[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                    A DANGEROUS STRATEGY: EXAMINING
                       THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S
                            FAILURES ON IRAN

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,
                    THE BORDER, AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                                 OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                           AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 13, 2023
                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-61
                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
  
  
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  


                       Available on: govinfo.gov
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
53-370 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023                             
                             
                             
               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida               Jimmy Gomez, California
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota        Shontel Brown, Ohio
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina      Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Greg Casar, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Dan Goldman, New York
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina        Vacancy
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri

                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
             Kaity Wolfe, Senior Professional Staff Member
         Grayson Westmoreland, Senior Professional Staff Member
                      Lisa Piraneo, Senior Advisor
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051
                                 ------                                

   Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs

                  Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, Chairman

Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Robert Garcia, California, Ranking 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Minority Member
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Dan Goldman, New York
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Maxwell Frost, Florida
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota        Vacancy
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Vacancy

                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on September 13, 2023...............................     1

                               Witnesses

                              ----------                              

Dr. Michael Makovsky, Ph.D., President and CEO, Jewish Institute 
  for
  National Security of America (JINSA)
Oral Statement...................................................     5

Mr. Richard Goldberg, Senior Advisor, Foundation for Defense of 
  Democracies
Oral Statement...................................................     7

Ms. Victoria Coates, VP of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis 
  Institute 
  for National Security and Foreign Policy, The Heritage 
  Foundation
Oral Statement...................................................     8

Ms. Barbara Slavin (Minority Witness), Distinguished Fellow, 
  Stimson Center
Oral Statement...................................................    10

Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are 
  available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document 
  Repository at: docs.house.gov.

                           Index of Documents

                              ----------                              

  * Article, NBC, ``Iranian President Says Tehran Will Spend the 
  $6 Billion Released in Prisoner Exchange `Wherever We Need 
  It';'' submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Report, JINSA, ``JINSA's Blueprint for Congressional Action 
  on Iran''; submitted by Rep. Grothman.

  * Report, JINSA, ``No Daylight: U.S. Strategy if Israel Attacks 
  Iran''; submitted by Rep. Grothman.

  * Report, JINSA, ``What's in Biden's New Nuclear `Not-a-Deal' 
  With Iran?''; submitted by Rep. Grothman.

  * Questions for the Record: to Ms. Coates; submitted by Rep. 
  Mace.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Goldberg; submitted by Rep. 
  Mace.

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Makovsky; submitted by Rep. 
  Mace.

Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
                    A DANGEROUS STRATEGY: EXAMINING
                       THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S
                            FAILURES ON IRAN

                              ----------                              


                     Wednesday, September 13, 2023

                        House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

             Subcommittee on National Security, the Border
                          and Foreign Affairs

                                           Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:01 p.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Glenn Grothman, 
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
    Present: Representatives Grothman, Foxx, Higgins, Biggs, 
Fallon, Garcia, Goldman, Moskowitz, Porter, and Frost.
    Mr. Grothman. This hearing of the Subcommittee on National 
Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs will come to order. 
Welcome, everyone.
    Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any 
time.
    I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening 
statement.
    Good morning, and welcome to the Subcommittee on National 
Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs Hearing: ``A 
Dangerous Strategy: Examining the Biden Administration's 
Failures on Iran.'' Today, we are examining the Biden 
Administration's lack of transparency on Iran and the regime's 
nuclear program, American hostage negotiations, and the 
circumstances surrounding the dismissal of the Special Envoy on 
Iran, Robert Malley.
    Signed under the Biden Administration, the Joint 
Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA was touted by the left as 
a fix-all to the Iranian nuclear dilemma. In reality, it did 
little to reign in the Iranian regime while rewarding it with 
literal pallets of cash. In May 2018, the last Administration 
withdrew the United States from the JCPOA due to Iran's 
continuing bolstering of its ballistic missile program and its 
funding of terrorist groups around the globe. Then-candidate 
Biden pledged that he would return the United States to the 
JCPOA but has since failed to uphold that pledge. Instead, the 
Administration has negotiated in secret and has failed to be 
transparent with Congress or the American people on 
negotiations with the Iranian regime. The lack of transparency 
is occurring despite the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act's 
expansive disclosure requirements.
    In March 2023, the International Atomic Energy Agency 
detected enriched uranium particles at 83.7 percent, prompting 
great concern as weapons-grade uranium is enriched at 90 
percent or higher. In addition to its nuclear program, Iran 
continues work to perfect the ballistic missile program. In May 
of this year, Iran unveiled its 4th generation liquid fuel 
ballistic missile, which can carry a 1,500-kilogram warhead 
around 1,200 miles. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, IRGC, 
continues to provide arms, training, and financial support to 
militias and terrorist organizations in Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon, 
Palestine, Syria, and Yemen. In 2020, the State Department 
estimated that the IRGC provides the terrorist organization 
Hezbollah $700 million a year in assistance.
    In 2019, the Trump Administration labeled the IRGC a 
terrorist organization. The IRGC is also known to have funded 
groups that have used car-side bombs and missile barrages 
against U.S. forces stationed in the region. Since President 
Biden took office, Iran or its proxies have attacked U.S. 
forces in the Middle East almost a hundred times.
    Last month, the White House announced it was negotiating 
with Iran to permit the unfreezing of $6 billion in sanctioned 
Iranian assets in exchange for the release of five detained 
Americans, and on Monday, as our Nation remembered the horror 
of September 11, the Administration issued a sanctions waiver, 
freeing up another $6 billion for the world's largest state 
sponsor of terrorism. The White House assured the public that 
the $6 billion could only be used for humanitarian purposes, 
but Iran has reiterated its position that the Iranian regime 
will decide how to spend the money.
    I believe that it is imperative that we bring home every 
wrongfully detained American citizens abroad. It is also 
crucial we ensure that the increase in ransom payments made by 
the U.S. Government does not incentivize hostile nations and 
groups, like Iran, to continue to kidnap American citizens. It 
is also vital that we ensure that these large payoffs, in this 
case, $1.5 billion, more than the cost of the USS Reagan 
aircraft carrier, are not used to fund the IRGC and the proxy 
terrorist organizations it supports.
    Finally, the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of 
Robert Malley, the Biden Administration's first Special Envoy 
for Iran, are highly unusual. Malley's career has been marked 
by a long history of appeasement toward adversaries of the U.S 
in the Middle East. In 2008, while serving in the Obama 
Administration, Malley was forced to resign after he was found 
to have repeatedly met with the terrorist organization Hamas. 
In 2019, Malley also met with Iran's then foreign minister to 
undermine President Trump's maximum pressure campaign against 
Iran. Most recently, Malley was increasingly absent from 
official duties and repeatedly ignored congressional briefing 
requests. The White House subsequently defended Malley, stating 
that he was taking personal leave, but it has since come to 
light that the State Department revoked Malley's security 
clearance and placed him on unpaid leave in June.
    The United States must counter the destruction and terror 
that Iran supports and funds around the world. We cannot rely 
on incompetent or compromised officials to achieve our goals. I 
look forward to hearing from each of our expert witnesses today 
on the reality of the dangers we face from the Iranian regime 
and clearheaded solutions.
    I will now recognize Ranking Member Garcia for the purpose 
of his opening statement.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you also to our 
witnesses. I just want to be clear: I think we can all agree 
that Iran is an oppressive and dangerous neighbor to everyone 
in the region. We all know that we are looking for peace in the 
region. I think everyone can agree in the Congress on that 
goal.
    The Iranian regime threatens our allies, including, of 
course, the Democratic state of Israel, and destabilizes the 
region by funding terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, 
Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and terrorists and 
militant groups in Iraq, Syria, Bahrain, and elsewhere 
throughout the Middle East. Now the regime is fueling Russia's 
illegal war with Ukraine, sending bullets and Iranian-made 
drones, which are targeting and killing innocent Ukrainians, 
and that is happening today. And the Iranian regime commits 
terrible crimes against their own people. They crack down on 
any dissent and sow fear among the population. They oppress, 
imprison, and kill women who are brave enough to stand up for 
their human rights, and fail to protect even young schoolgirls 
who are deliberately poisoned within the regime.
    The Iranians deserve to be confronted and called out at 
every turn, and Members of both parties can agree that, above 
all, the Iranian regime cannot access a nuclear weapon. The 
best way to guarantee Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon is 
through international negotiations, careful diplomacy, and a 
negotiated solution. Not another Middle East war. We know this 
because history and precedent show that the only time we have 
been able to affect Iran's regime actions is with diplomacy.
    Now, Donald Trump's reckless so-called maximum pressure 
strategy has failed and made us less safe today and less safe 
than ever. Rather than slowing Iran's march toward a nuclear 
bomb, Iran responded to Trump's decision to abandon President 
Obama's Iranian nuclear deal by getting closer to an actual 
nuclear weapon. Now, when President Biden took office, Iran's 
enriched uranium stockpile was more than 10 times higher than 
the limit set by the Iran deal. Under Trump, Iran has more 
highly enriched uranium, more enrichment sites, and had ended 
inspection protocols.
    I want to also cite some prominent voices from the region 
that also testify that Trump has made us less safe. Now, I want 
to start with the former Israeli Defense Force chief of staff, 
General Gadi Eisenkot, who said ``The fact that the U.S. 
withdrew in 2018, released Iran from all restrictions and 
inspections in the deal, even if there were holes, and brought 
Iran to the most advanced position today with regard to its 
nuclear program.'' Raz Zimmt, who is an Israeli military expert 
in Iran, stated in 2021, ``Today, it is clear that maximum 
pressure did not yield its political objectives. It does not 
matter how much pressure you put on them, the Iranians see 
their nuclear program as an insurance for the regime.''
    Now, under President Trump, as Iran got closer to a nuclear 
weapon, our Nation crept far too close to dangerous conflict 
with this adversary. Now, in 2020, under President Trump, U.S. 
forces in Iraq were struck by more than a dozen ballistic 
missiles launched by Iran, escalating threats to near war. I 
know some voices would like us to launch a destructive forever 
war with Iran, but our allies and partners should understand 
the American people are done sending our soldiers to fight and 
die in forever wars. We must be focused on our greatest 
security threats: Russia and China, and we cannot afford 
additional Middle East conflicts. The only logical alternative 
is smart diplomacy.
    Now, President Biden has pursued this strategy, I think we 
believe appropriately. I believe negotiations have reduced 
tensions and reduce the risk of a serious escalation of 
conflict in the region, which is appropriate. Now, last month, 
the Wall Street Journal reported that Iran has ``significantly 
slowed the pace at which it is accumulating near grade weapons, 
enriched uranium, and has diluted some of its stockpile.'' Now, 
I am concerned that many voices in Congress are irresponsibly 
trying to block or prejudge diplomacy, regardless of its 
merits, to score political points.
    Now, President Biden is securing the release of captured 
Americans, which should be a bipartisan priority for any 
administration. In exchange, South Korea is releasing Iranian 
funds, which can only be spent on humanitarian goods, food, and 
medicine for the Iranian people, under, of course, close 
supervision of the U.S. Treasury. These outcomes would not have 
occurred had the Biden Administration also not intervened. I 
would also like to note at the timing of this hearing, the 
Americans being released from Iran are not yet free. They are 
in a precarious situation, and I hope that this hearing does 
not undermine the efforts to secure the release of these 
Americans.
    Now, diplomacy is hard, and it is true that the Iranian 
regime is doing horrific practices against all people, whether 
it is women, whether it is against the LGBTQ+ community, and we 
need to support President Biden in his efforts to contain 
Iran's nuclear program. I urge both sides of this Committee to 
evaluate our diplomacy by following the facts and not trying to 
score political points. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Grothman. I am pleased to introduce our witnesses 
today. First, Michael Makovsky is the president and CEO of the 
Jewish Institute for National Security of America, or JINSA, 
which is dedicated to advancing U.S. national security interest 
in the Middle East. He has worked extensively on U.S.-Israel 
defense ties, U.S. policy toward the Middle East, and how the 
United States can best address Iran's nuclear and conventional 
threats to our interest. Second, we have Richard Goldberg, the 
senior advisor for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. 
He served as the Director for Countering Iranian Weapons of 
Mass Destruction in the NSC and was the leading architect of 
the strongest sanctions the U.S. levied against the Iranian 
regime, while staffing the U.S. Senate.
    Victoria Coates is the vice president of the Kathryn and 
Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign 
Policy at the Heritage Foundation. She served as the NSC's 
Deputy National Security Advisor for Middle Eastern and North 
African Affairs, where she led the strongest sanctions levied 
by the U.S. on Iran. And finally, Barbara Slavin is a 
distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center and Lecturer in 
International Affairs at George Washington University. She 
founded and directed the Future of Iran Initiative at the 
Atlantic Council and led a bipartisan task force on Iran. 
Again, I want to thank you all for coming here to testify.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please 
stand and raise their right hand. You look very nice.
    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you 
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Grothman. Let the record show the witnesses answered in 
the affirmative. Thank you. You may take a seat.
    We appreciate you all being here today and look forward to 
your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we read your 
written statement, and it will appear in full in the record. 
Please try to limit your oral statement to 5 minutes. As a 
reminder, please press the button on the microphone in front of 
you, so that it is on and the Members can hear you. When you 
begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn green. 
After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow, and when the red 
light comes on, your 5 minutes have expired, and we would ask 
you to please wrap up.
    I now recognize Mr. Makovsky for his opening statement.

