress, well, they can. They can be waived without congress weighing in. I believe that acknowledging congress playing a role in one of the biggest issues that this administration is going to deal with, relative to reaching an agreement, relative to nuclear issues, i think that congress can be an important and valuable backstop to the administration as they negotiate this because i know that congress has sent out very, very strong signals as to what they believe, what we believe, would be an acceptable arrangement. So thank you for being here. I appreciate your service to our yes. I appreciate the updates that we received by phone and in person. And again, all of us want to see this cut success but are very concerned about where we are at this moment. Thank you, senator corker. For the record, your full statements will be included in the record without objection. Ill ask you to summarize in about five minutes tore so, so we can enter into a dialogue with you and with that, madam secretary, youre recognized. Good morning. Thank you chairman menendez and desting wished members of the kwom. Im pleased to be here with undersecretary cohen to discuss the status of negotiations related to Irans Nuclear program as you say you have my wrain statement so i will summarize its key points. Mr. Chairman, and members, our goal is to prevent iran from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon. The diplomatic process in which weir currently engaged was designed to achieve e that goal peacefully and durably. We have a basic metric for a good agreement. One that cuts off all of irans potential paths to a Nuclear Weapon. The plutonium path with the current iraq reactor. The path through the underground facility and the path through swift breakout at the enrichment plant and the path that would occur in secret which well deal with through intrusive measures and well tie our sanctions relief to irans performance, only providing the leaf to iran after it has taken verifiable steps as part of a comprehensive agreement and maintain if capacity to tighten the pressure if iran fails to comply. I cannot tell you today that our diplomacy will succeed because im not sure that it will. I can tell you that, in the past six months, we have made significant and steady progress. Weve exchanged ideas, narrowed gaps on key issues and identified areas where more hard work is required. For instance, weve had productive discretions about how to reduce the dangers are posed by facilities. About the protocol necessary four transparency and about the disposition of irans stockpiles of enriched uranium. No issues have been neglected and none have been finally decided because nothing is graded until everything is agreed and on some we still have substantial differences including the question of enrichment capacity. As you know, mr. Chairman theres a limit to how detailed i can be in this open session and still preserve the leverage we need in support of the goal we seek however the bottom line is that although serious obstacles do remain were moving in the right direction. For that reason, roughly two weeks ago, the parties to the negotiation agreed to extend our deliberations for foour additional months. We agreed because we had seen significant process in the negotiating room and because we can see a path forward however difficult to get atoy comprehensive plan of action. Well use this time to work toward that comprehensive plan to ensure iran doesnt obtain a Nuclear Weapon and its program is exclusively peaceful. I note that a year ago Irans Nuclear program was growing and becoming more dangerous with each passing day. Thats no longer the case. Last noch, the first step in this northern yags we reached consensus on a joint plan of action in return for limited and targeted sanctions relief, iran agreed to freeze and roll back key elements of its nuclear activities. In fact, the jpoa has temporarily blocked each of the paths around we need to go down to build a Nuclear Weapon. Many observers openly doubted whether iran would keep its commitments under the joint plan. According to the the iaea iran did what it promised to do during these past six months and the result is a Nuclear Program thats more constrained, more transparent and better understood that it was a year ago. A program thats been frozen for the first time in almost a decade. Sanctions for iran will remain limited to amounts that will do good will if anything to heal irans economic problems. Over the next four months the valuable safeguards that freeze Irans Nuclear program will remain in place as we strive to negotiate a comprehensive and longer term plan. Ill be blunt and say that well never rely on words alone when it comes to iran. We have and well insist that commitments be monitored and verified in terms of access and inspection you thoroughly spelled out. Our goal is to structure an agreement to make any attempt to break out of such an agreement so visible and so time consuming that iran would be either deterred from trying or stopped before it could succeed. Speaking more generally i want to emphasize that engagement on one issue does not require and will not lead to silence on others. The United States will not hesitate to express its view and to put pressure on iran when it is warrant, whether in relgts to the governments abysmal human rights record, its support for terrorism or its outright hostility toward israel or detention och political prisoners, journalists and american citizens. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on the issue were united in our goals. Were determined that a reason not obtain a Nuclear Weapon. It is only because of the leverage created by the executive and legislative branches of this government by our allies and partners and by the u. N. Security council that iran has come to the negotiating table and what we believe to be a serious way. But we although that sanctions are a means not an end. Were now in the process of determining whether the end we seek can be achieved through a diplomatic process. That effort is worthwhile because a positive outcome would be preferable to any alternative. A comprehensive agreement would ease anxiety and enhance stability through the the middle east. Increase the likelihood of a nuclear regional arms race and the potential threat of nuclear blackmail and contribute to the security of israel and the partners throughout the region and make our own citizens safer and between now and the end of no well continue our pursuit of these welcome ends and with those high purposes in mind i respectfully thank you and ask you again for your support. I thank you for the opportunity to be here. I will be pleased to respond to every question and be as specific and detailed as i possibly can, mr. Chairman, in this opened session. Thank you. Secretary cohen . Distinguished members of the committee, thank you for your invitation to appear before you today with secretary sherman to discuss the extended giant plan of action. Ill focus my oral testimony on our efforts to maintain intense pressure on iran. To help aa successesful outcome in negotiations over its Nuclear Program. And the evermounting pressure that iran will continue to face during the extended joint plan of action period. As the p5 plus one seeks a comprehensive and longterm resolution to the International Communitys concerns over Irans Nuclear program. When we announced the joint plan last november, we said that we did not expect the relief package in the jpoa to materially improve the a rainian economy and it hadnt. The depth of irans economic distress, distress that resulted in large measure from the collaborative efforts of congress, the administration and our international partners, dwarfed the limited reliever in the joint plan of action so today as we implement the extended jpoa iran remains in a deep economic hole. The value of irans currency has declined by about 7 since the jpoa was announced last november. Since 2011, iran has lost about 120 billion in oil revenues. They lost 20 billion in revenues in the First Six Months of the jpoa, and stands to lose an additional 15 billion in oil revenues during the next four months alone. And irans Economy Today is 25 smaller than it would have been had it remained on its pre2011 growth trajectory. When we entered into the jpoa some predicted the sanctions regime was h would crumble and some argued that irans economy would rebound dramatically. Neither occurred. The fact is, as we enter the fourmonth extension of the joint plan of action our sanction regime remains robust and irans economy continues to struggle and we remain confident that four months from an hour our sanctions will continue to bite and irans economy will remain under great stress. Three to 4 billion worth of relief that they may provide iran, pails in comparison to what they need to dig itself out of its deep economic hole. Firms will continue to shun iran as was the case during the First Six Months of the joint plan of action. Firms have a good reason to remain reluctant about does business in iran. The over iran continues to be cut off from the International Financial system and is largely unable to attract foreign investments. Theyre still shut out of the United States, the Worlds Largest and most vibrant economy and precluded from troops acting in the dollar. And there are transacting in the dollar. 