[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ISRAEL AND THE MIDDLE EAST AT A CROSS-
ROADS: HOW TEHRAN'S TERROR CAMPAIGN
THREATENS THE U.S. AND OUR ALLIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST, NORTH
AFRICA, AND CENTRAL ASIA
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
September 19, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-133
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,
or http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
63-342 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey GREGORY MEEKS, New York, Ranking
JOE WILSON, South Carolina Member
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania BRAD SHERMAN, California
DARRELL ISSA, California GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
ANN WAGNER, Missouri WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
BRIAN MAST, Florida AMI BERA, California
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee DINA TITUS, Nevada
ANDY BARR, Kentucky TED LIEU, California
RONNY JACKSON, Texas SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
YOUNG KIM, California DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida COLIN ALLRED, Texas
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan ANDY KIM, New Jersey
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, SARA JACOBS, California
American Samoa KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio Florida
JIM BAIRD, Indiana GREG STANTON, Arizona
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
THOMAS KEAN, JR., New Jersey JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
CORY MILLS, Florida SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia JIM COSTA, California
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas JASON CROW, Colorado
JOHN JAMES, Michigan KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
KEITH SELF, Texas BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam
Brendan Shields, Majority Staff Director
Sophia Lafargue, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST, NORTH AFRICA, AND CENTRAL ASIA
JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman
BRIAN MAST, Florida DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota, Ranking
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee Member
RONNY JACKSON, Texas BRAD SHERMAN, California
JIM BAIRD, Indiana GERALD CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
RICH MCCORMICK, Georgia GABRIEL AMO, Rhode Island
Gabriella Zach Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
REPRESENTATIVES
Page
Opening Statement of Opening Statement of Representative Tim
Burchett....................................................... 1
Opening Statement of Subcommittee Ranking Member Dean Phillips... 3
WITNESSES
Statement of Hon. Elliott Abrams, Former Deputy Assistant to the
President, and Deputy National Security Advisor................ 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 8
Statement of Kirsten Fontenrose, Former Senior Director for the
Gulf, National Security Council................................ 13
Prepared Statement............................................. 15
Statement of Carrie Filipetti, Executive Director The Vandenberg
Coalition...................................................... 23
Prepared Statement............................................. 25
Statement of Jonathan Lord, Senior Fellow and Director, Middle
East Security, Center for a New American Security.............. 33
Prepared Statement............................................. 35
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 70
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 72
Hearing Attendance............................................... 73
Questions for the record
Questions to Jonathan Lord submitted by Rep. Phillips............ 74
ISRAEL AND THE MIDDLE EAST AT A CROSSROADS: HOW TEHRAN'S TERROR
CAMPAIGN THREATENS THE U.S. AND OUR ALLIES
----------
Thursday, September 19, 2024
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Middle East, North Africa and
Central Asia,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson
(chairman of the subcommittee)
Mr. Burchett [presiding]. The Subcommittee on the Middle
East, North Africa, and Central Asia will come to order.
Obviously, I am not Joe Wilson. He had a health issue. He is
back with us, I saw him at prayer group this morning, and it is
probably out of order, but if it would be all right if I could
just offer a prayer for Joe and his continued healing? If we
bow our heads?
Dear Lord, we thank you for this committee. I thank you for
my co-chair Representative Phillips, and I appreciate you, I
thank you for our brother Joe, and we ask you Lord for his
continued healing. In Christ's name I pray. Amen.
All right, the purpose of this hearing is to examine the
unprecedented development of open, direct conflict between Iran
and Israel, and other regional changes as we approach the first
anniversary of Hamas' October 7th brutal attack on Israel. I
now recognize myself for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE TIM BURCHETT
I would like to remind my friends in the audience that
disruption of the committee proceedings is against the law.
Holding up signs or making verbal outbursts during the
proceedings is disruptive and it will not be tolerated. Any
disruptions will result in a suspension of the proceedings
until the Capitol Police can restore order.
All right, and now here is my opening statement. Again, I
am not as polished as Joe is, but I will limp through it. First
I want to wish, as I stated earlier, a speedy recovery to our
dear friend Chairman Joe Wilson. And we all know he had a
health episode last week. I think we say health episode because
we don't want to discuss what it was, but by saying that
everybody says, what the heck happened to Joe?
And then we talk more about it, so--but I saw him this
morning, he is on the mend. We all wish him well and hope that
he can be back here soon since he is a leader on many important
issues, including the need to deter Iran and its proxies in the
Middle East. I want to thank our witnesses for being here
today, as we examine the Middle East 1 year after Hamas'
devastating October 7th attack, and assess the damage and
instability caused by Iran and its terrorist proxies.
On October 7th, Iran-backed Hamas terrorists murdered 1,200
innocent people, and took 250 hostages, including American
citizens. We cannot discuss the Middle East today without
acknowledging this unprovoked, evil massacre by Hamas. We need
to remember the absolute cruelty which Hamas terrorists crossed
the border into Israel, attacked innocent families, sexually
assaulted people, burned them alive, and took young children
hostage.