                     STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MAKOVSKY

                           PRESIDENT AND CEO

       JEWISH INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY OF AMERICA (JINSA)

    Mr. Makovsky. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, esteemed 
Members of this Committee, thank you very much for the 
opportunity to testify today on this important topic.
    Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to insert these 
three reports and briefs into the record.
    Mr. Grothman. So, ordered.
    Mr. Makovsky. OK. Great. Thank you. The hearing title 
refers to the Biden Administration strategy, so what indeed is 
its strategic game toward Iran? I cannot discern one. The 
Administration's National Security Strategy outlines a series 
of policies, ``Enhancing the allied capabilities to deter and 
counter Iran's destabilizing activities, pursue diplomacy to 
ensure that Iran can never acquire a nuclear weapon, while 
prepared to use other means should diplomacy fail, respond when 
our people and interests are attacked, and always stand with 
the Iranian people.'' Yet, the Biden Administration has done 
none of these things, except endlessly pursue diplomacy at the 
exclusion of other tools.
    The Administration's true aims, more tactical than 
strategic, are acquiescence and delay. It is acquiescence to 
the regime's existence and even enriches and strengthens it. It 
has laxly enforced sanctions so that Iranian oil export revenue 
in 2023 will be tripled 2020's level, it is estimated. It has 
issued waivers in recent months alone unfreezing billions of 
dollars in funds to Iran, including in the current awful 
hostage deal just announced. It rarely retaliates against 
attacks on Americans. JINSA has tracked almost 90 attacks by 
Iran and proxies against our soldiers in Iraq and Syria under 
President Biden, and the United States has retaliated only 4 
times. The Israeli figures are almost the mirror opposite. In 
fact, Iran has even retaliated against U.S. forces for Israeli 
actions because it fears Israel and not America. Think about 
what that says about the disintegration of American deterrence 
and credibility.
    The Administration has not retaliated at all, to my 
knowledge, for Iran's active plots to abduct or kill American 
citizens on American soil. This is not about pivoting to Asia, 
but acquiescence and avoidance of confrontation, a terrible 
signal to our adversaries and allies around the globe. In 3 
days, it will be the 1-year anniversary of Mahsa Amini's 
killing, but there has been no high-level U.S. official speech 
over the past year dedicated to supporting the Iranians 
demonstrating for the removal of the Tehran regime.
    Most important, the Administration ultimately accepts a 
nuclear Iran, only hoping to postpone it, perhaps at least 
until after next November. It sought unsuccessfully to get Iran 
to re-enter the JCPOA, the Iran Nuclear Deal, which even 
President Obama conceded will permit a nuclear weapons 
capabable Iran, and then pursued an even more Iran-friendly 
deal. Reportedly, there was a ``understanding,'' apparently 
tied to the hostage deal by which Washington accepts Iranian 
enrichment to the level of 60 percent, a short step away from 
weapons grade. If true, at best, it will only slightly slow 
Iran's continued nuclear advance. I encourage the Committee to 
determine if this understanding ``exists,'' which would violate 
the Iran Nuclear Review Act of 2015, or INARA. Consider, Iran's 
nuclear program has advanced so much under President Obama that 
in the 3-to 4-month timeframe Iran needed to produce a single 
bomb's worth in late 2020, it can now produce 9 to 10 bombs' 
worth.
    America's strategic gain in Iran should be regime collapse, 
applying pressure on all fronts in order to help heighten the 
internal stress and hasten the Iranian people overthrowing it. 
This should include six elements: first, do no harm, nothing 
that strengthens Iranian regime, including sanctions relief for 
nuclear talks or for any reason; second, restore and enforce 
punishing economic sanctions; third, roll back Iran's regional 
footprint such as by interdicting weapon supplies to its 
proxies and retaliating against its attacks on us; fourth, 
support regime opponents in any way possible; fifth, ensure 
that Iran cannot achieve nuclear weapons capability; six, give 
Israel the weapons to counter Iran and prevent a nuclear Iran 
so we will not have to as much or more likely in case we will 
not at all. We could further deter Iran by concluding a mutual 
defense pact with Israel as JINSA first raised in 2018. 
Congress has important oversight role to play in ensuring that 
the executive branch develops and pursues such a strategy. 
Today's hearing is a critical first step in that process.
    Thanks again very much for your time. I look forward to 
answering your questions.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Goldberg for 
his opening.

                     STATEMENT OF RICHARD GOLDBERG

                             SENIOR ADVISOR

               FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES

    Mr. Goldberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, 
Members of the Committee. I am honored to be here with you.
    The Ranking Member mentioned the timing of this hearing, 
and I do want to mention a lot of things about timing of this 
hearing. While we are sitting here today, there are active 
plots underway to assassinate former United States officials, 
including some of our colleagues who served with us in the 
prior administration. While we are sitting here today, we are 
going to be celebrating, not celebrating, honoring, 
remembering, marking the 1-year anniversary of Mahsa Amini's 
murder by the morality police in Iran, the start of an uprising 
that continues in Iran until today. While we sit here today, 
the timing of this hearing, we are also monitoring the 
continued flow of weapons from Iran to Russia to use against 
the Ukrainian people. And while we sit here today, we just 
heard from the Mossad director in Israel, Barnea, who told the 
world over the last year, Israel has foiled 27 terror plots 
carried out by Iran targeting Jews and Israelis throughout the 
world, with more on the way, including potentially in North 
America.
    While we sit here today having this hearing, the timing of 
this is also the nuclear expansion we are seeing in Iran. We 
have not, in fact, seen the slowing of Iran's nuclear program, 
the way that the Wall Street Journal headline had tried to 
characterize. If you look the same day at the Reuters report, 
you will see a more accurate headline, Mr. Ranking Member, and 
that is the expansion of Iran's nuclear stockpile at highly 
enriched uranium levels, including 60 percent and 20 percent, 
and low-enriched uranium at 5 percent, while Iran continues to 
build a secret new underground facility near Natanz that is 
supposed to be 100 meters underground and potentially 
impenetrable to military action. Cumulatively, what better time 
than today as in the news we learned about money flowing to 
this regime, the same regime that is carrying out all of these 
illicit activities under United States approval than right now. 
So, I salute you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing.
    The history is important here. When President Biden took 
office, against all advice from many experts, he decided to 
erase maximum pressure. We have not been having a maximum 
pressure for 2 1/2 years against Iran. We have been having 
maximum deference against Iran for 2 1/2 years, chasing after 
the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, trying to get 
back to a nuclear deal that was already expiring and already 
dangerous for the United States of America.
    And despite Iran continuing to ratchet up its nuclear 
program, racing forward to the nuclear threshold first to 20-
percent enriched uranium in January 2021, then to 60-percent 
enriched uranium later that year, the production of uranium 
metal, a key component of nuclear weapons, starting to 
downgrade their cooperation with the International Atomic 
Energy Agency, all of that happening under President Biden's 
maximum deference policy, not under President Trump's campaign 
of maximum pressure, but that is the history.
    Let us deal with what is happening in front of us today. 
There are headlines right now. We are calling this because we 
believe we have a $6 billion hostage ransom payment on our 
hands, $6 billion being released for Iran to access coming out 
of South Korea in exchange for five Americans who have been 
wrongfully, unlawfully detained in Iran. There are also five 
Iranians that we are releasing as part of this deal. It defies 
logic to believe that the United States is paying $6 billion 
for five people. It would be a historic hostage ransom payment. 
It would mark a huge cost for all Americans who travel and live 
abroad, and you think you have problems in Iran coming forward 
after this payment?
    If you are Evan Gershkovich sitting in a Russian prison 
today, the price on your head just went way up. If you are 
traveling to China or living in China with an Espionage Act 
that says that the Chinese can pick up an American now and 
accuse them of espionage, there is a price on your head, too.
    No, Mr. Chairman, let me tell you what is happening. If you 
go through the record, starting in May of this year when a 
senior NSC official, Brett McGurk, traveled to Oman secretly 
without disclosing to the public and passed messages through 
the Sultan of Oman, who then carried them on a trip to Tehran 
and said to the supreme leader in Tehran the Americans want a 
deal, they are willing to pay a lot of money, release all your 
money from various accounts around the world, let your oil flow 
to historic record highs to China, and for all that, they just 
ask you not to cross that weapons-grade uranium threshold. You 
can keep going forward with all other parts of your program, 
toward the nuclear threshold. Just do not produce 90 percent. 
This is not a $6 billion deal. Stop with the headlines on $6 
billion. This could be at least a $50 billion deal or more.
    We have already seen a waiver come up to Congress for $10 
billion to move from Iraq to Oman, $6 billion now from South 
Korea to Qatar, $7 billion that supposedly is going to get 
swapped for Iranian Special Drawing Rights of the IMF for fiat 
currency, and $25 billion or more for oil profits now going to 
China, not enforced, all in violation of INARA, all in defiance 
of transparency to the American people.
    I hope to answer all your questions here. Thank you for 
having us, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you much. I now recognize Ms. Slavin 
for her opening statement. I am sorry, Ms. Coates. I am sorry.