680 iran designations developed in concert with partners around the world remains in place. Throughout the jpao period we vigorously enforced the sanctions and recognizing the role that this played into the lead up to and the during the joint plan of action and how important maintaining that pressure will continue to be during this extended joint plan of action period. Indeed, since the joint plan was negotiated, weve imposed sanctions on more than 60 entities and individuals around the world for evading u. S. Sanctions against iran, aiding iran and supporting terrorism and for abusing human rights. Throughout this shortterm extension of the joint plan, i kp assure you well continue to make certain through word and deed that banks, businesses, brokers and others around the world, understand that iran is not opened for business. And iran will not be opened for business unless and until it assures the International Community of the exclusively peaceful that kmur of its Nuclear Program. While this fourmonth extension will provide additional time and space for moesh yanegotiations proceed it wont change the fact that irans sanctioninduced stress has not receded and over the next four months my colleagues and i within treasury and throughout the administration, will continue to echo president obamas clear message. Well come down like a ton of brings on those that seek to evade our sanctions that will help to provide the negotiators leverage as we explore the possibility of a comprehensive and longterm resolution to the International Communitys concerns over Irans Nuclear program. Im happy to respond to any questions the committee might have. Thank you, both. Before i get to the negotiation questions, i do have a question for you, madam secretary, about the detention of the Washington Post correspondent into iran. Jason who i understand is duel citizenship including theites and his wife who were arrested at their home last tuesday. Since their arrests, no one has heard from them and two u. S. Service members who are being photographers are being held. And they have no access to legal council. Can you tell me what were doing in this regard . Yes. Thank you for raising this. It is a great concern to all of us as is the continued detention of the two, and our concern about Robert Levinson who has been missing for a long time and we believe, in iran. We have, in fact, used our appropriate channels, the swiss, to make known our concern about this apparent attention of american journalists and his wife. And the additional photojournalists. Theres absolutely no reason foeshtsz to occur. For this to occur. Were a country that believe this is press freedom. This reporter has been reporting for some time. Had been in vienna with us, in fact, during the negotiations and we call on iran to release all of these people including the pastor and help us in every way possible to return robert lev levinson home as well. Thank you for raising this and well use every channel we have, mr. Chairman, to continue to bring americans citizens home. More than raising it im concerned when u. S. Citizens are detained by the iranian government. And i dont understand the case of this reporter because having read some of his articles it seems rather i wont say favorable but it certainly was balanced in his reporting. So in the midst of negotiations, how is it that the iranians detain u. S. Citizens for what is from all apparent pumps, nothing of any gate consequence. I dont get it. I dont get the ayatollah talking about 190,000 the centrifuges at a time were trying to reduce the number of sevcentrifug centrifuges. Even if it wasnt time specific. Thats beyond the pale of what we need, i hope weir vigorously going to pursue this with the iranians and i hope they understand very clearly that the actions like these undermine whatever negotiating posture they have at the table. Let me ask you with reference to something that i think should have been a condition precedent. I think you and i have discussed this but it certainly is a concern to me. Which is the military the possible mill fair of irans program. I dont look at thises simply just to understand the past and say, you see . I look at it as a measurement for the future. If you do not know what irans military program was, you dont know to what point they progress that will cause us concern, that they are at a point maybe farther along than anyone suspects and is short jump towards being age to militaryize their Nuclear Program for nuclear reps. I think the world would have looked at these negotiations in a totally different way if that had been established up front. My understanding from public reports, forget about the private briefings, is that they are incredibly reticent to come clean on this issue. So what options are on the table for addressing this possible military dimensions of irans program . And will you insist, i dont think that this is giving away a negotiating posture, on access to persons, places and documents for the iaea to make this determination . Into thank you very much, mr. Chairman. We absolutely agree with that the possible dimensions of their praem must be address as part of a comprehensive agreement. International Atomic Agency has a protocol under way to do that. Its been very difficult. Iran has been reluctant to come forward with the kind of information about people, places and documents. Didnt they recently say theyre missing a deadline . They may, indeed. An august 25th deadline coming up for some of the considerations. We have been in very close touch with director general amano because in our dealing with possible military dimensions, in a comprehensive agreement we want to make sure we dont undermine the independence of the iae aechlt. But rather, use the negotiations as leverage to get the compliance thats required while at the same time, ensuring the iae aichlt can do its job and we dont interfere with that in inappropriate ways given their independence. That said, i quite agree with you. If there is not access to what the iaea needs to know about irans past, it is difficult to know that youll have compliance about irans future. How this will ultimately get resolved, had quite a bit of discussion about and weve not reached a rest looigs on this issue. Its a very serious issue and must be resolved as part of a comprehensive negotiation is i agree with you. Let me ask you with reference to assuming a good deal that we could all embrace whats going to be critical after 20 years of deception is the monitoring and verification regime. Which is why ive called for longterm inspections and verification regimes. Some call that a suggestion of a deal did she breaker. I dont quite get it. It seems to me that if you are deceived for 20 years and advance your program to a point that were now accepting some level of enrichment that we accept the which was supposed to be closed. That we were told iraq was going to be dismantled, either by them or us. And now, were accepting all these things. That if longterm verification and monitoring agreement is incredibly important. Not a deal breaker but a dealmaker. What measures beyond the initial iaea protocols . And what types of verification measures are being considered for procurement of key proliferation sensitive goods as well . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Transparency and monitoring is absolutely critical and in the agreement. As i said one of the pathways of greatest concern is, of course, covert action. And entrance patransparency and monitoring are the elements that help to ensure that if theres a kuo vert program one knows in time to be able to take action and stop it from happening in the first place. In the joint plan of action, the fact that we can now have managed access to centrifuge production, to rotar production gechs our Intelligence Community and experts the kinds of information that allow us to know whether something is being sent over to some other place and isnt in the pipeline as is required to be inspected. So in addition to modified 3. 1 in if additional proelt cool where i are absolutely critical to a comprehensive agreement and i believe iran understands that. On each measure agreed to, we will decide whether, in fact, an additional element of transparency is monitoring or is needed over the entire duration of this agreement and the duration of this agreement we agree with you, ought to be quite a long time. Gi given how many years of concern have been raised by the International Community. In some cases thats access to sitings. In some cases that will be other technical means of verification. But well go element by element and make sure that there is, in fact, a specific monitoring and verification measure that matches up with that. Let me ask, persons, places and documents. Is that an unreasonable expectation in order to have the type of verification both of the possible military dimensions or prospectively, for three years before we found there on the ground facility, i dont know that while we agreed to something that allows them to do x that they dont go ahead with their capacity somewhere else that we find three years later but in three years its too late. Well go whatever the iaea requires for verification. They have in the past required persons, places and documents. I think they see the places and documents as the most important because they want direct access and look wards themselves. The persons issue is an issue for iran but one thats on the table and of great concern to us. And their concern is to be very blunt and opened about it, is if you name individuals that those vitds might find their lives are quite short. I think there are ways for them to create access to individuals in there are secure facilities that that would guarantee that. I agree. Mr. Sherman, are you is the administration in agreement that november 24th is the end of these negotiations . No more extensions . That we either reach an agreement by that date or this negotiation is over . Senator, ive learned in negotiations that it is very difficult to say what will happen at the end of any given period of time. If uds asked me where we would be at the end of this six months that has just proceeded, i would have been hard to predict that were exactly where we are today. Our intent is absolutely to e7bd this on november 24th. And in one direction or another. But what i can say to you is that well consult congress along the way. I greatly appreciate that congress has permitted classified brieftion during active periods of negotiation to maintain whatever leverage we have. Well continue those classified kwon conversations and when november 24th comes, whatever decision we make will be a joint one with the United States congress. And you understand the concerns people have about the series of rolling agreements . I do. And indeed, we did not we made a very conscious decision not to go for sixmonth extension which was possible under jpoa because we thought we would just get to month 5 before anything would happen so were concerned about talks for talks sake as much as you are. And for the inspections, as the chairman alluded to, many people in they had other settings have alluded to. If the Inspection Period is something short of 20 years or so, weve not done much, right . In other words, if we dont have a full inspection regime if this grechlt doesnt last for a long, long time we have disfated our leverage for something that really didnt matter. What is the limited time being discussed for an agreement of this type at present . Ebl the duration of this should be at least double digits and we believe it should be for quite a long time. Im not going to put a specific number on the table today because that is a subject of very sensitive negotiations. But im happy to discuss that with you in a classified setting. And i think you understand the concerns that all of us have relative to something thats not very, very long term. And we share that. Okay. Do you believe that they are agreeing to all their obligations in the jpoa . I do. And the iaea as verified which is more important than my judgment. So one area we disputed this and we talked a little bit about it back and forth, is they agreed that there was an agreement that they were not going to export more than 1 million bear recommends per day. Theyre that number, specifically. I guess i ask the question, if theyre specifically above if number how are they in agreement with the jaechlt pao . We believe theyre at 1. 