Acknowledging this kind of evil is key to understanding why
Israel had to undertake an operation in Gaza to rescue the
hostage and eliminate the threat posed by Hamas. For decades
Iran has been arming and enabling terrorist proxies throughout
the Middle East. It has provided them with the weapons,
training, and financing to attack the United States, Israel,
and our partners.
Since October 7th we have seen these proxies unleashed.
Hezbollah is launching nearly daily attacks on Israel. The
Houthis are regularly launching missiles and drone attacks on
international shipping in the Red Sea, and even at Israel.
Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria have launched over 170
attacks on American servicemembers who are stationed in the
Middle East to ensure the defeat of ISIS.
And, for the first time, Iran launched a direct massive
missile and drone attack on Israel, and is threatening to
attack Israel again. Iran is not deterred, Hezbollah is not
deterred, the Houthis are not deterred, Hamas is not deterred,
the militias in Iraq and Syria are not deterred.
The Biden-Harris administration has not punished any of
these terrorists for their violence. The administration's
policy to attempt de-escalation puts America on the defensive.
We are focused on blocking and tackling, when we should be on
the offensive, squeezing our adversaries where it hurts. The
result is weakness and vulnerability for the United States and
our allies. We urgently need to change course.
Just last week, after waiting 5 months, the President
finally took a necessary step toward implementing the 21st
Century Peace through Strength Act that Congress enacted in
April. This law contains a wide range of sanctions, authorities
to counter international financing of Hamas, to counter Iran's
missile and drone program, to counter China's purchase of
Iranian oil, and to hold the Iranian regime accountable for its
brutal human rights abuses against its own people. The
administration needs to comply with the law and fully implement
these sanctions.
Today our witnesses will provide us stark assessments of
the entire Iran threat, including the nuclear program,
missiles, and drones, terrorism, human rights abuses, and
assassination plots. Our witnesses will also tell us how we
should change the administration's ineffective strategy to
actually deal with these threats. Strongly worded statements
are not cutting it, they are still lobbing drones, missiles,
and rockets at our friends, we need a new plan, and we need it
now.
I now turn to the ranking member, my dear friend Dean
Phillips, for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER DEAN PHILLIPS
Mr. Phillips. I never thought I would get to say Chairman
Burchett. Thank you.
Mr. Burchett. Yes, well, it probably won't ever happen
again, I can tell you that. And I wanted to say something, I am
not cutting in on your time, but I guess I am, but as chairman,
I hold the gavel, I can do that--apparently I had the wrong
meeting room. So, I went down and greeted the witnesses in
another thing, and I am sure they are all sitting there going
hey, you are not my chairman, Tim Burchett just came by and
said he was my chairman.
So, anyway, and I didn't get to say hey to you all, so,
hey, so here I am. Anyway, Dean, sorry, brother.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will ask for
another minute at the end of my remarks.
Mr. Burchett. You got it.
Mr. Phillips. Greetings, especially to our witnesses, to my
colleagues, to the wonderful staff that populate both sides of
this committee aisle, and to those of you in attendance, staff
members, and people passionate about peace who might see this
issue slightly differently, but I know that ultimately we are
all aligned. And I also want to wish Joe Wilson, my friend, my
colleague, a remarkable man, a speedy recovery.
I can assure you that even after a health episode, the man
can run circles around most of us, and we are thinking of him.
As we approach the horrid anniversary of October 7th, the
massacre in Israel in which Hamas murdered 1,200 people,
including young teenagers at a music festival, took 250
hostages, 101 we believe still remain in Gaza today, and that
includes American citizens.
And I would ask that all of us be considerate of the fact
that American citizens are being held by this terror
organization in the tunnels of Gaza. It feels like the ground
has shifted under our very feet, and the realities with which
we were grappling with a year ago have morphed and expanded as
the region now sits at the precipice. Well before October 7th
Iran has threatened U.S. national security interests and
regional stability, in fact, since 1979.
It has continued to advance its nuclear program despite a
June censure from the IAEA Board of Governors, and Secretary
Blinken has also stated that Iran's nuclear breakout time is
between one and 2 weeks. I will say that again: between one and
2 weeks. While the election of President Pezeshkian provides an
interesting opportunity to explore a diplomatic path forward
with Iran, they are a nuclear threshold State, and allowing
that is unacceptable.
Iran has also increased cooperation with Russia on issues
ranging from avoiding economic sanctions, obstructing
accountability at the United Nations, and advancing military
technology and weapons. Just last week Secretary Blinken
confirmed that Iran has indeed transferred ballistic missiles
to Russia for use in its illegal and unjust war in Ukraine.
This is an axis of evil.
The burgeoning relationship is deeply concerning, and I
look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how the
administration and Congress can best work together in a
bipartisan fashion to ensure that our approach to Iran is
coordinated to advance our strategic goals. The threat of
Iran's so called shadow war has come out into the open since
its unprecedented direct attack on Israel on April 14 of this
year.