                      STATEMENT OF VICTORIA COATES

                             VICE PRESIDENT

             KATHRYN AND SHELBY CULLOM DAVIS INSTITUTE FOR

                  NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICY

                        THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

    Ms. Coates. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, thank you 
very much for this opportunity, and I compliment you for 
holding this hearing on the dangers posed to the American 
people by President Biden's misguided policy toward the Islamic 
Republic of Iran.
    To my observation, the Biden Iran policy has been driven 
over the last 32 some months by their directive to reenter some 
new version of the Obama Iran Nuclear Deal or Joint 
Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran. After a series of early 
concessions, such as removing Iran's Yemeni proxies, the 
Houthi, from the State Department's list of foreign terrorist 
organizations, Tehran agreed to reenter negotiations in 2021, 
only with the humiliating caveat that the regime would not 
speak directly with the Americans, but would exchange messages 
through third parties, primarily the Russians, but also 
including the Europeans and notably the Chinese.
    Undeterred neither by this insult, which meant placing the 
security of the United States at the tender mercies of Vladimir 
Putin's diplomats, nor by the result of removing the Houthi 
from the FTO list, which was a fresh wave of Iranian-sponsored 
terror on the Arabian Peninsula, President Biden has been 
determined to get another nuclear deal. Most recently, it was 
reported that whatever arrangement might be reached in Vienna 
will not even be committed to paper but will be some sort of 
unwritten agreement, which, like the JCPOA before it, will be 
implemented through the United Nations Security Council. It is 
of course, impossible for whatever this deal may turn out to 
be, to be binding on a future President absent an action by 
Congress to make it so. But my point today is to illustrate how 
the myopic pursuit of this Moby Dick of a deal has materially 
undermined Biden Administration policies toward too much more 
serious and, indeed, increasingly intertwined threats to the 
American people from Russia and China.
    One of the many unfortunate secondary effects of the 
original nuclear deal was the lifting of the United Nations 
imposed ban on conventional arms exports from Iran in October 
2020. Since then, the regime has focused on mass production of 
cheap offensive weapons for export, both to their proxies as 
well as to whoever will pay on the international market. This 
activity has expanded considerably since the Russian invasion 
of Ukraine in February 2022, notably, but not exclusively, for 
drones.
    Earlier this summer, the Wall Street Journal reported 
specific Russian vessels and routes being used to move these 
drones across the Crimean Sea. The public can literally read 
about it in the paper. Yet, the Administration has taken no 
action against these targets which would stop this flow of 
reinforcements to Putin that are only being used to kill 
Ukrainians and destroy the equipment President Biden demands 
American taxpayers supply to the war. And then there is the 
People's Republic of China. According to official Iranian 
sources, which do not include additional illicit flows of oil 
through Iraq, Iranian oil exports to China have mushroomed from 
324,000 barrels a day in 2020, the last year of the Trump 
Administration, to some 1.1 million barrels a day in 2023. An 
almost fourfold increase in this activity is not bad luck or 
some product randomly squeaking through the net. It is a 
deliberate Biden policy of not enforcing the sanctions that are 
in place or rather a shadow lifting of the sanctions.
    As usual, Biden Administration officials tried to insist 
that this is not so, as over the weekend they trumpeted to the 
press that they had seized almost a million barrels of Iranian 
oil headed to China. Pache Dr. Evil and a million barrels 
sounds like a lot, but, in fact, in the context of the numbers 
I just discussed, it is less than 1 day of the flow President 
Biden is routinely permitting. So, it may make for a good 
headline, but it seems hard to imagine the Supreme Leader or 
Chairman Xi even noticed.
    In conclusion, from permitting Iranian drones to flow to 
Russia and Iranian oil to flow to China for the sake of getting 
into a new nuclear deal that will not even be written down, 
President Biden's Iran foreign policy is actually increasing 
the very real threats to the United States from Russia and 
China, while making our old enemies in Tehran richer. Thank you 
very much for this opportunity to at least start asking 
questions about this approach, and hopefully, in the future, 
the Biden Administration will see fit to provide answers.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Now we will go to Ms. Slavin.