4 million. I think yall can verify that to be true, i think, so how are they in agreement. Actually, senator, i talked with our sports yesterday about this because i imagine it would get asked today anded the our assessment having in most of the data not having the last 20 days of july yet, that well be within range of 1. 1. 1 billion barrels a day which is what, in fact, we had said would be the aggregate amount. Now, some of the public data that is published includes two elements that arent part of that assessment. For those that support the oim at the aggregate amount that they were at at the time of the jpoa that does not include some of the public data include c conden condense. And iran gets no money directly from the oil they give to syria so theres no economic benefit. I got it. Take that out and syria were at about 1. 1. I think that the just for what its, the subtraction of condensates. I now got what they call it but its a creative u way to not count their exports and we disgentlemen with those numbers strongly. Theyre shipping oil to syria one more time. Shipping oil to syria instead of sending them money, theyre working against us in that regard and you dont count that as an eksport. We have other sanctions through other chams for the export. So we taken forcement action on that export. Let me ask two more questions. Kerry secretary kerry was in and said on april 8th, the administration is obligated under law to come back to congress for any relief of statutorily imposed sanctions on iran. In any agreement with iran will have to pass muster with congress. Can you confirm thats the case and will you come to Congress Prior to providing any relief associate wade comprehensive i agreement . If not, why not . Senator, we believe strongly that any lifting of sanctions will require congressional legislative action. Lifting but you can weigh. Right. I want to get real i heard you talk about the words. Its tough to resoef a minute ago. I want you to clearly state to me, will you or will you not come to congress before lifting, whether its a wave, a temporary wave, no way will you left any relief on iran, period, after this next agreement ask reached or not reached, without coming to congress . We cannot lift innovative sanctions without congressional action. We can, as you said, suspend or waive under the current legislation. Well not do so without conversations with congress. If you are asking, support, whether were coming to congress for legislative action to affirm a comprehensive agreement, we are believe as other administrations do, that the executive branch has the authority to take such executive action on this kind of a political understanding that might be reached with iran. I cant tell you whether we will or not. I got that. I understand article two of the constitution. I want to go back to what youre saying. You you came and had a conversation with us. You and your representatives, and basically, told us you were extending the agreement. Thats a conversation. Well i just want to go back and i want you to clearly waving, suspending. You told me you dont have to come back to congress and id like to figure out a way that aye do and ive been unsuccessful so far. I want you to clearly state on the waiting or suspending of any kind of sanctions because you have the right to do that, you say youll have a conversation, again, the conversations have been this is what were going to do. Thats a very unsatisfactory place for us to be so youre telling me you cant be any more clear than coming and having the same conversations weve had in the past where in essence youre telling us what youre going to do . Senator, United States congress and the United States senate has oversight authority. Has legislative authority. You are free to decide what action you think is appropriate for any executive branch decisions by any administration. And i understand those prerogatives quite clearly. And i will commit to you that you will not be surprised by reading in the newspapers, decisions or judgments that we have made that well keep you completely informed about what were doing in those noesh yagss as we have throughout these last six months. Thank you. I naomi time is up and i think the world understands that is zero commitment. Its not in keeping with what secretary kerry said on april 8th. And i know the goalposts keep moving and i think you can continue this hearing as evidence of why so many of us have the concerns we have. Again, we wish you well. Senator . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Hit the let me thank both of our individuals with us today for your continued service to our country. These are extremely challenges issues. Going back to the negotiations in the original agreement i think we got off to a rough start between congress and the administration. And it caused, i think, more division than, perhaps, was in the best interest of the country. I want to thank you and acknowledge that i think particularly in recent months, that the cooperation between the administration and congress has gotten much stronger. The openness of the briefings, i think, have been of much Higher Quality and we thank you for that. The input from congress has been pretty direct. And i think the administration has done a commendable job in keeping our negotiating partners together in unity, despite the challenges of international events. So i think made a lot of progress and i just want to acknowledge that. I couldnt agree more that the objective is the visible ability, assuming we have an agreement, but the visible ability to determine if that agreement is not being adhered to. And as you point out, the ability that it would take, time consuming to get back to the ability to produce a Nuclear Weapon. Thats certainly the goal. And i think we all acknowledge that a bad agreement is worse than no agreement at all. And i think the language we have been using is clear about that. The language we use if theres a failure here, there will be tougher sanctions, tougher isolations is absolutely accurate. I really want to follow up on one of senator cork enners poi. November 24th would not be the end of this process. As i understand it, if youre successful, youre successful, congress and the administration have to Work Together. It doesnt end the process on november 24th. The sanction arent going to be removed one time. Theres going to be i assume a transition period that would cause congress and the administration to be on the same page on this. So i just encourage you to use the same process that youve used during the last few months which i think has been a much healthier process between the two branches of government that share the same objective. We share the aim sosame objectim the beginning, so i hope you will continue to do that. I want to just talk about the one part of your statement, secretary sherman, that you mentioned. That is we will also put pressure on iran when is warranted, whether its in relationship to the governments abysmal human rights records to support terrorism, hostility toward israel, ar or detention of political prisoners. This is going to be a lengthy process. Of course, we are focused on an extremely important priority for the United States and that is nonNuclear Weapon iran. At the same time, iran is doing other issues that are problematic to a relationship with the United States from the point of view of constructive relationships and we have to use every tool that we can to deter them and to put a spotlight on the things that they are doing. You then say you wont be silent. I assume silence means more than just words that we will take actions in other areas and nothing that were doing in these negotiations would compromise our ability to speak out about these other issues that are critically important to the United States. Couldnt agree more, senator. Where it comes to our sanctions on terrorism, our sanctions on human rights, they will continue in place. We have been quite clear with iran that although if we get to a comprehensive agreement, there might be first suspension and then ultimately after some period of time, and after verification by the iaea of a variety of benchmarks, ultimately perhaps lifting, that where it comes to our sanctions regarding terrorism, human rights, they will stay in place. It is quite concerning, the actions that iran takes in all of the arenas you just mentioned. Human rights, terrorism, fomenting instability. As the chairmandetaining an american journalist helps these negotiations . In the past, i know its been quite in the news of late, although hamas creates many of its own rockets these days, a lot of the original supply of those rockets came from iran. And so the security of israel is not only tied to this nuclear agreement, but its also tied to their horrific rain of rockets that are coming down on israel today. So all of these areas, we need to continue to have vigorous enforcement of our existing sanctions, take what other actions we can to mobilize the International Community to condemn these actions and to insist that they stop. And i might point throughout, again, we have to be at the end of the day, we must be together on this, and it might be the preferred practice to use the Waiver Authority that you have rather than changing the underlies lying law in the even have to act quickly if there are are problems in compliance rather than waiting for congress to pass a new law in getting that to the administration. I just point out there are advantages to the tactics used at the end of the day. I agree completely with senator corker and secretary kerry, it is critically important we are together on this at the end of the day and i hope that will i know that you agree and have to make sure that occurs. Secretary, i want to issue one question about the challenges you might be having today considering that europe and the United States are working for stronger sanctions against russia. Russia is one of our negotiating partners in regards to iran. Does that cause some challenges for you . I hope not. I hope that you were able to have more than one relationship at a time and that this committee has been on record strongly supporting additional sanctions against russia in regards to its actions with ukraine. But is that affecting our ability to speak out as a unified voice in regards to iran . Thank you for that question, senator. The answer is not in the least. Our efforts to address russias destabilizing activities in ukraine, its invasion of ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity have not been impeded one iota by the very important work that undersecretary sherman and the team have been undertaking in vienna. We have been pursuing a, i think, very powerful and calculated strategy to impose pressure on russia with respect to its activities in crimea and now eastern ukraine. Weve been working closely with counterparts in europe and elsewhere to coordinate these actions. I think there have been press reports in the last 24 hours or so of additional sanctions yet to come. Id say tuned for that. We have not encountered any difficulty in terms of working with our partners or working, ourselves, to impose pressure on russia in relation to the activities in ukraine. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I havent had the usual experience of this issue as the chairman has, but chairman was talking about moving the goal post, and i do have a lot of experience with the negotiation, and when i sit down to negotiate, i want to know and have very clear understanding of what my goal is. Id also like to understand what the goal of the party is that im negotiating with. So, my understanding is the goal of the world community, including the United States, as this all began, was pretty well expressed in the United Nations resolutions, correct . Miss sherman, can you state what that was . Yes. Indeed, senator. There have been more than one u. N. Security Council Resolution regarding Irans Nuclear program, but it is to ensure iran cannot obtain a Nuclear Weapon and that its program is exclusively peaceful. Now, didnt all those resolutions also wasnt the goal there to end the Enrichment Program, to bar iran from enriching year rain yum . Iran should suspend enrichment and, in fact, does not stop enrichment, bar enrichment, but urges that iran suspend enrichment until there is assurance on behalf of the International Community that its program is entirely peaceful. And in fact, even anticipates that they could resume if, in fact, they did provide that assurance. That said, senator, the Administration Position has been that the preferences that iran not have Enrichment Program, and that remains the case, and in every negotiation, i remind iran that that is the case. They can get anything they need on the open market. They dont need an indigenous program. Nonetheless, at the end of this comprehensive agreement, there is the potential for a very limited Enrichment Program for practical specific needs under very intrusive mechanisms of monitoring and verification. But as you said, there is no reason whatsoever if all your goal is have a peaceful, a nonweaponized enrich theres no reason to have enrichment, correct . Theres none whatsoever. You can easily obtain these materials on the open market. You do not need to enrich to have a peaceful Nuclear Program . That is correct. Thats true of virtually every country in the world, and yet there are several countries that do have indigenous Enrichment Programs. Some of our closest allies, in fact. Plcthe economy of iran is st suffering. Quite severely. Again, i want to get back to motivation then of iran. Theyve suffered horribly in terms of economics, and yet theyll continue to enrich. Wouldnt this be very easy for them to just solve this problem by stop enriching . I think thats the answer is yes. Okay . Im trying to get to a pioint here. Im trying to find out what is motivating iran . We sit here and talk about a peaceful Nuclear Program. Thats not their aim, correct . Lets get it on the table. Lets show a little clarity in terms of what irans objective is here. Senator, if we all were not concerned that iran wanted to obtain a Nuclear Weapon, we wouldnt be in these negotiations. They wouldnt have been going on for some time. So, of course, we have concern. Up until 2003, the United States in a public intelligence estimate said, indeed, we believe iran had been attempted to get a Nuclear Weapon. The intelligence communities assessment which they can discuss further with you in private session is that, in fact, after 2003, that particular program ended. But, of course, we have that concern. So, heres my question. Why do we continue to pretend publicly that iran will enter some agreement where it will be a peaceful Nuclear Program . It will be exclusively peaceful . That will never happen. As long as they can enrich, they are doing it because they want to have that threat of being able to weaponize their Nuclear Program, correct . Why not be honest . Why not be clear in terms of what irans motivations are . Why dont we dilute ourselves . As i said in my opening comments, what were trying to do is cut off every pathway to a Nuclear Weapon, cut off their pathway through plutonium and current iraq reactor. Cut off the pathway of highly enriched ukrainian. To cut off their pathway to a Covert Program by using intrusive monitoring and inspection. So this is not about trust. This is not about being some have illusion, some kind of illusion about them. This is about verification. This is about monitoring. This is about assurance to the International Community. This is about inspections. So this is not about trust, senator. In a negotiation, you want to maintain leverage. Now, ill stipulate that, you know, secretary cornyn there, that theres still pressure from sanctions standpoint. Not as much. We certainly dissipated certainly that negotiating leverage. But also just the fact that we implicitly agreed to their Enrichment Program, also gave up an offline negotiating leverage. Didnt it . Miss sherman . Senator, we made a judgment, the president of the United States made a judgment that we could say that there was the possibility for a very limited Enrichment Program, mutually agreed under strict limitations with intrusive monitoring for a long period of time to, in fact, deal with the International Communitys concerns about Irans Nuclear program. As a result of that, and that ability to have that element as a possibility on the table brought about the joint plan of action. That joint plan of action has ensured that in fact we have frozen the program at this time. We got that in testimony. Ive heard that. Let me ask my final question. And ill say if, if this fails on november 24th, what then . I think we will have very serious decisions to make. We will have consulted with you all along the way of these four months. A lot of that in close sessions so that i can provide a great deal of detail to you. And we will decide what judgments we need to make. There is no question. We have said if iran will not reach a comprehensive agreement that cuts off all of their pathways to a Nuclear Weapon and that give the International Community the assurance were looking for, then we will step up right with you to additional sanctions, and to considering all of the options which the president of the United States says remain on the table. Wouldnt it be smart right now to declare exactly what would happen to create a little more negotiating leverage so maybe iran gets a little more serious about this as opposed to just talk about serious decisions or even worse, maybe serious consequences . I can assure you that in our negotiations with iran, we are quite direct about what will happen and what could happen if we cannot reach a comprehensive agreement. They have no doubt about the United States resolve. Absolutely none. Senator . Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, both, for being here today and for all of your efforts to try and reach a comprehensive agreement with iran. Undersecretary cohen, you talked a little bit in your Opening Statement about the economy in iran. And shortly after the jpoa was announced, there were a number of business delegations from various countries, many of our allies, that went to iran to, i assume, talk to them about prospects for business, either in the interim, or after a deal was reached. I wonder if you can talk about what we know about any of those discussions and whether we are still seeing the number of trade delegations continuing to go to iran . Yes, senator. We are not seeing as active a flow of trade delegations going through iran as we did i think in initial days after the joint plan of action was reached. We were very clear at that time to our partners around the world and others that talk, if it moves into deals, consummated deals, that cross our sanctions lines, that we will take action. And we did, in fact, take a series of actions during the course of the joint plan of action to make very clear that this was not just an idle threat, we were very serious about continuing to enforce the vast sanction architecture that remains in place. Can you just sorry. Delineate a couple of those in detail so that we have some ideas of exactly what was do done . The sanctions . Our response to the trade delegations. Response to the trade delegations was not specifically to we had a number of outreach opportunities to governments to make clear to them that we didnt think this was a great time to be engaging with iran even in conversations. Many of these trade delegations were from private businesses, not government sponsored. And the way that we convey the message to those delegations was both through public messaging as well as through the sanctions designations that we took. I dont think anyone was confused that we were going to sit back and allow sanctions violations to occur during the joint plan of action without responding. We took action. I think that message was conveyed very clearly. And if we dont reach a deal with iran, to what extent do we expect our allies and other partners to have been involved in enforcing the sanctions regime to continue to be willing to comply with that effort . Its obviously difficult to predict the future and exactly how this will play out, but i dont have any doubt on two scores. One, if we dont reach a deal, we will continue to enforce our sanctions very, very vigorously, and the truth of the matter is, because of the significance of the u. S. Economy, significance of the u. S. Financial system, significance of our sanctions, that if there is not a deal, the sanctions pressure on iran will be maintained and intensified through actions of the u. S. , alone. But that being said, im also confident that we will be able to continue to rally the International Community to the objective that people have subscribed to, which is that were all working together to