Even as it continues to establish and enable proxies to
attack U.S. personnel and Israel by air, land, and sea. Over
the past year we have witnessed the Houthis, the Iranian backed
terrorist organization in Yemen, attack military and commercial
vessels in the Red Sea almost 200 times, threatening
international trade, and freedom of navigation. Hezbollah too
has chosen to join the fray with an estimated 120-to 200,000
missiles and rockets in its arsenal to attack Israel and
Israeli civilians.
Hundreds of thousands of civilians on both sides of the
Israel-Lebanon border have been displaced, and cannot return
home, cannot attend school, cannot live because of the
continued violence. The United States is working diligently to
de-escalate tension, reinforce Lebanon's sovereignty, and
maintain strong support for the LAF, the Lebanese Armed Forces,
which are a critical component to full implementation of U.N.
Security Council Resolution 1701.
As these fronts continue to develop, another is emerging.
Militants in the West Bank are linking up with Iran for weapons
and funding in ways that we have not seen before. This is
worrisome, and threatens stability and security in the entire
region. But these militants are not the only threats to
stability and security. Leaders within the current Israeli
coalition are withholding tax dollars due to the Palestinian
authority, delegitimizing its leadership, and emboldening
extremist Israeli settlers attacking Palestinian civilians,
equally unacceptable.
I am pleased that the Biden administration issued an
executive order which authorizes sanction against any foreign
person responsible for actions that threaten the peace,
security, or stability in the West Bank. It is my hope and
expectation that current sanctions are only the beginning of
more serious measures to be taken against those, any of those
who seek to escalate fear and violence against human beings in
the area.
President Biden, along with our Egyptian and Qatari
partners have been working diligently to bridge the remaining
gaps, and bring an immediate cease-fire in Gaza that would see
the release of all the remaining hostages, and a surge of
humanitarian assistance to Palestinian civilians. The third
stage of the proposed plan is to begin major Gaza
reconstruction.
President Biden has rightfully stated that Hamas cannot and
will not be able to govern Gaza following a cease-fire. That
creates more questions, what would a governing authority look
like, who would be responsible for security? The answers to
those questions require leaders across the region, including
Israel, in particular Prime Minister Netanyahu, to set aside
personal gain, and act in the best interest of Israelis,
Palestinians, and human beings around the world.
Put plainly, without a cease-fire, without tangible steps
toward a two-State solution, Israel loses, and Iran wins. Today
I have laid out the serious threat that Iran and its proxies
pose to the United States and Israel. But I also believe that
the best way to counter Iran's malign behavior, to
fundamentally undermine its destructive mission, is for Israel
to deepen its cooperation with like-minded countries in the
region.
To normalize with Saudi Arabia, and to live side by side in
peace and security with its Palestinian brothers and sisters.
When I started my remarks, I said the Middle East was on the
precipice, but the precipice of what? The Biden administration
has successfully avoided a regional escalation since Hamas'
attack on October 7, but time is running out. The region could
easily devolve into chaos with Israel and the U.S. facing down
adversaries on multiple fronts.
Or its leaders could choose a different path, a path that
would leave Israel and the wider region in peace, and security,
and stability. I hope, and I indeed pray for the sake of
Israel, and for the region, and for Palestinians that we choose
partnership, that we choose hope, and that we choose peace.
Last, I want to note that we have uncovered Iran's
intention and success in manipulating and influencing our
elections. It is appalling, it is reprehensible, and we must,
and I know we will work in a bipartisan fashion to counter
these threats to democracy both here and around the world.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time that I no
longer have.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you to Ranking Member Phillips, my co-
chair, I guess would be all right.
Mr. Phillips. Well, you just gave me a promotion.
Mr. Burchett. Yes, I did, I don't care, you don't get any
more pay. We are also pleased to have our distinguished
witnesses with us today, Hon. Elliott Abrams, thank you,
brother, former deputy assistant to the President, and national
security advisor. We also have Ms. Kirsten Fontenrose. Did I
get that right, ma'am? All right, you know you have got a
doppelganger back in Knoxville, Tennessee, there is a lady I
know, I went to school with her.
And if you ever get in trouble, you say it wasn't me, it
was Tim Burchett's friend back in Knoxville, Tennessee that did
it, you look very much like her, and I looked up, and I thought
dadgum what is she doing here? But obviously it is not her. And
then you are the former senior director for the Gulf at the
National Security Council, did I get that right? All right.
And now I am going massacre this poor lady's name, we
welcome Ms. Carrie Filipetti. Did I get it? Wow, well I am
Burchett, and nobody has ever gotten it right. She is--hang on,
let Jesse rob this train, hang on. Executive director of the
Vandenberg Coalition. Finally we have Mr. Jonathan Lord, I got
that one right. Senior fellow and director for Middle East
Security with the Center for a New American Security.
I want to thank you all for being here today, your full
statements will be made part of the record, and I will ask you
to keep your spoken remarks to 5 minutes, which my friend Dean
Phillips did not follow obviously, in order to allow time for
members' questions.