                      STATEMENT OF BARBARA SLAVIN

                          DISTINGUISHED FELLOW

                             STIMSON CENTER

    Ms. Slavin. It is Slavin, but thank you. Thank you, 
Chairman Grothman, Ranking Member Garcia, and other 
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, for giving me this 
opportunity to discuss U.S. policy toward Iran.
    When it comes to Iran, there are no perfect deals and no 
easy choices. However, the agreement that was reached to free 
five American citizens held unjustly in Iran has been 
painstakingly choreographed to the maximum advantage of the 
United States. Six billion dollars in Iranian oil revenues that 
had been frozen for many years in South Korea are being 
transferred via Switzerland to two Qatari banks. There, the 
money will be available for the carefully monitored purchase of 
humanitarian goods and services by Iran. Now, Iranian officials 
and government-owned media may say that they can spend this 
money any way they like, but that is a lie, and I am amused, 
frankly, to listen to opponents of the deal quote ``Iranian 
sources'' that they previously discounted, as somehow credible 
now.
    This is not ransom. This is not appeasement. Indeed, one 
could argue that these funds were frozen illegally as a result 
of the Trump Administration's violation of an internationally 
approved agreement, the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of 
Action. This traded strict curbs on Iran's nuclear program for 
an end to multilateral sanctions on its oil industry and other 
key sectors. Iran waited a year after Trump's withdrawal in 
2018 before it began to exceed the limits of the JCPOA. It has 
now gone very far.
    According to the latest IAEA report, while Iran has slowed 
its accumulation of uranium enriched to 60 percent, it has more 
than 3,000 kilograms of enriched uranium, 10 times that allowed 
under the JCPOA, which limited Iran to 300 kilograms of low 
enriched uranium. Indeed, Iran now has 500 kilograms of 20 
percent uranium and more than 120 kilograms of 60 percent 
uranium. None of this would exist if Trump had not violated 
American commitments and incentivized Iran through a maximum 
pressure strategy that has patently failed. His rejection of 
the JCPOA while it was being fully implemented by Iran also 
discredited supporters of the deal in Iran and led to their 
further marginalization in the Iranian political system.
    You may not have liked Hassan Rouhani, but he was much more 
supportive of diplomacy with the West than the current Iranian 
President. Deprived of Western markets for its oil, Iran has 
now put all its eggs in a Chinese basket and strengthened its 
military alliance with Russia. That is hardly in U.S. national 
interest. At the same time, Iran has stepped up its domestic 
repression in the wake of the death of Mahsa Amini in police 
custody a year ago, which sparked nationwide protests, and it 
has continued the awful practice of taking foreign hostages.
    I am old enough to have lived through, indeed covered from 
afar as a journalist, the first hostage crisis with U.S. in 
1979. Since Iran held 52 American diplomats hostage for 444 
days, it has despicably resorted to this tactic from time to 
time. The regime has gone after Iranians who wanted to visit 
their families. They have gone after other dual nationals who 
have promoted better relations with the United States, and I am 
thinking here of Siamak Namazi, one of the Iranians who 
hopefully will be coming home soon.
    The Biden Administration, indeed any administration, has a 
choice: negotiate for the release of detained Americans or let 
them rot in jail. It is the duty of the U.S. Government to free 
Americans unjustly held abroad, whether in Russia or China or 
Cuba or North Korea. For those who supported Trump's policy of 
maximum pressure to complain about this agreement is the height 
of chutzpah. Their policy has failed, and more of the same is 
not going to yield better results.
    It is unpleasant to negotiate with governments like Iran, 
but often there is no alternative. I am reminded of a favorite 
quotation of former Deputy Secretary of State, Richard 
Armitage. ``Diplomacy,'' he would say, ``is the art of letting 
the other guy have our way.'' I am also thinking of a former 
Member of the House, former Governor and U.N. Ambassador, Bill 
Richardson, who passed away recently. As you know, he made a 
profession and art of freeing Americans held abroad. After he 
died, his partner, Mickey Bergman, said, ``There was no person 
that Governor Richardson would not speak with if it held the 
promise of returning a person to freedom.'' When these five 
Americans finally land on U.S. soil, all Americans should 
cheer. There are no Republican or Democratic hostages. There 
are only Americans. I thank you for your attention, and I look 
forward to your questions.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. I will call upon myself to ask 
some questions. We will start out with Mr. Goldberg. In your 
opinion, what would a post-JCPOA deal look like, and what would 
you add or subtract from the original deal to prevent Iran from 
being able to obtain nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Goldberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question. 
The JCPOA, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was 
fundamentally flawed for several reasons. No. 1, we ceded Iran 
an enrichment program. We had an international consensus that 
Iran should not have an enrichment program that has no right 
under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich. Every 
country has a right to peaceful nuclear energy. You do not have 
a right to enrich. In fact, John Kerry reiterated that while he 
was negotiating the agreement.
    And instead of insisting on that, what was enshrined in 
several U.N. Security Council resolutions that they halt all 
enrichment-related activities, in addition to reprocessing 
activities, we decided to say, OK, you can keep all of these 
illicit nuclear sites that we have now learned are completely 
intrinsically tied to their nuclear weapons program, thanks to 
the nuclear archive that was discovered in 2018 by the Mossad, 
which we have now seen throughout the world, which has led, by 
the way, the International Atomic Energy Agency to new, 
undeclared nuclear sites in Iran that Iran today refuses to 
acknowledge, refuses to explain where the IAEA has even found 
traces of uranium. The idea that we would envision any sort of 
agreement with this regime that allows them to keep the 
capabilities to produce nuclear weapons in the future is 
fundamentally flawed. That is No. 1.
    Even if you believed that Iran would somehow hold to an 
agreement, would not at some point unshackle itself from having 
these capabilities and raise to a nuclear threshold, the deal 
itself was baked to allow Iran legitimate pathways to nuclear 
weapons if they just followed the deal. That was what was so 
crazy about it, Iran would get a trillion dollars over a 
decade; attract foreign direct investment; get legitimized, 
despite still being the world's leading state sponsor of 
terrorism, building longer-range missiles, including 
intercontinental ballistic missiles, which they still aim to 
achieve according to our own Defense Department's reports on an 
annual basis. They are working on it today. They will continue 
to sponsor terrorism in the region, plot against the United 
States and others, still repress their people.
    And if they follow the deal, all the things that you just 
heard Ms. Slavin talk about, that are happening that the 
Ranking Member is very alarmed by, that we are all alarmed by, 
they are all allowed under the deal. Because there are sunset 
provisions, expiration dates, that over a certain number of 
years, everything becomes legitimate, all the way to weapons-
grade uranium production to any stockpile level. The only thing 
that they promised long term in the deal, we promise here the 
supreme leader, the people who murder Americans, the people who 
oppress their people, the people are helping Putin right now 
destroy Ukraine, we promise we will never build nuclear 
weapons. These sites are good sites. These are not the droids 
you are looking for, as we would say in Star Wars.
    So, we have to go right back to the formula here, Mr. 
Chairman. The concept behind the maximum pressure campaign was 
to understand something that we have really learned, both from 
the nuclear archive, which showed that they lied to negotiators 
throughout negotiations with JCPOA and through the JCPOA, but 
also what has happened last fall with Mahsa Amini's murder and 
the uprising that is followed.
    By the way, Mr. Chairman, we track protests in Iran on a 
weekly basis at FTD. They are still going on throughout the 
country. They have not stopped. We cannot approach this regime 
as one that you are going to negotiate as if you are in a 
western bar, trying to make a real estate deal. This is a 
brutal, radical theocracy that wants to destroy America and 
wipe Israel off the face of the earth. And so, a combination of 
military deterrence, economic pressure, and maximum support for 
the Iranian people has to be the basis for a long-term 
sustainable policy solution.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Ms. Coates, what additional steps do you 
think should be taken by the U.S. and the international 
community to ensure Iran's cooperation with facility 
inspections?
    Ms. Coates. I think, just to underline a point that Mr. 
Goldberg just made, the revelation of the Iranian nuclear 
archive in 2018 was a critical revelation of the internal 
failures of the original JCPOA, which was not negotiated in 
good faith. Clearly, if the regime in Tehran had wanted a good-
faith gesture toward the Americans, handing over that archive 
would have been a way to increase confidence in the deal 
tenfold. So, I think that the fact that they are not a 
believable, credible negotiating partner is the fundamental 
problem when you are dealing with a situation like their 
nuclear program.
    So, you know, I would suggest that if one wanted to get to 
a comprehensive deal that would give the American people some 
confidence, that we were not just kicking the can down the road 
yet again with yet another rogue nuclear program, that we would 
insist on changes in their sponsorship of regional proxies, we 
would insist on restrictions on their missile programs, and 
concur completely that we would stand with the Iranian people 
against the regime that has oppressed them for so long.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. We will call on Mr. Garcia.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
start and then I have a couple of questions as well. To answer 
by clarifying something one of the witnesses said, I think it 
is important, as it relates to the Biden Administration and 
human rights, I think it is important to note that the U.S. 
under the Biden Administration has been incredibly strong on 
taking on Iran on the issue of human rights. And over the last 
year, the U.S. has responded to the important calls of the 
Iranian people that we have seen over and over again, and I 
want to list a couple.
    The U.S. organized an unprecedented diplomatic campaign 
that led to the Iranian Government removal from the U.N. 
Commission on the Status of Women, created a U.N. commission to 
investigate the human rights abuses, help the growing number of 
human rights activists find safe haven in the United States, 
made it easier for Iranians to access the internet, sanctioned 
over 70 Iranian individuals and entities responsible for 
supporting the oppression of the regime and its people, and the 
list goes on and on. So, I just want to make sure that we are 
also very clear the Biden Administration have been heavily 
involved in human rights work in Iran.
    Now, let us get back to the question. You know, under the 
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, better known as the Iran 
Nuclear Deal, Iran agreed, of course, to give up its weapons-
grade uranium and increased access to its nuclear inspections 
for the facilities under a time ranging from 10 to 15 years. 
Now, Ms. Slavin, can you explain why Iran agreeing to limits on 
its nuclear infrastructure would make for a less dangerous 
Iran?
    Ms. Slavin. Thank you. Clearly, diplomacy is the only thing 
that has ever worked in terms of convincing the Iranians to 
curb their program. They had, by the way, no weapons-grade 
uranium at that time. They had only low-enriched uranium, but 