try to achieve a resolution to the concerns that Irans Nuclear program, and there was complete buyin to the notion that this dualtrack approach of pressure on the one hand, opportunity to negotiate on the other, was the right way to proceed. And i think well be able, if necessary, to regenerate that effort. Well, i certainly agree that we are committed to seeing those sanctions stay in place. I just am concerned about where the rest of the International Community is, particularly europe and some turkey and some of our other allies. What i can say is that in the runup to the negotiations, we, i think, were quite successful in persuading even somewhat reluctant allies to the wisdom of the approach. And if were not able to reach an agreement with the iranians, i think the utility of a sanctions approach with the opportunity to negotiate will, again, be persuasive to our partners around the world, particularly as compared to the alternative of iran developing a Nuclear Weapon. So i think we will have work to do, but, you know, im optimistic that we will be able, if necessary, to bring together the International Community to impose even more significant pressure on iran if thats whats necessary. Undersecretary sherman, are we seeing you referred to the Russia Ukraine situation and responded to that. But are we seeing any fallout from whats happening in israel and gaza or also any whats happening in iraq having any impact on our negotiations . We have not to date. I cant say that it wont in the future. But so far, all of our negotiating partners have been very focused on whats happening in the negotiation room. And its not to say that on the margins there isnt discussions of ukraine, iraq, or when we go back together, whats happening horrifically in gaza. Whats happening horrifically, most importantly, to israels security. So, but so far, everyone has stayed very focused on whats happening in the negotiating room. And you talked about monitoring and continued inspections. What other metrics are we looking at in determining whether this is going to be a good deal for us or not . As i mentioned, senator, the metric is really whether we have cut off every possible pathway to a Nuclear Weapon, and whether theres assurance that their program is exclusively peaceful. Have we cut off a plutonium pathway . There are two pathways, material for Nuclear Weapon, one is plutonium, one is highly enrichenrich ed uranium. Iraq in plutonium. And then thirdly, whether, in fact, we have cut off the pathways to a Covert Program. There is no way in any country to 100 guarantee that there will be no covert effort, but what you can do is have enough intrusive mechanisms to assure yourself that if there is a Covert Program, you are going to know about it in time to stop it or that it will never get under way. Thank you. Senator . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Miss sherman, in the terms previously, i have urged that you do something about getting pastor abordini and the other two americans released. As you know, i was incredibly critical of you guys because you cut billions loose without demanding this tiny, tiny little thing as far as iran is concerned. I want to ratchet that up a little bit. You did it again. Youve cut billions loose without getting those three guys released. Do me a favor. Do america a favor. Do the abodini family a favor. Tell them next time youre not going to give them any more money unless they cut these three people loose. I can almost guarantee youre going to do that. Youre talking about billions of dollars and youre talking about three people that we really, really need out of prisons in iran. Try it. Just try it and see what happens. Im willing to bet you theyre going to cut those three loose in return for the money that you have available to give them. I want to move to the i want to move from that, mr. Cohen, to talk about sanctions. You know, there are a lot of us who are pretty critical, very critical, about the temporary impartial relief from sanctions, and we have lots and lots of concerns about it. And those concerns havent gone away. You made a statement that i find very interesting and you said that, well, if this thing fails, you problem, our sanctions, alone, will be able to do what we need to do to impose the difficulties on the iranian economy. And i you know, with all due respect, i think that thats incredibly naive. If they if they sidle up to the russians, the chinese, the indians, and the turks, they can to do just fine regard list les the fact theres u. S. Sanctions on. I dont know how youre going to get this genie back in the bottle. Now that youve had this relief. I cant imagine what that phone call is going to be like between president obama and mr. Putin, regarding, putting those sanctions back on. So i wish you i wish you well in that regard, but i think i think this is going to be very, very difficult if it fails, and i hope it doesnt fail. I hope you guys are incredibly successful. I hope that in november, the iranians say weve changed our ways, were going to be good people. Were not going to pursue these things. I hope you can i hope you get there. But i have given the history weve got with this country, i have real reservations. So i wish you well in that regard. But i think you need to be thinking a little bit more deeply about how youre going to put that genie back in the bottle p bottle. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator coons . Thank you, chairman menendez. Thank you. To ensure we completely eliminate any pathway or iran to acquire Nuclear Weapon and that we succeed in dramatically limiting their Nuclear Program. But i remain deeply concerned about some critical and unresolved issues in these negotiations. The status of the iraq heavy water reactor, future of the richmond facility, irans ongoing ability or hopefully lack thereof to enrich uranium and the military dimensions of the Program Including in particular those carried out at the parchin facility. Thats why i joined chairman menendez and others in calling for a robust and aggressive and thorough investigations and verification regime that would include full compliance and access for inspectors thats been unprecedented. We also called for full iranian disclosure on the military dimensions of the Nuclear Program and Enforcement Mechanisms for a future deal. Im convinced if there is success in negotiations, whether in november, or after the rei o reimpposition of sanctions. Well be in a Difficult People where over many, many years we have to sustain sanctions, sauce tan an intrusive inspection regime and keep our allies engaged with us. Over 5, or 10, or 20 year, the temptation for the iranians to cheat, given their past history, given their regional destabil e destabilizing efforts i think will be very strong. So if i might first, about fordo as a facility. Secretary kerry recently spoke of finding a different purpose for the enrichment facility that will ensure it cant be used for Nuclear Weapons purposes. Can you explain what purpose iran could possibly have for a facility constructed and configured and in the location of fordo . Ill say as much as i can in this session, senator. There is agreement that fordo will not be an enrichment facility. That the only enrichment facility will be anatans if theres an Enrichment Program at all. What happens, under discussion, there are several ideas that have been put on the table. Some of them we would probably agree to. Some of them we absolutely could not agree to. And so that is the subject of negotiation. Im happy in a classified session to tell you quite specifically what those different options are. The jpoa requires iran agree to inspections under the iaea additional protocol. And what progress has been made, and what assurances can you give us that the iaea has the funding and the staffing, the scope and the capability . They really would need to be able to carry out over the long haul really intrusive, really reliable inspections, and have they had full access during the jpao period, and have they been denied access to any of the facilities . The iaea issued a report recently in which they said iran had complied with all of their obligations under the jpoa that the iaea had had all of the access that it asked for under the jpoa and could verify that the obligations had been met. Indeed, when the jpoa was being finalized, we obviously were in close consultation with the iaea. They put together what they thought they would need in terms of budget to meet those additional obligations. The International Community came forth quite quickly and supplied all of the money that was needed if, in fact, we are able to get a comprehensive agreement and as ive said, im not sure whether we will or not yet. Im sure the iaea will need Additional Resources and i would expect International Community to come forward because quite frankly, any additional budget the iaea needs is a small potatoes compared to the cost of iran having a Nuclear Weapon. Madam undersecretary, you could sign me up as an enthusiastic funder for a regime possible for the iaea distrust and verify, given irans past and current and likely future activities supporting terrorism in the region. Supporting the worst sorts of regimes and cheating on their Nuclear Commitments in the past. I think we should be investing heavily in a proactive inspection regime. Agreed. So undersecretary cohen, that turns me to a subject weve engaged in over some time, when you testified before the Financial Services appropriations subcommittee in april, i asked you about the burdens facing your group, the office of terrorism and Financial Intelligence within treasury. You have had the number of sanctions programs steadily expanded from i think 17 to 40 today and there have been even more recent developments in terms of the scope and complexity of the sanctions we and our allies are taking on against russia, and against many other nations. Of course, the largest and most complex of these is against iran and i just want to commend you, again, the work you and folks have done i think has made this possible. I asked whether you needed any more resources. You demured and said the president ee president s budget request was fully sufficient. A number of us advocating for adding Additional Resources. The senate bill adds 4. 