And I now recognize Hon. Elliott Abrams for his opening
statement. Thank you, brother, for being here.
STATEMENT OF HON. ELLIOTT ABRAMS
Mr. Abrams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thanks for the
invitation to testify today. The United States, Israel, and our
allies face an increasingly complex terror network that allows
Iran and its proxies to share expertise, coordinate activities,
and collaborate on joint attacks. It has rightly been called
Iran's proliferation of chaos. Iran's ability to disrupt peace,
and to help the countries most hostile to the U.S. does not end
at the borders of the Middle East.
As has been noted, just this month the U.S. Government
informed of Iran's shipment of hundreds of short range
ballistic missiles to Russia for use in attacking Ukraine.
Those shipments are most significant for the Ukrainians they
will kill. But there should be a clear message to us about the
nature of the Iranian regime. And all these activities are
being conducted by an Iranian regime without nuclear weapons.
What would they be doing if they had a nuclear umbrella,
and felt they could be even bolder? But the Iranian nuclear
program continues to expand, and quickly. Mr. Chairman, like
you, I do not believe the U.S. and our allies have responded
adequately to Iran's actions. Consider the Houthis, the
Houthis' impact on international trade and commerce: the
Houthis attacks have reduced ships going through, cargo going
through the Suez Canal by about 75 or 80 percent.
A recent article by former Navy Commander Tom Sharpe was
entitled the Houthis have defeated the U.S. Navy. The Houthis
have defeated the U.S. Navy. They have not been deterred, as
also has been noted by the defensive actions the U.S. and
allies have taken, which have failed. And the Houthis, now
emboldened, have ramped up their attacks. Drones and cruise
missiles are now accompanied by hijackings, and ballistic
missiles.
The Houthis are not producing advanced ballistic and cruise
missiles. Those are Iranian missiles given to the Houthis. So,
that interference with international shipping is a product of
Iranian foreign policy. But Iran has paid no price for it. As
to the sale of ballistic missiles to Russia, significant
consequences were promised, that was the phrase.
Where are they? Will Iran pay a price? Iran has paid no
significant price for its April attack on Israel. Iran has paid
no significant price thus far for its defiance of the
International Atomic Energy Agency and its buildup of a
stockpile, as noted, that would allow it to build several
nuclear weapons in just a few weeks. Oil sanctions are on the
books, but they are not really being enforced, and Iran is
selling more and more oil.
I don't think, Mr. Chairman, that that should lead us to
just wring our hands, I think it should lead us to act. We can
prevent these activities, because Iran's leaders are evil, but
they are rational. They respond to actions that threaten their
interests, and they respect American power. So, what should be
done? First, I think both candidates for the presidency should
repeat what President Biden and his predecessors have said:
That the United States will not permit Iran to get a nuclear
weapon. Second, both CENTCOM and the U.S. Navy believe our
ships are sitting ducks for the Houthis, and are dissatisfied
with the way the U.S. has allowed Iran to close international
waterways. CENTCOM commander Eric Kurilla wrote in a classified
letter that was reported in the press, U.S. service members
will die if we continue going this way.
And he argued for a more forceful response. We need that
more forceful response. We need to make it clear to Iran that
if an American ship is hit, the U.S. retaliation will be
against Iran, not its expendable Houthis. Again, Iran's leaders
are evil, but they are rational. I would like to close with one
point. It is important to remember that Iranians have not
chosen that regime, the regime that rules them.
The Iranian people loathe that regime, and they repeatedly
risk their lives to rise up against it. The ultimate solution
to the problem of Iran is democracy. When the Iranian people
are free to govern themselves, Iran will have a different
government, and a different foreign policy. So, we should do
all we reasonably can to help them bring that day nearer. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of The Honorable Elliott Abrams
follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Abrams.
I now recognize Ms. Kirsten Fontenrose for her opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF KIRSTEN FONTENROSE
Ms. Fontenrose. Chairman Burchett, Ranking Member Phillips,
and esteemed members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you about the accelerating threat to
long term U.S. interests posed by Iran and its armed
underlings. For over a decade CENTCOM has consistently
described Iran as the primary destabilizing force in the Middle
East.
Ten years ago, when Secretary Austin was CENTCOM commander,
he cited Iran's proxy networks and its support for terrorism as
major challenges. Since then Iran has throttled up these
programs with the explicit goal of eradicating U.S. influence
in and access to the Middle East. Despite the headlines, the
peril from Iran is not rooted in Gaza. If the conflict ends
tomorrow, Iran's foreign policy will continue to demand
policymaker attention.
We will still be confronted by the IRGC and their cohorts
in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, by a nuclear program holding us
in a State of paralysis, by missiles that are approaching
hypersonic, and drones that are as fast as cruise missiles, by
arm sales that directly threaten Ukraine, a crippling of global
democracy--I am sorry, commerce, cyber warfare threatening the
democratic process, and information warfare targeting the
social cohesion of our communities.
The only domain in which we are not in a low simmer war
with Iran right now is space, and that is likely temporary.