they made a pledge under this agreement that for 15 years they 
would not exceed the limit of 300 kilograms of uranium enriched 
to less than five percent. You cannot build a bomb with that 
amount of material. As I pointed out in my testimony, they now 
have 10 times that amount of enriched uranium and much of it at 
very, very high levels. So, to argue that the JCPOA would not 
have worked, I mean, I do not know how my colleagues up here 
can possibly state that, how they can have any idea what would 
have happened if Donald Trump had not withdrawn from this 
agreement at a time when, according to the International Atomic 
Energy Agency, Iran was not only in full compliance, but was 
also allowing monitoring, extensive monitoring.
    Mr. Garcia. And when President Trump unilaterally pulled 
the United States out of the Iran Nuclear Deal, did Iran 
increase the amount of uranium it was enriching?
    Ms. Slavin. It waited a year to see if the Europeans would 
be able to continue to trade with Iran. When it was clear that 
the Europeans would not be able to do that because of their 
fear of American sanctions, that is when Iran began to ramp up 
its enrichment of uranium.
    Mr. Garcia. And obviously, increasing enrichment of uranium 
is often bad for the U.S. foreign policy but also for global 
security. Do you want to expand on that?
    Ms. Slavin. Absolutely. I mean, it is not only Iran that is 
now a threshold nuclear weapons state, although it has not 
weaponized, but there is a temptation on the part of others in 
the region. I am thinking particularly of Saudi Arabia, to 
obtain similar technology. This would set off a proliferation 
cycle in the Middle East that would be extremely dangerous to 
U.S. interests, to the interests of Israel, and others. So, it 
was very much in U.S. national interest to stay in the JCPOA, 
and it is unfortunate, very unfortunate, that we did not.
    Mr. Garcia. Ms. Slavin, you have obviously a distinguished 
career as a journalist covering national security and 
diplomatic issues. You have also traveled to Iran numerous 
times, so you have a unique insight into Iranian actions. Can 
you briefly discuss how Iranian internal political factions 
responded to the Trump Administration leaving the Iran Nuclear 
Deal?
    Ms. Slavin. It was very unfortunate on that level as well. 
Iran does not have a democratic system, as we know, but it does 
have different political factions, and there were factions that 
supported diplomacy with the United States and with the West. 
They were totally discredited when Trump withdrew from that 
deal. We now have the most hardline, the most repressive regime 
Iran has had in 4 decades, a regime that has doubled down on 
ties with Russia and China, and that is not in U.S. national 
interest.
    Mr. Garcia. And so, this did impact our ability as the 
United States to seek diplomatic negotiations with Iran, 
correct?
    Ms. Slavin. Very much so, and it is one of the reasons why 
Iran would not rejoin the JCPOA a year ago. They simply do not 
trust American promises anymore, and why should they?
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you. I just want to reiterate that the 
United States had a deal in place to curb Iran's nuclear 
program because denying Iran nuclear weapons is, of course, an 
important and critical American security objective. Any 
alternatives to a deal are not true alternatives if they do not 
curb Iran's nuclear program. I hope that we can hear from 
critics of the Iran deal some plausible alternative that do not 
bring the U.S. to the brink of war and surely risk leaving 
Americans to die in Iranian prisons. With that, I yield back, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Grothman. Mr. Higgins?
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
panelists for being here today. I am going to be covering a lot 
of territory, moving fast.
    Moving through international media sources to get our heads 
wrapped around this from the Jerusalem Times, this is about the 
JCPOA. That is the assessment, the overall assessment, this is 
really about the Biden's promises regarding the Joint 
Comprehensive Plan of Action, the JCPOA, or Biden's interest in 
reviving the Iranian nuclear agreement, which they never abided 
by.
    Jerusalem Times: prior to Biden, uranium enriched to just 
20 percent; today, it has enriched uranium to 60 percent. That 
is just a jump from military grade. Prior to Biden, it had 300 
kilograms of enriched uranium. Today, said to have 4,000 
kilograms. From APEC's memo 2023, the International Atomic 
Energy Agency reported Iran enriched uranium to 83.7 percent at 
its Fordow facility, per the young lady's point, just shy of 
the 90-percent level thought necessary to build the bomb, 
higher than average uranium enrichment level of 80 percent of 
the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima 1945.
    From the joint chiefs of staff, from the time of an Iranian 
decision to build a bomb, Iran could produce fissile material 
for nuclear weapon in less than 2 weeks. From the CIA director, 
Russia and Iran have formed a full-fledged defense partnership. 
Since August 2022, Russian forces have used hundreds of Iranian 
suicide drones against Ukraine. Over the past 6 months, Iran 
has also sent more than 300,000 artillery shells and a million 
rounds of ammunition to Russia, now sending more ballistic 
missiles and rockets. China and Iran have also dramatically 
increased their partnership in recent years. China remains the 
world's largest importer of Iranian oil in violation of U.S. 
sanctions. Eighty Iranian drone and rocket attacks on Americans 
in Syria and Iraq since January 2021, killing two Americans and 
injuring dozens more.
    Iran has been using earthquake relief flights to Syria to 
transport weapons and military equipment to its affiliated 
terror groups. In April and May, Iran seized two oil tankers in 
the Persian Gulf. That is the fifth and sixth commercial 
vessels that Iran has seized in the past 2 years. Since 
September 2022, Iran's morality police arrested and beat to 
death 22-year-old Masha Amini for improperly wearing her 
garments. Tens of thousands of Iranians led by braver Iranian 
women have been in the streets, protesting. They have executed 
over 500 people in 2022 to ``spread fear among the 
protesters,'' and they have killed 500 more on the streets.
    I go on. Let us just read from Al Jazeera, not really well 
known as a right-wing publication, are they? This guy, State 
Department spokesman, Stephen Miller, I do not know where they 
find guys like that. They breed them in laboratory experiments 
or something. This man said that the $6 billion transfer will 
be under strict U.S. Treasury oversight. Well, what could 
possibly go wrong? Yesterday, Iranian President Raisi said in 
an interview on NBC News that Iran will spend a $6 billion 
wherever it wants to. You shake your head? No, they have been 
defying the law since 1979. It is insane to think that you can 
do a deal with these people. That regime is horrific and 
aligned against all peaceful world interests, and when the 
Biden Administration does business with them, you are compliant 
with that regime's agenda.
    Mr. Goldberg, can you say in the last part of my time, 
regarding JCPOA, was Iran ever fully in compliance with JCPOA?
    Mr. Goldberg. No. From day one, they were cheating. They 
did not disclose a secret nuclear archive, several undeclared 
to this day nuclear sites, nuclear material containers that are 
still missing in Iran. And to this day, the Director General of 
the IAEA, he just said this week in Vienna, still has no 
answers on what is going on inside Iran's nuclear program.
    Mr. Higgins. Would you say your level of confidence that 
they will comply with any alleged agreement is rather low?
    Mr. Golberg. I would say that I am highly confident in 
their ability to cheat on anything they claim to agree to.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you. Good, sir. Thank you all for 
appearing today. Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me like 
this Committee is very much caught up in finding ways to attack 
the decisions of the Biden-Harris Administration, that my 
Republican colleagues are now literally upset at the 
Administration for using diplomacy to help free Americans, who 
have been unjustly detained by foreign regimes, and let us look 
at the facts.
    Americans were set free, no violence occurred, and the 
overall situations with Iran did not escalate. Not every 
interaction with our adversaries should start and end with 
aggression and more tension. Even former President Donald Trump 
did not try to escalate every situation. You know, when he was 
palling around with Kim Jong Un, Republicans did not call him 
out for it. The difference here is that Trump asked for nothing 
and got nothing. Meanwhile, President Biden has brought home 
six American citizens. I did not hear that outrage. We just 
heard from one of my colleagues when he stepped into North 
Korea and got nothing. If you have not picked it up, the point 
I am making here is that if Donald Trump had done this, 
Republicans on this Committee would be praising him. Instead, 
President Biden did, and so it is a full-on scandal, and we are 
having this hearing.
    The Americans that we are talking about in this hearing, 
the ones that were brought home, include Emad Shargi, a father 
who raised his daughters in the United States, whose wife 
describes him as the kindest, gentlest partner, the most 
present father. It includes Siamak Namazi, an American 
businessman who was imprisoned along with his father; a father 
of former UNICEF official; and also Morad Tahbaz, a 
businessman, conservationist, and father. These Americans were 
falsely accused and convicted of collaborating with the U.S. 
Government, and I hope that we can get past all the politics of 
this and agree that bringing them home was the right thing to 
do.
    Ms. Slavin, can you describe for us the so-called judicial 
process these political detainees have gone through?
    Ms. Slavin. Well, first, Congressman, they are not quite 
home yet. They are still sitting in a hotel in Tehran. 
Hopefully, within a few days, they will indeed be home.
    Mr. Frost. Yes.
    Ms. Slavin. Look, the process by which they were convicted 
was a sham, and everyone knows it. Siamak Namazi is a personal 
friend of mine. His crime was trying to improve U.S.-Iran 
relations. For that he was sentenced to 10 years for espionage. 
It is ridiculous. I think it is a problem because we have a 
large Iranian diaspora, people who go home, they visit their 
relatives, and, unfortunately, they have to travel on Iranian 
passports, and so they are always liable to be picked up and 
used as pawns. Maximum pressure did not stop the taking of 
hostages. Nothing has stopped the taking of hostages. Iran has 
a lot of different motives for doing it. I wish there were a 
way to end this despicable practice, but, unfortunately, there 
does not seem to be.
    Mr. Frost. What are conditions like in the prison where 
they were held?
    Ms. Slavin. Evin Prison is a dreadful place. There have 
been a number of books written about it. Haleh Esfandiari, 
Jason Rezaian have written about their time there. Often people 
are held in solitary confinement. They are interrogated every 
day, sometimes tortured. Sometimes they are thrown in with 
ordinary criminals. It is a dreadful place, and we should not 
let an American spend one extra day there if we can do 
something about it.
    Mr. Frost. And historically, what actions have been 
effective in returning Americans from political detention?
    Ms. Salvin. The only thing that has worked has been the 
unfreezing of Iranian assets or the release of Iranians 
arrested in the United States. I go back to the Reagan 
Administration. You know, in 1981, when our 52 American 
diplomats came home, it was after the Reagan Administration 
unfroze Iranian assets that had been frozen in the United 
States. Reagan also was involved with Iran-Contra, as you may 
remember, sending weapons to Iran to get Americans freed from 
Lebanon. So, this is a bipartisan policy and a bipartisan 
problem.
    Mr. Frost. So, diplomacy negotiations?
    Ms. Slavin. Diplomacy negotiations, unfreezing of assets, 
that is all that has ever worked.
    Mr. Frost. Today we are discussing Iran policy in the midst 
of a prisoner release talks that are 2 years in the making. 
Some of us seek to politicize the situation against President 
Biden's policy, a policy that is currently concentrating on 
reuniting families and protecting Americans. Securing the 