5 million to your underbuying budget of 102 million and the house added more. Do you have the resources and staff you need . I am gravely concerned that we will have great difficulty keeping together the sanctions regime over the long haul, particularly if there is some temporary relief that after an interim agreement or longterm agreement expands, youve done a great job so far at keeping a group of unlikely allies at the table and enforcing these sanctions. Dont you need more resources to do this . Well, senator, first, let me, again, express my appreciation, the appreciation how much you appreciate and support our work. And so i do want to convey that. In terms of the resources, we do have sufficient resources, and that is in part because we are not in this alone. We work obviously very closely with the state department. Very closely with elements of the Intelligence Community. Really the effort respect to iran, with respect to russia, the sanctions programs at large is an interagency effort. We have the lead in the design and implementation and enforcement to the sanctions programs, but we draw on the resources of many others around the administration to do this. We are stretched. I think i last time we spoke about this, acknowledged that people are working flatout and they are. Thats true at treasury. True is elsewhere as well. But we do think that we have the resources we need to ensure that our sanctions programs are affectively implemented and will continue to do that. Well, just in closing, i for one would like to see that we have invested everything we can. That youre not in front of us a year from now explaining that somehow the sanctions regime came unglued because we didnt invest enough in it. Somehow the iaea sanctions failed to catch cheating bay iran because we didnt inspect enough in it. I think there is a real chance we will be reimposing tougher sanctions on iran and i want to have the abilities, skills and resources to do it. Thank you for your testimony today. Senator rubio . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for holding this hearing and both of you for holding the hearing. I know you have difficult work to do. My opinion is this entire thing is a disaster. Not just an embarrassing diplomatic fact year. This is a dangerous National Security failure in my oopinion. I want to examine for a moment going into the negotiation what the goals are of both sides. I think ours are transparent sen clearly stated. We wanted to prevent a Nuclear Armed iran. We went into this in the hopes iran would say were going to walk away from the things we theed for a weapons program, prove to the world we changed our behavior and try to become a responsible member of the International Community. That was our goal. Their goal was different. I believe this all along. I said this in the past. I believe you believe this. Although, and that is that they went into this goal with the very they went into this negotiation with a simple goal. They wanted to achieve the maximum amount of sanctions relief that they could get without having to agree to any irreversible concessions on their Nuclear Program. And i want to examine for a moment what we have given up. Just to get a joint plan of action. The first thing is weve implicitly agreed they now have a right to enrich at any level. I know that were going to argue we can always pull that back, we have walked away from multiple United Nations security Council Resolutions and have implicitly agreed that iran now has a right to enrich. Thats going to be the base line. For this or any future negotiation moving forward. That they now have some sort of inherent right to enrich and reprocess. The second thing thats happened just to get a joint plan of action is iran has enjoyed real relief here. Its not just the direct sanctions that have been lifted. Its the indirect relief that theyve gotten. The increases in Consumer Confidence and the confidence of businesses and their economy. The third thing is it stopped the momentum. There was Real International momentum on sanction which is what ultimately probably brought them to the table in some respects. That momentum has been stopped in its tracks. In fact, it is worse than that. Its made it more difficult to reimpose sanctions in the future. To try to go back and say if you violated this, were going to reimpose sanctions. The task of doing that has become difficult. The fifth is weve left completely untouched. The missiles programs they have that they continue to two. Let me explain to people the extent anyone is watching this at home, what the Missile Program is about. Theyre developing a longrange rocket that will be able to reach the United States and other places in europe. Thats what theyre developing. Thats what theyre headed toward. Theres only one reason why you develop a rocket like that. Thats to put a Nuclear Warhead on that. Lets not mention their state sponsor of terrorism. Theres no nation on earth that uses terrorism more than they do as an element of state craft. Lets back up and look at irans point of view in this whole thing. They now have achieved an acknowledged right that didnt use to exist, an acknowledged right to enrich. Theyve stopped momentum on more sanctions, made future sanctions even more harder. Theyre not concerned about the United States carrying out any military program, three critical components. Enrichment, on weaponization, thats been outsourced which has already said theyre having. It will be based on our ability to two do things, find that violation and punish that. We are dealing with a government thats consistently had a secret program and i promise you theyre going to ropeadope us. Hopefully the world in their mind is hopefully the world is diszrakttracted by some other c somewhere on the planet and ropeadope us. On reimposing sanctions, reimposing international sanction, let me tell you how hard that will be. The russians or at least the separatists theyre arming just shot down a commercial airplane. They just closed almost 300 innocent civilians and weve had to drag our allies and others kicking and screaming just to increase sanctions a little bit more. So how hard do you think its going to be to reimpose sanctions on this thing if it falls apart . I just think the danger in here is quite frank. Were going to wake up one day, after this administration is long gone, some future president or future administration, is going to wake up one day and realize theyve had a secret weaponization program all along. All they have to do is flip the switch now on the enrichment capability. They have a longrange weapon that they can arm. Theyre either a threshold nuclear pow er and at that poin what we will have . A country that now has spread their influence of terrorism. Impossible to put back together with europeans and other countries now heavily invested in their economy. A country that will basically have a Nuclear Weapon. Think of north korea, but motivated by radical islamic beliefs. With the capability to hit major u. S. City, not to mention our allies in europe. And, of course, israel. And by the way, all these rockets that are landing in israel from gaza, guess where they came from . Many of them . From iran. Thats what these people do. So, look, i think we all hope and wish that this thing would work out. But i think there are very few among us in this committee that think it will. Im sad that were going to be wrong about it and sad that anyone who criticizes this deal is often criticized as a warmongerer, we want to go to war. On the contrary, heres what i dont want to see, respond to a situation where sanctions is no longer an option because you cant put it back together. Now war is the only option. Because war is a terrible thing. It is a horrible thing. The only thing worse than war is crazy people with a Nuclear Weapon that can reach the United States of america on a rocket. Thats the only thing thats worse than a war. With regards to this situation. I hope im wrong. I dont believe that i am. And i fear, mr. Chairman, that some day soon, we will make wak to the reality that theyve done a north korea on us. Acquired a Nuclear Weapon, hold the world hostage with that weapon and theres very few or little well can do about it. Mr. Chairman . Mr. Chairman . Yes, senator. Would my dear friend from california allow me 30 seconds to make a statement . I have to go absolutely. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, its become obvious to me and even more obvious in the hearing here today that this is really in every aspect a treaty that is being considered with iran. And i believe it requires the advice and consent of the United States senate. And i hope we can move forward with legislation that would require that. I thank mr. Chairman. I thank my friend from california. Senator boxer. Mr. Chairman, thank you and senator corker for holding this hearing, and i dont have questions for the panel because my staff has told me while i was at another hearing my questions were responded to. So ill go over those. But i have to say that some of the language i just heard from senator rubio, i wish he was here, brings back the rhetoric of days past. We dont want the smoking gun to be a nuclear cloud. And, you know, i think this i think the whole issue that we face is so complicated that we have to, i believe, strongly support these diplomatic efforts so that none of that does come true. The whole world is watching. So this is an opportunity. Preventing iran from acquiring Nuclear Weapon. Ive said many times that we have an obligation, our generation, were here now to test this window of opportunity. Thats all it is. And i think the administrations been really honest about it. As i remember, the president , himself, said 50 50 chance. You know . 