Iran launched four satellites this year, cozy relations with
China and Russia could bring access to troubling space tools.
Because of growth in their missile and drone programs,
accelerated by the lax of U.N. sanctions and provisions in U.N.
SCR 2231 in 2020 and 2023, Iran is now able to deliver lethal
effects to every country in the Middle East.
They have amped up their capabilities in terms of small
arms, long range missiles, attack drones. Next year will
unleash their nuclear program, and its collaborative work with
our adversaries if we do not trigger snap back. Should Iran
cross the threshold of nuclear weaponization, the risk of
deadly escalation in any exchange of missile fire between Iran
and Israel will spike because of payload uncertainty.
Baring intelligence to the contrary, any nuclear capable
missile fired from Iran would be assumed to carry a nuclear
payload. To use an old school cold war term, the scenario is
mutually assured destruction. In my written testimony I offer
thoughts on potential actions to address these accelerating
risks, so let me briefly touch on two. First, Congress can
direct to draft an effort.
An effort to draft a unified long term strategy that will
guide interagency planning beyond a single administration, and
inspire partners to get on board. In the absence of a strategy
in the Gulf, of a strategy that will endure, let's say for more
than 3 years, partners like the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, and
perhaps soon Bahrain, are backed into positions of
vulnerability, walking-back policies that economically and
informationally isolated Iran and its vassals in the region.
Ask CENTCOM how much harder the lack of such a strategy has
made their work on integrated air and missile defense. The
region and Europe are clamoring for this. The U.S. cannot
operate around the world without building coalitions, and we
cannot build coalitions without a plan.
Coalition members can be incentivized by including
countries on programs just out of the gate, like the
Comprehensive Security Integration and Prosperity Agreement
with Bahrain, and the mil-to-mil, and intel sharing benefits
proposed in the LINK and AI Accords Acts. Second, protecting
freedom of navigation and global shipping lanes is a primary
U.S. national security objective as stated in our national
security strategy and national defense strategy.
It is quite literally the reason we have the Navy, and yet
we are not authorizing our Navy to do it. The Houthis in Yemen
are intransigent in political negotiations, they have learned
from Iran that keeping the U.S. in political talks on the one
hand allows you to conduct acts of terrorism with full impunity
on the other. To quote a senior Yemeni official in a
conversation I had yesterday, there is an entire generation
being mobilized and trained for holy wars.
All six types of anti-ship ballistic missiles, and four of
the six types of cruise missiles used by the Houthis in
attacking ships in the Red Sea are provided by Iran, or fitted
with Iranian guidance kits. What will DoD and Congress tell the
American people when an Arleigh Burke Class destroyer with over
300 sailors onboard bursts into flames, hit by one of their
missiles, because we only allowed DoD to catch fly balls and
not go to bat. In support of U.N. SCR 2624, which labels the
Houthis as terrorists, and reinforces the arms embargo, and
acknowledging the defense of people and interests permitted by
Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, it is time to mobilize partners
to do more to interdict weapons, support local forces in Yemen
to do more to challenge the Houthi position that enables their
strikes, and here is where tables get flipped.
Pass an AUMF for limited scope geographically and time
bound operations that de-fang the Iranian proxy most directly
threatening U.S. interests. What is at risk if we do not
professionalize our approach to the regime in Iran? It is
access to energy that will drive our economy for at least
several decades, access to resources and alliances while we
compete for economic and perhaps military primacy against
multiple bully states increasingly aligned in the singular goal
to unseat us.
And access to shape the widening world views of countries
that were so closed for so long. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Kirsten Fontenrose follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, ma'am. I think you did that all
without taking a breath, pretty dadgum good.
Ms. Fontenrose. High school debater, sir.
Mr. Burchett. Say that again? High school debate, OK, right
on. I now recognize Ms. Carrie Filipetti for her opening
statement. Ma'am?
STATEMENT OF CARRIE FILIPETTI
Ms. Filipetti. Chairman Burchett, Ranking Member Phillips,
distinguished members of this committee, I want to begin first
by joining you in wishing for the continued recovery of
Chairman Wilson, whose leadership of this committee has been
instrumental in protecting American interests. It is my honor
to testify today on the threat Iran poses to United States
interests.
While both the chairman and the ranking member have
mentioned a key anniversary, that is the 1-year anniversary of
the Iranian backed October 7 terrorist attack in Israel, there
are two other anniversaries that should frame our discussion
today. The first is the 2-year anniversary of the Iranian
regime's murder of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, as well as the 30-
year anniversary of the Iranian-backed terrorist attack on a
Jewish community center in Argentina that killed 85 people.
Collectively, these three anniversaries demonstrate the reach
of the Iranian threat: That of the regime itself against its
own people, that of its proxies in the Middle East, and that of
its proxies around the world.
While my co-panelists have thus far done an exceptional job
highlighting the regime's threat in the Middle East, I want to
focus a little bit on a threat closer to home. That is in Latin
America and the Caribbean. Here, Iran is attempting to exploit
both the growing presence in the region, as well as an
unprecedented border crisis to pose a direct threat to American
security.