release of American political prisoners and hostages should not 
be a partisan issue. We should all be united in this goal. 
Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our 
witnesses for being here today.
    Mr. Goldberg, from the newspapers and reporting available, 
the Biden Administration appears intent on making a new nuclear 
deal. Any deal with the Iranians, even if it is a bad deal for 
America and our allies, the Administration's current efforts to 
return to the JCPOA is a sweetheart deal for the Iranian regime 
compared to the much tougher deal the Trump Administration was 
working toward. Despite the much better deal for Iran, why do 
you think the Biden Administration had not been successful in 
getting the Iranians to go back to the deal? What is your 
assessment of the Administration's negotiating team and 
position?
    Mr. Goldberg. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. I 
think if we go back to the beginning of 2021, as the Iranian 
start testing the new administration to see what kind of metal 
Joe Biden had, they started escalating their nuclear program 
quite extensively, more than we had ever seen during the Trump 
Administration's maximum pressure campaign. And instead of 
pushing forward on maximum pressure, continuing military 
deterrence, responding as our military men and women were under 
attack in Iraq and Syria, we started relaxing sanctions. We 
started pulling back central resolutions in Vienna at the IAEA 
and Iran said, ``great, we are going to start escalating more 
and more and more.''
    Hassan Rouhani, former President of Iran, was replaced, 
selected by the Supreme Leader with an even more hardline 
version, somebody who was going to drop the veneer, no more, 
you know, wolf in sheep's clothing, just a wolf in wolf's 
clothing, somebody who has so much blood on his hands, building 
a sanction cabinet of the who is who of Terror, Inc., to show 
the Americans, you want to give us money, you want to shower 
us, we are racing forward to the nuclear threshold. Come, we 
are going to have a whole new deal on our hands if you are not 
going to get serious with us. If you are not going to really 
push deterrence pressure against us, we are going to take the 
open door you have created, race for it on a nuclear program, 
reclaim the upper hand, and wait until you come begging to us. 
And unfortunately, that is what has happened to this 
Administration.
    Now, you talk about a lot of the headlines. Ma'am, we are 
in a nuclear deal today. We are in a nuclear deal right now. 
They negotiated in secret since May. They have been issuing 
waivers tied to their nuclear program of Iran under false 
pretenses, now twice, once for Iraq, $10 billion, now for South 
Korea, $6 billion. They have been violating U.S. law by not 
enforcing our oil sanctions, tacitly allowing oil exports to 
skyrocket, potentially above 2 million barrels per day to 
China. All of that is covered by the Iran Nuclear Agreement and 
Review Act. That means that every single time they have issued 
a waiver as part of a secret nuclear negotiation, they are 
violating the law. They violated the law this Monday when they 
issued the waiver, not waiting to come before Congress. They 
violated the law in July. They have been violating the law all 
summer allowing sanctions relief to go from the oil exports to 
China.
    At some point, we need to ask for documents. We need to say 
show us what you have been negotiating. Show us the 
communications you have had with banks. The Treasury Department 
will not tell Congress what banks are being used for these 
transfers. Right now, what bank in South Korea, what bank in 
Switzerland, what bank in Qatar is going to be using this? What 
are the Iraqi banks? What are the Omani banks involved? Which 
Irish and German banks were involved that we saw on the waiver 
on Monday?
    We do not know account numbers. We talk about oversight. We 
do not have true oversight over this money. We are turning it 
over to the Qataris and the Omanis. We are going to approve 
every transaction. Are you going to get a copy, Mr. Chairman, 
of every transaction that Iran has asked for, to see exactly 
what they are paying for?
    Let us put aside the fact that $6 billion is just a budget 
subsidy. Money is fungible. We are freeing up $6 billion to 
persecute LGBT in Iran, to persecute the women of Iran, to 
carry out assassination plots against American citizens today 
on U.S. soil, to send weapons to Russia to use against Ukraine, 
while we ask for more money to defend Ukraine, all of that 
being done, underwritten by this secret deal. If they believed 
in the deal, Mr. Ranking Member, the way you articulated it, 
then let them send it to Congress for your review and a vote. 
That is the law.
    Ms. Foxx. Quick followup. When the JCPOA was first 
brokered, we were told Iran's breakout time, the time they 
needed to produce enough radioactive material for nuclear 
weapon was about a year. What is Iran's current estimated 
breakout time?
    Mr. Goldberg. We are near zero, ma'am. A long weekend, we 
can have enough fissile material for one nuclear weapon, nine 
nuclear weapons in 3 months. But the key to remember here, is 
that if we had stayed firm in the maximum pressure campaign up 
front instead of going to maximum deference, we would not have 
seen Iran race forward to this nuclear threshold that we find 
them in today. And so, yes, ma'am, we are in a very dire 
situation, unfortunately. For $50 billion or more, we are not 
actually curtailing their nuclear program. We are not rolling 
it back. We are not getting rid of the enrichment. They are 
still enriching it 60 percent. The breakout timeline is still 
near zero, and we are now moving the goalposts to hoping that 
the intelligence community can detect weaponization. That is a 
big step for our national security.
    Ms. Foxx. This is not just another bad decision, bad point 
of view on President Biden's part. You can add to the 50 years 
that he has been on the wrong side of every decision when it 
comes to foreign affairs, as Robert Gates said about him. This 
is maybe the worst that he has ever done. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure what 
the worst he has ever done is because there is no new 
agreement. And I am not sure what agreement my colleague is 
referring to because there is none that this Administration has 
entered into. In fact, the Administration has ceased formal 
talks with Iran since, basically, the beginning of the Russian 
invasion of the Ukraine and Iran's assistance to Russia.
    Mr. Goldberg, something you said just perked my ears a 
little, and I want to make sure I understand it. You said the 
IAEA right now has no idea what is going on with the Iranian 
nuclear program. Is that right?
    Mr. Goldberg. In any of the weaponization applications of 
the program, the nuclear weapons side of the program, the IAEA 
has never to this day been able to verify the peaceful nature 
of the nuclear program. There were four undeclared sites that 
they discovered. They found nuclear material.
    Mr. Goldman. They discovered that during the JCPOA?
    Mr. Goldberg. No, sir. They discovered that following the 
withdrawal from the JCPOA. The discovery of a secret nuclear 
archive kept hidden from negotiators of the JCPOA, kept hidden 
during the JCPOA, that has led them now since late 2018, now 
almost a 5-year investigation into undeclared----
    Mr. Goldman. Right. So----
    Mr. Goldberg [continuing]. Undeclared nuclear activities.
    Mr. Goldman. But you would agree, would you not, no matter 
what you think about the JCPOA, that the IAEA had a lot more 
access to what was going on in Iran during the agreement than 
subsequent to the agreement?
    Mr. Goldberg. Iran allowed, as it had prior to the JCPOA--
--
    Mr. Goldman. It is a simple question. They had more access, 
did they not?
    Mr. Goldberg. Iran was implementing, temporarily for their 
part, the Additional Protocol, which allowed for quicker snap 
inspections----
    Mr. Goldman. All right.
    Mr. Goldberg [continuing]. Allowed for inspections at 
center field----
    Mr. Goldman. Right.
    Mr. Goldberg. Manufacturing plants----
    Mr. Goldman. And by the way, I am not sitting here trying 
to defend the JCPOA.
    Mr. Goldberg [continuing]. Which they are not getting, by 
the way----
    Mr. Goldman. I do think it is important to understand that 
we have much less access to what is going on inside Iran now. 
And as you pointed out, following the withdrawal from the 
JCPOA, Iran has dramatically increased its enrichment, 
including under the Trump Administration, and also under the 
Biden Administration. So, it is not as if there are no 
consequences to pulling out of the deal. There are problems 
with the deal. There are problems with the implementation. I am 
not sitting here defending the deal. But I do think you need to 
be a little bit careful about some of your allegations and 
assertions because, ultimately, as you know, many have said, it 
is either some sort of diplomacy or war. Because I agree with 
you, we cannot allow Iran to have a viable nuclear weapon.
    Ms. Slavin, I want to just turn to you for a second and 
give you an opportunity. I see your head shaking on a couple of 
things, and I want to give you an opportunity just to respond 
to some of what has been said.
    Ms. Slavin. Yes. On the question of monitoring, Iran was 
observing the Additional Protocol, there was monitoring by 
cameras 24/7. There were inspectors present.
    Mr. Goldman. Let me just ask. Is it your----
    Ms. Slavin. This was under the JCPOA. All of that is----
    Mr. Goldman. I know. Is it your testimony here today--and 
this is a serious question--is it your understanding or your 
belief that Iran was abiding by all of the terms of the JCPOA? 
Because there is evidence to indicate to the contrary.
    Ms. Slavin. I think what the references and what Mr. 
Goldberg is referring to is the fact that Iran never came clean 
about its nuclear activities before 2003. Iran had a nuclear 
weapons program. They never made nuclear weapons, but they were 
working on the idea of making nuclear weapons prior to 2003 
when their activities had been discovered.
    Mr. Goldman. I know, but during the JCPOA----
    Ms. Slavin. And this material that was found in a warehouse 
by the Mossad and so on all refers to activities that took 
place before 2003, so we are mixing things up here.
    Mr. Goldman. But that was not disclosed----
    Ms. Slavin. It was not disclosed.
    Mr. Goldman [continuing]. During the JCPOA?
    Ms. Slavin. It was not disclosed.
    Mr. Goldman. OK. Well, that is important, no?
    Ms. Slavin. The decision that was made was that it was more 
important to prevent Iran from advancing in the present time on 
its nuclear program than to make them admit that they lied 
about having done this research more than a decade earlier.
    Mr. Goldman. I understand what you are saying. I think this 
is not an easy issue, and I do not think we help ourselves by 
trying to turn this into a partisan issue. Iran is a dangerous 
regime. It is building a nuclear enrichment program. That is 
not permissible. It is exporting terrorism to, certainly around 
Israel, but elsewhere as well. It is not as simple as saying it 
is either maximum pressure or, you know, fall on our sword 
diplomacy. And I think we would all benefit from thinking hard 
about more bipartisan work on this rather than playing the 
blame game as to whether it was Biden or Trump or whomever. 
This is a critical issue that I hope we, as a Subcommittee, and 
certainly I will do on the Homeland Security Committee as well, 
can engage in, in a meaningful bipartisan collaborative way. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Mr. Fallon?
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just got the last 
30, 40 seconds of Mr. Goldman. I have to say that is the first 
time I fully agree with everything you said. So----
    Mr. Goldman. You should try it more often.
    Mr. Fallon. To be fair, when we opened this Committee 
hearing, I heard the Ranking Member talk about how he, you 
know, he agrees with the JCPOA and use some Israeli sources. 
So, I wanted to just, for the record, use some Israeli sources 
as well. I want to quote their Israelis, Energy Minister, Yuval 
Steinitz, who said, ``We thought the maximum pressure policy 
with regard to Iran was very productive.'' And then you go all 
the way to the top with Prime Minister Netanyahu, who called 
the agreement a ``stunning historic mistake''--he is talking 
about what the Biden Administration is doing. ``The most 