50 50 chance. So it may not work out, and all the hyper rhetoric may be something we turn to and more. But right now we have an obligation to test this window, because i think its in our national interest, the benefit of our kids, the kids in the world, and of the interest in our allies in the region like israel. And i think our language should reflect that although were very skeptical, were very supportive of this opportunity. Israels security is threatened on so many fronts from terrorists in gaza launching rockets, and tunnels, and all the things we know about. And we also know the rise of isis in syria is a horrible threat, so the opportunity, as the world moves in a bad direction, to focus our attention on something good, i dont think it should be lost. I know how hard our negotiators have been working. Tirelessly on a comprehensive agreement. I know its tough. Its incredibly difficult and complex which is why we have another extension. And i just want to be on the record in the midst of these sensitive negotiations, im not going to force the administration into a corner by dictating a preferred outcome our prematurely ratcheting up any sanctions because weve got lots of time to do that. And i think trying to attach language on iran to other bills, as ive faced with the u. S. Israeli Strategic Partnership act, that ought to be a clean bill. And not be burdened by this incredibly sensitive, complicated matter. And i want to be clear, and ive written my own letters. I havent gone on the letters that have 8 o c0 signatures. Ive said any final agreement must be airtight. It must be verifiable, and it must be long lasting. We cannot accept anything less, because we cant trust iran. We all know that. And if iran walks away from negotiating table, it will be a sad day for them, too, because we will all come together and support a robust u. S. And International Response that includes the immediate restoration of any suspended sanctions and additional biting sanctions on iran. And i would go further and make it clear, so let everyone hear my voice, this senator, that all options have to be on the table should iran attempt to continue itself illicit Nuclear Program. And i mean all options. So the next four months are critical, and i hope and pray that they will result in a comprehensive final agreement that is acceptable to the United States and our allies and that brings a peaceful end to this Nuclear Program. This is a historic chance. We could let it pass us by, or we can all Work Together being very clear, its worth a chance. All the other we see how easy it is to go to war. We see that all over the globe. And may i hasten to add, some of my colleagues, ive heard in at least six to ten cases say, go to war, america, go to war, america. We need to resolve these issues. And war is a last resort. Not a first resort. And so this is an opportunity that we have. I do not i do not want to gloss over how hard it is. I have i share the 50 50 percent of you on the thing. Could go one way, could go the other. Lord, if we can have it going the right way, i think we should be very supportive. I just want to say this to you, wendy, i call you wendy because youre my buddy. I think its very important to Keep Congress informed. And i think some of the complaints that we hear are legitimate complaints. We know its hard. We know there are details. We know youre working 24 7. But in the kind of government that we have, were all in this together. And it used to be Foreign Policy stopped at the waters edge. It isnt that way. For whatever reasons. It isnt that way. That means its even more important that you let us know every twist and turn because at the end of the day, i dont think theres any of us that would turn away from a solid verifiable agreement. And at the end of the day, there are arent any of us that will walk and use all the tools at our disposal if there is no agreement. So how important it is for you to keep us informed, and thats why statement, and i thank you. Senator flake . Thank you. I appreciate this hearing. And i appreciate testimony. Im among those who believes that we ought to test every opportunity. I think this is an opportunity. It may not bear fruit. But i think its incumbent on us to test it, and i applaud the administration for doing so. I just want to clarify a couple of numbers that came out. Mr. Cohen, you mentioned the amount of sanctions relief that they had taken advantage of. But i got a 3 billion to 4 billion figure. Is that what is expected with the extension of the jpoa, or what they have realized so far . I know the initial estimates were about 8 billion to there are 9 billion. Can you tell us how much theyve taken advantage of and the next couple months . Certainly, senator. The figure i witnessed in our article testimony is our topend estimate of what iran may enjoy in terms of sanctions relief in the next four months and comprised of the own restricted assets it will be getting access to over the course of the next four months then some figures for additional petrachemical sales and auto exports which we estimate will be worth about 500 million all together. So the low end of that estimate is about 3. 3 billion. Obviously the precisely how iran is able to take advantage of this, continued suspension of the petrachemical and auto sanctions is an estimate. Well see how it turns out. For the initial period, initial six months, our estimate going in was that iran would enjoy about 6 billion to 7 billion as a maximum in terms of its relief. I think that estimate was actually overstated. Our best figures are that iran earned or enjoyed a little over 5 billion worth of relief in the jpoa period. No relief on the petrachemical suspension. Very, very little in terms of the auto the reason for that, its difficult for them to take add vantage of it. The one key fact is that iran remains cut off from the International Financial system. So even though it is now not sanctionable to engage in petracapetr petrachemical sales, difficult to find Financial Institutions to do that work. I thing k we acknowledge ira is at the table because of the effectiveness of these sanctions. I would submit it, its largely because its been iran versus the west rather than iran versus just the u. S. Its important to keep our allies on board here. Do you have a concern . Ill address this to miss sherman. Do you have a concern that if we were to not extend, not continue with these negotiations, that our allies may cut their own deal or move on without us . Senator, listening to some of your colleagues, i wrote down without diplomacy, we wont be able to keep the sanctions together. Which is exactly your point. That, in fact, we certainly should not have proceeded with an extension if we did not think there was some significant progress in the possibility of a comprehensive agreement. We should have called it a day. But having seen some progress, and heading in the right direction, and seeing the possibility that we might get to a comprehensive agreement, though i dont know the end of the story yet, we thought it was critical to take diplomacy to the very last possible promise that we might get to a comprehensive agreement because that does keep the International Community united in the enforcement of sanctions. If our partners, and even those who arent so much our partners, saw that we were going to cut diplomacy short, then those sanctions enforcement would have frayed much more quickly. So we dont have any guarantees here. I dont know that we will get to an agreement at the end of these four months. But i do agree with your point, without going this extra mile, given there was some significant progress in talks, we would have had a much harder time keeping the sanctions together. And i think undersecretary cohen since hes nodding does agree. Thank you for making that point. I am concerned that when these sanctions fray, if they fray, then it wont be as effective. Unilateral sanctions very seldom work, and weve got to keep the community together, and thats why i think it is important to explore the diplomacy avenue as much as we can. Is there a concern among the iranians that we get to the end of this and the ability of the u. S. To deliver on sanctions relief is in question. Given what members of congress have said. And will the Administration Come back to congress for statutory relief of these sanctions . Or whats going to be the mechanism in your view at that point if an agreement is reached . Let me start and let undersecretary cohen then comment. I can assure every member of the United States senate and of the house of representatives that congress is a constant topic of conversation by the iranians. They are well aware of congress authorities, not only in terms of oversight, but in terms of legislation. And we have been very clear that initially, there will only be suspension of any of our sanctions regime and of the international communities. That the lifting of sanctions for which we must return to congress for statutory relief will only come when certain benchmarks verified by the iaea are reached, and they are very serious and substantive benchmarks because this has to be adorable agreeme durable agr be durable if the United States congress and other institutions and governments around the world believe that the compliance is real and sustainable over a period of time. I hope the iranians do understand that if an agreement is reached, that its verifiable, that we will follow through with sanctions relief. I hope they also understand that if we dont reach an agreement, that sanctions, existing sanctions will be enforced and additional sanctions will be added. But i think both sides of that equation need to be understood. Did you have something to add . Only, senator, that in the course of this joint plan of action, we have committed to certain suspensions of sanctions, and one of the things we have done to sort of reinforce the point both that we will continue to enforce the sanctions that are in place, as well as in good faith fulfill our commitments on the relief side, is to take very seriously the, what we have committed to on the sanctions relief so that the iranians as they go into these negotiations can understand that there is potential light at the end of this tunnel if they take the steps necessary. And so weve been, i think, working very hard on both sides of the coin, as you describe. Thank you. Senator markey . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ambassador sherman, there has been a lot of discussion amongst Nuclear Nonproliferation experts about the potential for a proliferation cascade in the middle east. If iran were to obtain a Nuclear Weapon. Its critical that the current negotiations succeed in preventing iran from developing a weapon, but even if under a final agreement, iran retains a domestic uranium enrichment capable, i am concerned this could still raise fears in the region and prompt other states to reconsider their contingency plans and nuclear posture. It has been reported the both saudi arabia and jordan are interested in pursuing Nuclear Cooperation agreements with the United States. How will we be able to convince these countries, partners to agree not to demand the right to enrich uranium as part of these agreements if we allow iran to maintain its enrichment capability, especially since we concluded a Nuclear Cooperation agreement with vietnam that allows vietnam to enrich uranium as well . Thank you, senator. There is no question that our consultations with partners and allies in the region is quite critical to ensure we do not have a proliferation cascade in any way, shape, or form. Part of that will be if, indeed, theres a comprehensive agreement with iran, and they do have a very small limited Domestic Program that it be very small, but it be very limited, that it be subject to intrusive monitoring mechanisms so there are not incentives for other countries to want to proceed down that road. As you know, the United States does not recognize that any country has a right to enrichment. We do not believe that is a right under the npt. And we will continue to vigorously enforce that perspective. Well, again, i want to comment on the iran government leadership recent claims that the country will need an industrial scale enrichment capability to generate Nuclear Power. The interim deal stated that in a final agreement, irans Enrichment Program would be, quote, consistent with practical needs. This is a country with the second largest natural gas reserves in the world. As ive noted before, several times in this committee, iran flares off waste that is the equivalent of 13 Nuclear Reactors worth of natural gas each year which they could use to produce electricity. So i urge you to keep in mind, as we negotiate over what irans practical needs for Nuclear Power are, that its a very duplicitous game that theyre playing since they flare the natural gas that our country uses for electrical generation and many other countries. And the world. So we should just be deeply skeptical that theres any legitimate civilian purpose in this Enrichment Program and i just want to, again, continue to make that point. The Nuclear Cooperation agreement that we have with the United Arab Emirates includes a commitment by the United Arab Emirates not to enrich uranium or reprocess spent fuel. But it also allows for the agreement to be renegotiated if other countries in the region get more favorable terms. So if jordan, or saudi arabia demand the right to enrich, or reprocess in response to an inadequate iran agreement, the uae could make the demand as well. Since thats part of the agreement. Isnt it possible that a final agreement with iran that allows enrichment to continue will cause a proliferation cascade in the region as other countries begin their own programs . As i said, senator, we are very well aware of the potential risks of any agreement that allows any country to enrich because we dont believe that any country has a right. We also believe that fuel is available on the open market for power generation. So if, indeed, we reach a comprehensive agreement, and that is not a sure thing at all, and there is an Enrichment Program iran, we believe it must be very small, very limited. Attached to a practical need. That certainly would not be industrial size capacity, to be sure. Indeed, iran has talked about fuel by russia. We believe russia should continue that and has committed to do so and iran does not need to have an Enrichment Program to provide fuel for bashear. We believe this should be limited, small, attached to a practical need, under very intrusive monitoring that would be a disincentive for any other country to want a similar program. I appreciate that. And, again, just agreement does allow vietnam to enrich, and i just think it does create a precedent thats very small step from something thats much more profound. Are you concerned that other regional players, such as turkey or egypt, would seek to develop their own uranium enrichment capabilities, and how could that impact regional tensions . We certainly hope no one goes down this road. We are trying to create incentives to do otherwise and disincentives to proceed in this manner. We think that there are much more economical ways to get fuel for power generation. And wouldnt encourage any country to go down this road. And clearly, we want to make sure that we have in place tremendous Compliance Risks for iran should we get to a comprehensive agreement if they do not comply. That you will see that kind of a diversion. Again, were very close now to reaching that cascading point and weve held it off for decades since president kennedy warned us about a small number of countries. In a june report, the u. N. Panel of experts that monitors iran sanctions reminded us that iran continues to reach elicit Procurement Networks. It reaches on the Global Market participants under the guise of legit mat commerce. These are complex operations including transport shipping operations, freight holders and warehouses and they violate u. N. Security Council Resolution 1736 passed in 2006 which bans the provisions to iran that could be used in missile and Nuclear Programs. If iran exup and dopands as par nuclear deal, what challenge would that pose to disz disrupt this facilitation and Procurement Network that exists even today. Senator, that u. N. Report is exactly right. Iran does continue to try to elicitly apply material through these Procurement Networks. We continue to identify and disrupt those networks or refine them and have taken action last several months to disrupt some of these networks. Going forward, if there is an agreement, one of the issues that we will confront and that we are focused on is how to ensure during the course of this long term agreement, if theres one to be had u that we are able to continue to ensure that the security Council Resolutions and our own sanctions on proliferation activity are respected as the agreement rolls out. Let me just ask very quickly. If the military base given irans efforts to pave over the site with asphalt, do you agree that access to this facility is an increasingly urgent . We are concerned about all things iran does to avoid their obligations under the mpt and their obligations to security Council Resolutions and the iaea systems analysis that is underway and is certainly a critical element of that. And will a final agreement include parching so that we can be sure that there is no clandestine activity. The final agreement will include the iaea becoing satisfd at the possible military dimensions of irans program have been addressed. So that includes inspection sns. Thats certainly where they are today. Thank you. One of the natural questions one would ask are what are the gaps now between where we want to be and where we want to close. We actually have those kinds of q a in another setting and, obviously, we realize that in an open setting, thats not a good thing to have. He believes this is a historic opportunity. I think all of us, i think you all know that everyone up here really does want a diplomatic solution. Everyone appreciates the work that all of you are doing. I think when the jpoa came out and basically acknowledged enrichment, it elicited some pretty strong responses. We just went through one, two u three agreements with other countries. Here we are pushing our friends to not enrich. So there are a lot of concerns. All of us wish success. I do want to close by saying this, though. Inspite of the fact that we want you to be successful, i heard what you said today. And, in essence, you said theres no deadline. And i know i mean, i know youve got to fudge a little bit because you dont know whats going to happen. But i think, you know, in essence, it was said theres not a deadline. You hope theres a deadline. Our intent is to end this the 21st of november. I know you talked about double dijt minimum length. Maybe thats better said in the classified setting. The goal posts are moving a little bit. Even relative to what you guys are saying youre going to do with congress the acknowledgment that in essence, youre going to have a conversation. Rose miller called me at 8 30 about the conversations weve known about for some time because weve accessed classified documents. But i read about it last night in the new york times. And thats not exactly the kind of consultation. Its not lost on us at the end of this, even though it coincides with when the jpoa began, our discussions began. And they end on november 24th, which is likely beyond the ernding of any lame duck session that may have corrected the election. That doesnt go lost on us. And so i would just say that, again, it appears to me that what youre saying is that youre going to do whatever you wish to do. Youre not going to con sult congress. You dont believe that thats your responsibility. Youre going to have a conversation with us, but were not going to really have the ability, even though we put these sanctions in place. Theyre not relative relative to whether this is going to be approved by congress or sanctions waved. And i just think thats something that all of us who served 234 this body, this is one of the biggest greemt that is will likely be entered into if we enter into one. And in essence, congress is playing no role. Mr. Chairman, i hope theres some way that well figure out how to deal with that. I think thats a major laugh in our responsibleties. And i thaungd for your continued concern about this issue. I thank the witness with further work. With all due respect, senator. I take the prerogatives of the United States congress incredibly seriously. As does president obama and secretary kerry. And we do not believe it is merely a conversation. We believe it is a consultation. We believe you have oversight authorities. We believe you have legislative authorities. We have worked very closely to provide you with realtime information. We will continue to do so. It is in our interest that Congress Knows what we are doing every step of this negotiation. And it is very critical that the United States of america be one congress and even the Administration Working together if we are to achieve a comprehensive agreement durably over a sustained period of time that gives us all the assurance that every pathway to a Nuclear Weapon is closed off and that their entire program is peaceful. Thank you very much. Secretary, how significant is it that the iran yans now have converted their 20 stockpile to 5 . What they have done is taken up to 20 pvnt and either diluted it or oxidized it. And under the extension, theyre going to take 25 kilograms thats about 20, 25 of what they have of the oxidized up to 20 and turned it into metal plates for the Research Reactor which means the likelihood of it being converted back to enriched uranium is extremely low. All of that is very important. They will, in addition, as a result of this extension, oxidize all their up to 2 stockpile, which is over 3 metric torns. And although it doesnt have significant what we call swu, separate work units, which is the way you talk about the energy of this material, it would be significant. All of that said, we are, of course, concerned about their up to 5 stockpile. That is capped under the jpoa. But youd call it a significant evidence of compliance converting the 20 to a 5 . The ia actually, they have oxidized or diluted their entire up to 20 stockpile and the iaea has said that they have met their obligation. What is the add min straegss position. And i believe that part of the bill is that there would be no right of any enrichment to whether or not this would be
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.