The Iranian regime has long recognized the importance of
gaining a foothold in our hemisphere from which to counter
American influence and threaten American lives. Over the years
Iran has used this influence to radicalize populations, fund
terrorist activities, and transfer weapons into the hands of
authoritarian regimes or terrorist leaders. Iran pursues
radicalization using a network of so-called cultural centers,
embassies, and propaganda outlets.
One key example is Al-Mustafa University, an Iranian backed
export agency for Islamist propaganda that is now in over 50
countries, and which was sanctioned in 2020 for its active role
in recruiting for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Outside of these formal programs, Iranian terrorists disguised
as diplomats are deployed around the region to recruit for
terrorist activities.
Including Mohsen Rabbani, the supposed Iranian cultural
attache to Argentina, who recruited for Hezbollah's 1994 Jewish
community center attack I mentioned before. Finally, Iran uses
HispanTV, its regime run Spanish language media arm, to spread
anti-American propaganda across the 17 countries in which it
now operates. Iran also seeks to undermine the United States
through weapons transfers with authoritarian regimes.
Regular flights between Tehran and Caracas have been
suspected of carrying either terrorists or arms shipments
between the two nations. For example, earlier this year the
United States completed the forfeiture of a plane formerly
owned by U.S. sanctioned Mahan Air, and piloted by an ex
commander of the IRGC. There is public speculation that the
plane may have been bringing weapons to conducting terror
attacks in the region on the anniversary of that Jewish
community center bombing.
As the Department of Justice noted in a recent House
Homeland Security Committee hearing, it is clear the Iranians
are determined to carry out attacks in the United States, and
it is further clear that Iran sees Latin America and the
Caribbean as key in that effort. Fortunately, Congress has
recognized this threat. It is thanks to Congress that Iran's
threat in the Western Hemisphere specifically was made public
through the passage of the Countering Iran in the Western
Hemisphere Act of 2012.
It is thanks to Congress in imposing comprehensive
sanctions in 2012 that Iran was forced to the negotiating table
around its nuclear program. And it is thanks to Congress that
we have new authorities in countering Iran's malign influence
throughout the world through this year's passage of the MAHSA
Act, the Fight CRIME Act, and the SHIP Act.
But as important as Congress has been in countering Iran in
the past, it will be equally significant going forward. So,
rather than just admire the problem, as my co-panelists have
done as well, I am going to offer a few recommendations. First,
as Mr. Abrams noted, we must respond when American citizens or
our allies are attacked. American assets have been targeted
over 175 times since October 7, 2023, which doesn't even
include the 43 American citizens who were slaughtered by Hamas
on that day alone. By contrast, we have only responded 11
times, despite historical evidence laid out in my written
testimony that strength is the best deterrent against Iranian
aggression. Second, we must encourage our European partners to
trigger U.N. Resolution 2231 snap back provisions before their
expiration in October of next year, or risk losing key
capabilities in the fight against Iranian terrorism and nuclear
weapons development. Third, we must demand executive branch
compliance with existing Iran related legislation. And fourth,
we should make sure that we combine this maximum pressure
campaign with maximum support for the Iranian people. More
recommendations are laid out in my written testimony.
I am deeply grateful for the bipartisan commitment to
protecting American lives from the Iranian threat shown by this
Congress. Thank you for the opportunity to share both the
severity of the threat, and some proposed solutions. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Carrie Filipetti follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Lord, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN LORD
Mr. Lord. Chairman Burchett, Ranking Member Phillips,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today. This is the second
opportunity I have had to come before this August body as an
expert witness, and it is my honor to do so, especially
alongside such esteemed colleagues. First, allow me to express
my best wishes to Chairman Wilson.
My thoughts are with him and his family, and I pray he has
a full and speedy recovery. Today's subject is challenging,
both as a problem for policy, and as an issue that carries
great emotional weight. With respect to the complexity,
nuances, and breadth of today's subject, I would ask that my
written testimony be made part of the record. As a policy CNAS
does not take institutional positions.
So, my testimony today will reflect my personal positions
and perspectives based on my professional experience. My
testimony today will be guided by the spirit of comity and
bipartisanship that has long undergirded the critical work of
this subcommittee. I firmly believe there has and continues to
be a bipartisan throughline in American foreign policy in the
Middle East.
The continue provision of unwavering support to our close
partner nation Israel. The continued integration of Israel into
the broader region, resolution of the Israel Palestinian
conflict that delivers peace, security, dignity, justice, and
self-determination for all. And the deterrence, containment,
and if necessary, confrontation of an Iranian regime that
continues to meddle with and undermine the stability of its
neighbors.
Supports violent proxies, partner forces, and terrorist
groups, proliferates weapons to enemies of peace and
adversaries of democracy, and the rules based order, threatens
harm, and plots against Americans, and advances the development
of a nuclear program toward the creation of an Iran nuclear
weapon. A weapon which Democrats and Republicans agree that
Iran must never be allowed to obtain.