limited understandings of what are termed, many agreements do 
not, in our view, serve the goal and we are opposed to them as 
well.'' Ms. Slavin, do you agree with me, and just for the sake 
of time, if you can just limit it to ``yes'' or ``no'' answers. 
Do you agree that the Iranian regime is an enemy of free 
speech?
    Ms. Slavin. Yes.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. Freedom of religion?
    Ms. Slavin. Yes.
    Mr. Fallon. Women's rights?
    Ms. Slavin. Yes.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. And one of the, if not the largest, 
supporter of state-sponsored terrorism?
    Ms. Slavin. It depends on how you define ``terrorism.''
    Mr. Fallon. You really cannot answer that as a ``yes'' or 
``no?''
    Ms. Slavin. No, I cannot.
    Mr. Fallon. Wow. OK. That is telling. And if you had to 
describe to somebody, is the Iranian regime either a 
functioning democracy or an authoritarian theocracy? What would 
you describe it as?
    Ms. Slavin. The latter.
    Mr. Fallon. Latter, OK. Good. And so, you are a supporter 
of the JCPOA?
    Ms. Slavin. Yes.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. Do you think that the Iranian ICBM Program 
is a threat to the United States, Western allies in the region?
    Ms. Slavin. As far as I know, they do not yet have ICBMs.
    Mr. Fallon. But they have a program to develop ICBMs?
    Ms. Slavin. They have a very aggressive missile program.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes.
    Ms. Slavin. Yes.
    Mr. Fallon. Do you think that is a threat to world peace, 
United States, our allies?
    Ms. Slavin. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. And so, you do not think that they are a 
state sponsor of terrorism?
    Ms. Slavin. No. Of course they are state sponsored.
    Mr. Fallon. OK.
    Ms. Slavin. It is just a question, are they the largest.
    Mr. Fallon. OK.
    Ms. Slavin. I mean, I would have to----
    Mr. Fallon. Fair, fair, fair. So----
    Ms. Slavin. You know, people think Russia is the largest--
--
    Mr. Fallon. OK.
    Ms. Slavin. [continuing] State sponsor of terrorism now. 
So, I would have to think----
    Mr. Fallon. OK.
    Ms. Slavin [continuing]. About that a little.
    Mr. Fallon. But for time's sake, does the JCPOA address the 
Iranian ICBM program at all?
    Ms. Slavin. The JCPOA was a nuclear agreement.
    Mr. Fallon. Right.
    Ms. Slavin. It was never meant to deal with Iran support 
for terrorism or----
    Mr. Fallon. OK.
    Ms. Slavin [continuing]. Iran's missile program or Iran's 
impression of human rights.
    Mr. Fallon. OK.
    Ms. Slavin. The question I have for you, Congressman----
    Mr. Fallon. Mr. Chairman, I am going to do reclaim my time. 
Mr. Chairman, I am reclaiming my time.
    Ms. Slavin. May I just finish my comment?
    Mr. Fallon. No.
    Ms. Slavin. Do you want a country like Iran to have nuclear 
weapons?
    Mr. Fallon. Mr. Chairman?
    Ms. Slavin. That is my question.
    Mr. Fallon. I want that time back, please. Thank you. Is 
the JCPOA, Ms. Slavin, a treaty?
    Ms. Slavin. No.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. It is an agreement?
    Ms. Slavin. Yes.
    Mr. Fallon. It is an agreement. The acronym is what?
    Ms. Slavin. It is a plan which passed through Congress----
    Mr. Fallon. A joint comprehensive plan of pass-through.
    Ms. Slavin. Right, which was not blocked by Congress. 
Congress was not able to block it under INARA, which the law--
--
    Mr. Fallon. So, the U.S. Senate did not ratify this because 
it is not a treaty?
    Ms. Slavin. It is not a treaty.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. Is it a signed agreement?
    Ms. Slavin. It is a plan which was approved by U.N. 
Security Council Resolution. It had the force----
    Mr. Fallon. And we are going to defer to the U.N. now?
    Ms. Slavin [continuing]. Had the force of international 
law.
    Mr. Fallon. Ma'am, did any American sign that plan of 
action? Is it a signed agreement? No, it is not, and so 
Security Council Resolution 2231, which prevents Iran from 
proliferating weapons, did Iran violate that security 
resolution? You opened the door with----
    Ms. Slavin. After the Trump Administration violated it 
first.
    Mr. Fallon. Oh, it is the Trump Administration's fault, OK, 
that Iran is now providing drones to Russia?
    Ms. Slavin. You are mixing apples and oranges.
    Mr. Fallon. You just said that. You are blaming Trump for 
everything. Was the Iranian regime evil before President Trump 
took office in January 2017?
    Ms. Slavin. I am sorry. I do not think this is a productive 
line of questioning.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. Uh-huh. I am not going to be a sycophant. I 
think the Iranian regime is very, very dangerous. Do you know 
who Hossein Mousavian is, Ms. Slavin?
    Ms. Slavin. Hossein Mousavian?
    Mr. Fallon. Mousavian, yes.
    Ms. Slavin. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Fallon. Is he a friend of yours?
    Ms. Slavin. He is someone I know.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. He is an acquaintance, friend. Did you know 
that he attended Soleimani's funeral?
    Ms. Slavin. No, I am sorry. I did not.
    Mr. Fallon. You did not know that? Yes. Do you know 
Soleimani is, of course?
    Ms. Slavin. Yes.
    Mr. Fallon. Somebody who murdered upwards of maybe 600 or 
more Americans, and your friend had attended his funeral. And, 
actually, your friend bragged about the attempted assassination 
of American officials. So, Ms. Coates, do you think it was an 
appropriate use of taxpayer resources to give, however the heck 
you say his name, Mousavian? I call it scumbag. He glorified 
Soleimani, and he brags about assassinating U.S. leaders? Do 
you think that was a good idea to give him a platform to speak 
at STRATCOM?
    Ms. Coates. No, I think that was an egregious error to 
invite him. I have a lot of questions about why he should have 
a visa to be in the United States with a platform at Princeton 
University. And I think whoever made the decision to issue that 
invitation to STRATCOM has to explain to the American people 
and the American taxpayers who fund them how that was a 
judicious expenditure of our money, how it benefits our armed 
forces to invite somebody, like Mousavian, into our secret 
spaces, into our military installations.
    Mr. Fallon. U.S. Strategic Command invited this guy. He has 
been in the country for 14 years. I do not know how he is here 
either. And to reclaim a little bit of my time, Mr. Chairman, 
that was stolen, Mr. Makovsky, given the seriousness of the 
investigation and suspension, why didn't the Biden 
Administration, in your view, fire Rob Malley or why didn't he 
resign? Are they intending to hire him back in the future?
    Mr. Makovsky. I do not know.
    Mr. Fallon. Would you have fired him?
    Mr. Makovsky. I think it is important for the Committee to 
try to find out what the story is or why he is in his current 
position, but we do not know yet.
    Mr. Fallon. I am also curious to know how----
    Mr. Makovsky. But I think it is interesting that we have 
learned more from the Iranians, by the way----
    Mr. Fallon. Bingo.
    Mr. Makovsky [continuing]. That we have learned so far from 
American sources.
    Mr. Fallon. The Tehran Times knew before the U.S. Congress?
    Mr. Makovsky. Yes.
    Mr. Fallon. Mr. Chairman, thanks. I yield back.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. We have Ms. Porter now?
    Ms. Porter. Ms. Coates, the Republican Majority invited you 
here today as a witness. In your own words, what are the 
Republicans interested in learning from this hearing?
    Ms. Coates. Well, thank you very much, Congresswoman, for 
that question and for the bipartisan participation in this. In 
this Committee hearing today, I do echo Mr. Goldman's comments 
about getting to a good bipartisan spot on Iran that is focused 
on the national security interests of the American people, 
which I think all of us take very seriously. I think the 
questions, as I understand them, from the Majority on this 
Committee is an exploration of what has been going on now for 
well over----
    Ms. Porter. So, what is the Administration's Iran policy?
    Ms. Coates. What is the Iran policy, what has been 
negotiated in Vienna, what is being agreed to potentially as a 
new deal, and I certainly think questions about the status of 
the former Special Envoy, given how opaque the----
    Ms. Porter. OK.
    Ms. Coates [continuing]. State Department has been about 
that, are valid on the part of the American people.
    Ms. Porter. OK. So, Ms. Coates, we want to evaluate the 
Biden Administration's policy toward Iran, and it has these 
different components that you just started into. We cannot 
evaluate the policy until we know what it is, and that seems 
like a big part of the frustration and the issue here. So, we 
want to know what the President's policies are on Iran, and can 
you name some of the areas that we might want to know about? 
Like, I am interested in nuclear proliferation. How about you?
    Ms. Coates. Nuclear proliferation is always a concern.
    Ms. Porter. OK. Anything else?
    Ms. Coates. I think sponsorship of terrorism.
    Ms. Porter. OK. Terrorism. Anything else?
    Ms. Coates. I would say repression of the Iranian people.
    Ms. Porter. OK.
    Ms. Coates. Expansion of the missile program.
    Ms. Porter. Yes.
    Ms. Coates. Potential weaponization of elements that they 
are using in space.
    Ms. Porter. You said the one before this was a missile 
program?
    Ms. Coates. Export of conventional arms to Russia.
    Ms. Porter. Arms export.
    Ms. Coates. Particularly Russia for Ukraine.
    Ms. Porter. OK. So, there is a lot of good stuff here. 
Where can the people find an official statement of the 
Administration's policy toward Iran that covers some of these 
topics?
    Ms. Coates. Well, you can go to the State Department 
website.
    Ms. Porter. What will you learn?
    Ms. Coates. You will learn that the State Department 
frequently says things that sound good to the American people, 
but they do not take actual actions. And I think you could go 
back to, for example, lifting the Foreign Terrorist 
Organization designation from the Houthi in Yemen. There is a 
statement about that on the website of the State Department.
    Ms. Porter. I am just reclaiming my time for a second. I 
know that President Obama had a statement of policy about Syria 
during his Administration. Do we have a similar statement of 
policy from President Biden about Iran?
    Ms. Coates. Well, given that the statement of the Obama 
Administration, among other things, prohibited the use of 
chemical weapons.
    Ms. Porter. No, I am not asking whether you agree or 
disagree with that. Let me ask, Ms. Slavin. Do we have that 
kind of statement?
    Ms. Coates. I mean, I agree that they have statements on 
the State Department website about Iran.
    Ms. Porter. OK. So, right now, though, there is no 
comprehensive document, overview document, of the Biden 
Administration's policy on Iran?
    Ms. Coates. Not that answers my questions.
    Ms. Porter. OK. So, it would be easier to evaluate the 
policy if we knew what they were?
    Ms. Coates. And if they would answer questions about it.
    Ms. Porter. OK. So, would it surprise you that Republican 
leadership blocked my bipartisan amendment to the National 
Defense Authorization Act that would have gotten us all, on 
both sides of the aisle, a report about all of the President's 
policy toward Iran. This is actually, so you can look for 
yourselves--this is exactly what my amendment would have done. 
``The President shall submit to Congress a report, which may 
contain a classified annex, outlining the policy of the United 
States with respect to human rights, nuclear proliferation, the 
ballistic missile program, and regional terrorism in Iran,'' 
all issues that you said were things you would like to know 
about. Why would Republicans block this?
    Ms. Coates. Well, I applaud your confidence in reporting 
requirements as an effective way of policy oversight. I would 
say that I simply would not necessarily object to a report, but 
a report is not going to get us the answers that we need.
    Ms. Porter. Well, it is going to get us more than we have 
got right now, which is nothing.
    Ms. Coates. But that is on the Administration, ma'am.
    Ms. Porter. Yes, but with all due respect, we do oversight 
of the Administration. This amendment orders the Administration 
to give us answers, including those with classified 
information, if necessary, on the very topics that you 