In the Middle East, the events of the last 11 months have
been wrenching. Beginning with Hamas' savage attack on Israel
on October 7, 2023, Israel is consumed by a conflict against
Hamas in Gaza that it did not choose, yielding devastating
consequences on millions of civilians. The steady escalation of
violence throughout the region by Iran's proxies and partners
continues to displace tens of thousands in Northern Israel,
hold the maritime domain under threat in the Red Sea, and has
risked the lives of U.S. service members.
Iran continues to methodically advance toward a nuclear
weapon through the stockpiling of highly enriched uranium. It
has solidified its axis of upheaval with Russia, China, and
North Korea, combining their nation's respective resources and
competitive strengths to produce, and proliferate deadly drones
and missiles, evade western sanctions, and bolster their
resilience.
All in an effort to dominate their respective regions, and
undermine the rules based order which has allowed the United
States and free nations around the world to succeed and prosper
since the end of the Second World War. The last 11 months have
been a cavalcade of misery which mercilessly continues, and
shows few signs of abating.
My written testimony includes recommendations for U.S.
policy, and encourages lawmakers to come together with the
executive branch in a good faith effort to reach consensus on a
bipartisan approach to advancing U.S. national security
objectives. The Middle East is experiencing a geopolitical
moment of sustained tension and consequence which requires
unflinching, thoughtful, and unified American leadership.
Reaching bipartisan consensus on U.S. policy in the region
is attainable, and very much worth pursuing. My written
testimony includes two thematic areas as points of departure to
consider for the creation of a bipartisan Middle East strategy
to meet the moment, a modified approach to the Israel-
Palestinian conflict, and a new bipartisan strategy on Iran.
In conclusion, let me share that it is customary in Judaism
that when someone dies, we mourn them. Typically Jews mourn for
7 days, commonly known as sitting shiva. There are mourning
rituals that extend 30 days, shloshim. However, when Jews lose
a close loved one like a parent, they mourn for a year, shnat
ha-evel, the year of mourning. For those who lost their love
ones on October 7, 2023, the end of the year of mourning is
approaching.
While 1,200 people lost their lives in Hamas' unspeakable
crime that day, the past year has only brought continued misery
and death for Israelis, Palestinians, and others throughout the
region. But soon the first of the mourners will end their
ritual, and attempt to move forward. This act serves to remind
me that following even the most unimaginable tragedies, there
is opportunity for renewal, growth, and a better future.
Similarly in the wake of October 7, the ongoing Israel-
Hamas war, and the regional insecurity enabled by Iran,
America's policy and legislative leaders too must look forward
and seek renewal. Together you can advance a strategy to secure
America's national security in the Middle East, and those of
our partners and allies. Thank you, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Jonathan Lord follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, brother, appreciate you all very
much. Let's see.
Yes, now I recognize myself, which I always think is an odd
thing to say, looking in a mirror, hey, it is me, I am very
good looking, I realize that, thank you. Ms. Fontenrose, sorry,
these glasses I have got to adjust. There was minimal response
to Iran's attack on Israel earlier this year, do you believe
that Iran has been deterred from launching another attack?
Ms. Fontenrose. Mr. Chairman, I absolutely do not. I think
that first attack was a test of Israel's air defenses, and a
test of the network that the U.S. has put in place to help
defend Israel and other partners in the region. I think we are
definitely looking at a round two of some sort once Iran
reassesses, checks the reliability of its weapon stockpiles,
since many of them failed during that attack.
And they may choose to operate in another way, we could see
attacks elsewhere globally, it may not be the same kind of
attack, but this is not over.
Mr. Burchett. The economics of that attack were it was
basically sending a quarter over the border, and then firing a
ten dollar bill at them, is that about your assumption of it?
Ms. Fontenrose. The proportion is probably even worse to be
honest.
Mr. Burchett. Yes, probably worse, that is what I thought.
Is there a direct correlation, ma'am, between the attacks on
Israel, and the Biden-Harris administration's lack of oil
sanctions enforcement on Iran?
Ms. Fontenrose. It is understood that the funds that Iran
receives from oil transactions are fungible, and are often
redirected to the IRGC, which does put these funds into attack
operations, and into funding proxies, and arming them with
additional weapons.
Mr. Burchett. All right. Mr. Abrams, what role is Iran
playing in arming the Houthis?
Mr. Abrams. It is fundamental, Mr. Chairman. They don't
have the ability to create any kind of advanced weaponry, for
example ballistic missiles. So, it is not true that they could
do nothing without Iranian help, but without Iranian money,
training, know how, and actual weaponry, the threat from the
Houthis would be minimal.
Mr. Burchett. All right, they're just in those jon boats
running around chasing big boats basically with .22 rifles, and
they have armed them with modern warfare. The Houthis have
already attacked Israel as you know, do you think they will try
to do so again?
Mr. Abrams. Yes, the Israelis struck back at Hodeidah, the
port, and there is at least some hope that that was a strong
enough response to teach the Houthis a lesson. But I think in
the passage of time they will do it. What concerns me also is
they are attacking us, and we have not responded as sharply as
the Israelis have.