identified as important. So, I guess what my frustration here 
is, the Republicans have called this hearing, and I am in full 
support of wanting more information about the Iranian regime. I 
represent a huge Iranian-American population in my district, 
but they blocked an amendment that would have been a tool to 
begin to force the Administration to give us this information. 
I yield.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Representative Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the 
witnesses being here. I was in another hearing, so I apologize 
for coming in. And I do not want to ask any duplicative 
questions except it would be fresh for me, so any answers you 
would give me will be fresh for me, so thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I first seek unanimous consent to submit the following into 
the record: September 12, 2023, NBC News article entitled, 
``Iranian President Says Tehran Will Spend the $6 Billion 
Dollars Released in Prior Exchange Wherever We Need It.''
    Mr. Grothman. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. So, I am not going to make a lot of 
statements on this because I have prepared a statement, so I am 
just going to ask a few questions. Is there anybody on the 
panel that believes that the $6 billion that we just gave plus 
five prisoners that we exchanged, do you believe that the $6 
billion is going to be used for humanitarian purposes? Ms. 
Slavin does.
    Ms. Slavin. Yes.
    Mr. Biggs. OK. I have got a bridge for you.
    Mr. Makovsky. Congressman, may I add?
    Mr. Biggs. Yes.
    Mr. Makovsky. I share your skepticism on that, but I think 
also the issue is even if they do, money is fungible, so that 
would just free up other money that they could spend on other 
things, more nefarious purposes. So----
    Mr. Biggs. Yes, that was my followup question.
    Mr. Makovsky. I sensed that.
    Mr. Biggs. Yes. So, even if they spent it for humanitarian 
purposes, it could go for nefarious purposes back. In other 
words, they backfill it and move around. It is all fungible, 
but they themselves have said we are going to use it any way we 
want to. That is why I am incredulous that anybody would 
believe that it was all going to go to humanitarian purposes. 
Anyway, what I want to know is, is this the first time we have 
paid Iran an exchange for hostages? Ms. Coates?
    Ms. Coates. No. No. Obviously, there was the hostage deal 
with the infamous pallets of cash that preceded the original 
JCPOA.
    Mr. Biggs. And how much was that?
    Mr. Goldberg. That ended up totaling $1.7 billion for four 
Americans, so approximately $425 million American back then 
under Biden's inflation plan. It is $1.2 billion per American 
today, so inflation comes to every industry, Congressman.
    Ms. Slavin. Excuse me, Congressman. This is Iran's oil 
revenues. The United States is not----
    Mr. Biggs. I do not have a question for you, Ms. Slavin.
    Ms. Slavin. OK.
    Mr. Biggs. I think you had people here that could ask you 
these questions. My next question is, are there proxies for the 
Iranian regime that commit acts of terror in the Mideast or 
elsewhere?
    Mr. Goldberg. Yes, sir. The National Iranian Oil Council, 
the Central Bank of Iran, the National Iranian Tanker 
Corporation, these are all organizations, institutions that are 
designated today under U.S. sanctions for terrorism finance of 
the Quds Force and other terrorist organizations that has not 
stopped. The bank accounts this money is coming out of, are 
designated for terrorism finance.
    Mr. Biggs. And that is known to our regime or the Biden 
regime, right? I mean, they know this, ostensibly.
    Mr. Goldberg. They absolutely know that. They also know 
that that money that was sitting in Baghdad of $10 billion 
being moved to Oman during the summer in July, with a waiver 
sent to Congress tied to a nuclear deal that has not been 
acknowledged, is also tied to terrorism. As well, the money 
that is being exchanged from the IMF-SDRs, totaling $7 billion, 
and will all the money that they are getting back from China in 
various ways for exporting oil that is not being enforced in 
our sanctions in a $50 billion deal, all tied to terrorism in 
some way.
    Mr. Biggs. And we are not enforcing the sanctions that 
ostensibly remain in place?
    Mr. Goldberg. Correct, sir.
    Ms. Coates. No, and, I mean, we have gone from roughly 
324,000 barrels a day getting out of Iran to China to over 1.1 
million.
    Mr. Biggs. So, also, Iran is the manufacturer and have 
stepped up their manufacturer of weaponry, non-nuclear weapons 
that they are distributing and selling. The countries that they 
are selling to, are they friends to U.S.? Ms. Coates?
    Ms. Coates. No. I mean, one of them being Vladimir Putin's 
Russia. I would say these are countries that are pretty 
diametrically opposed to the United States. And I think one 
question we have to ask, Congressman, is why the Administration 
is being so permissive of these shipments of drones to Russia 
when their only use is to blow up the American aid that the 
President is asking the Congress for.
    Mr. Biggs. Some would say, looking at the situation, that 
sending $6 billion over that is fungible, we are actually 
funding both sides of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. I will call upon Mr. Garcia for a brief 
question.
    Mr. Garcia. I think both the Chairman and I are going to do 
a brief 1 minute of questioning. Is that correct?
    Mr. Grothman. Yes.
    Mr. Garcia. OK. I want to just provide an opportunity for 
Ms. Slavin to quickly clear something up. I want to address our 
colleague, who right now just asserted that somehow the Biden 
Administration is somehow funding terrorism, which is obviously 
not true. Ms. Slavin, the $6 billion in funds that my colleague 
just referenced, are Iranian funds only to be used for non-
sanctionable humanitarian goods? Is that correct?
    Ms. Slavin. Yes.
    Mr. Garcia. Ms. Slavin, and prior to the Biden 
Administration's recent negotiations, these funds would have 
eventually been released to Iran, but without the U.S. Treasury 
having oversight of that. Is that not correct?
    Ms. Slavin. Yes.
    Mr. Garcia. Ms. Slavin, these humanitarian exemptions, they 
existed also under President Trump, and, in fact, didn't the 
Trump Administration set this whole thing up?
    Ms. Slavin. It did indeed.
    Mr. Garcia. So just to be clear, the Biden Administration 
is ensuring the United States Treasury now has a role 
overseeing the disbursement of these funds, a program, by the 
way, that was set up by President Donald Trump. So, I just hope 
that my colleague across the aisle, you know, understands that 
this is a complex issue. I appreciate you referencing all of 
them. I just wanted to clear that up. With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Goldberg. Congressman, that is false, just so you know. 
I want the American----
    Mr. Garcia. Sir, I actually did not ask you any questions.
    Mr. Goldberg. Absolutely. That is false, it is false.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Two quick things. Really quick, Mr. 
Goldberg, give me your quick statement on that last question.
    Mr. Goldberg. No. I just want to say, Congressman, I do not 
know where you just got all that information, but you are the 
Oversight Committee. Conduct oversight, sir. How do you know 
what the money is going to be used for? The Treasury Department 
will not tell you a single name of a bank, a bank account 
number, how the oversight is being conducted, how the money is 
being moved. You are not going to get a list of transactions. 
You ever heard Halkbank? Do you know how the Iranians abuse 
humanitarian channels? You have zero oversight today. You have 
a press release from the White House. That is not oversight.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Now, Mr. Makovsky, really quick, 
in your opinion, should Iran decide to build and successfully 
obtain nuclear weapon, what do you believe they will do with 
such a weapon, and how do you think it will change the dynamics 
in the Middle East?
    Mr. Makovsky. It will completely transform the region. It 
will lead to nuclear proliferation among all other countries in 
the region that will completely undermine U.S. position. It 
will threaten Israel's very existence. And I think our policy, 
what we should be focusing on right now, is doing everything we 
can to prevent that eventuality.
    Mr. Grothman. Mr. Garcia, do you have a closing statement?
    Mr. Garcia. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to 
thank our witnesses for being here today. We know that the 
regime in Iran has acted as a malevolent force, wrongfully 
detaining American citizens, supporting proxies, harassing our 
troops, fueling Russia's illegal war with Ukraine, conducting 
repression of its own people and developing nuclear weapons, 
and both Republicans and Democrats all agree on this. I think 
it is really important to say very clearly. We do have, of 
course, one Majority witness that stated clearly that they 
think the violent regime change is the only way to deal with 
Iran, and, in fact, that we know that is not the case. 
Diplomacy can work in Iran. It has worked in the past. It can 
work again in the future.
    I want to go back--the Obama Administration worked with a 
global coalition to create the JCPOA. Subsequently, Iran 
relinquished their entire stockpile of enriched uranium and 
accepted a comprehensive inspection regime, preventing the 
terrifying prospect of a nuclear armed Iran. Now, former 
President Trump decided to approach foreign policy, essentially 
with a sledgehammer. Despite the explicit protests of his own 
Secretary of Defense, former President Trump pulled the U.S. 
out of the Iran deal to replace it with his maximum pressure 
campaign, and Trump's campaign did not work. As we have 
discussed this hearing, his actions instead alienated American 
allies and empowered Iran on the global stage. During the rest 
of the Trump Administration, Iran started enriching uranium to 
weapons levels again, so much so that when President Biden 
entered office, he faced the Iran that said far closer to a 
nuclear weapon than any time under the JCPOA. So, whatever the 
Majority witnesses may say, those are actually the facts.
    Now, most importantly, the Biden Administration has 
prioritized bringing Americans home. The repressive regime has 
a long history of taking hostages, dating back many decades. 
This practice has acted as a thorn in the side of every 
president since, and President Biden has risen to the occasion, 
negotiating safe return for five more Americans just this week. 
Now, the Biden Administration is bringing Americans home and 
also trying, of course, to create oversight for Iran's own 
funds. Now, both the U.S. Government and our allies will have 
oversight to make sure that the funds only go toward food, 
medicine, and medical devices. The Administration is using 
every tool possible to make this world more stable and bring 
Americans home safely.
    As I said at the outset, diplomacy is hard work on the 
world stage. You are forced to engage leaders whose values and 
actions could be different, of course, than our very own. But 
the focus must be on American lives, which is precisely the 
priority of the Biden Administration. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. The Iranian regime continues to 
fund and supply terrorist organizations, fuel regional proxy 
wars, kidnap American citizens for ransom, and enrich uranium 
with the intent to successfully develop a nuclear weapon. This 
hearing has highlighted the need for continued congressional 
oversight over the Biden Administration's policies toward 
Iran's hostile regime. The Subcommittee will also continue to 
monitor developments surrounding the mysterious removal of 
President Biden's Special Envoy to Iran, Robert Malley, and the 
revocation of his security clearance.
    Thank you to all our Members who participated in today's 
hearing, and I would like to thank our witnesses for spending 
so much time with me, and I know this started later than you 
thought it would.
    With that, and without objection, all Members will have 5 
legislative days within which to submit materials and to submit 
additional written questions for the witnesses, which will be 
forwarded to the witnesses for their response.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
joint Subcommittee hearing stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:31 p.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]