Mr. Burchett. OK. How should the U.S. change our policy to
put an end to the threat that the Houthis pose?
Mr. Abrams. I am not sure we can put an end to it in the
sense of absolutely nothing else, but above all I think this
wouldn't be happening without Iran. We let the Iranians get
away with this without paying a price, to me, that is critical.
Iran has to pay a price. If a Houthi missile hits, as Kirsten
Fontenrose said, hits an American destroyer and kills
Americans, that is because the Iranians gave them that missile.
I think we need to make it clear to the Iranians right now
if that ever happens, and we hope and pray it doesn't, the
response will be against Iran.
Mr. Burchett. What would that look like, in your opinion?
Mr. Abrams. Well, you have a wide range, but if an American
ship is hit you can go from something like hitting, depending
on how much damage is done, buoys off the coast of Iran, you
could hit an Iranian ship, you could hit an Iranian naval base,
there is a wide spectrum. And I think we should be letting the
Iranians know right now that will be the response.
Mr. Burchett. What threat do they pose in the next years if
we do not successfully put an end to their actions?
Mr. Abrams. They have the ability over the next few years
to build a nuclear weapon. That presumably emboldens them. So,
with their network of proxies, it is a greater threat to
Jordan, which right now they are trying to subvert. It is a
greater threat to Israel through West Bank, it is a greater
threat to our allies in the Gulf. And it is a greater threat to
the U.S. Navy and to international commerce.
It is only going to grow as their oil revenue grows, and
they get bolder.
Mr. Burchett. Okay, thank you. I have got 20 seconds left,
and I am going to yield that time to my good friend Brad
Sherman from California. Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. We all pray for the health of Joe Wilson, and
glad to see he is back on the Hill. We have heard it declared
for five or 10 years pounding the table, America says Iran will
not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Been around here almost
as long as Mr. Abrams, and remember that over 100 times America
said with great determination North Korea will not be allowed
to have nuclear weapons.
Solemn statements even by a powerful country are basically
meaningless. With regard to oil sanctions, that means higher
prices for Americans, something that I think we should be
willing to deal with, because our security comes first. But it
works only if countries around the world will acquiesce. We
don't import any Iranian oil, can we tell China and India not
to import any oil?
We were able to do that by threatening to cutoff all
countries with transactions involving the U.S. dollar. Back
just a decade or so ago, the U.S. dollar was absolutely
formidable in international transactions. Today the crypto bros
declare they are trying to destroy that power of America. They
are partially successful, and they have bought a lot of friends
here on Capitol Hill.
We renounced the JCPOA in a way that undermines our ability
to convince other countries not to by Iranian oil, even if we
pressure them. The Houthi have not just cutoff trade to Europe,
food from Russia and Ukraine needs to get to the poorest
countries that border the Indian Ocean. Many people are living
on two meals a day instead of three because of what the Houthi
have done.
The number of deaths that will cause will never be
reported, but people living on two meals a day die more than
those who live on three meals a day. These deaths will probably
exceed the number who die in Gaza, and blood stains the hands
of Houthi supporters around the world. Just as the hands of
Hezbollah supporters are stained by the over 250 Americans
Hezbollah has killed since 1983.
Some have asserted Biden has not punished Hamas and
Hezbollah, have you seen the pictures from Gaza? Whose weapons
are those? We provided $14.1 billion to Israel, and Israel is
doing a pretty good job of punishing Hamas and Hezbollah. The
best way not to have a nuclear Iran is not to have an Islamic
Republic in Iran, we need to see democracy, some of the
witnesses have said that.
The question is how do we get there? I won't ask for a
public question on this because it should be done secretly, but
we should be funding every major dissident group everywhere
inside and outside Iran that is dedicated to a democratic, non-
nuclear Iran. The future of the world may depend upon it, and
if we are spending money, we are not spending near enough.
We need to provide free internet, and use all of our
technology to make sure that the great internet wall of China
does not extend around Iran. But I want to shift to another
issue, and that is it is said well, what about the Saudi
nuclear program? Bin Salman says he wants the same deal as
Iran, of course he doesn't, he doesn't want American sanctions
and hatred, he just wants the same nuclear program.
Now, just because the Saudis are not Shiites does not make
them Zionists, but what really concerns is all the great
hardware that we shipped to the Shah was soon in the hands of
the Islamic Republic. Mr. Abrams, is Saudi Arabia becoming a
nuclear power in the interests of the United States?
Mr. Abrams. Saudi Arabia becoming a nuclear weapon State
is----
Mr. Sherman. Weapon State, yes.
Mr. Abrams. Certainly not in the interests of the United
States. Developing a nuclear energy program under a 123
agreement that does not permit enrichment, I think would be in
the interest of the United States.
Mr. Sherman. And they simply follow the same agreement that
the UAE entered into with us, they are here lobbying for less
control, why would they want that? Is there any benefit other
than the chance to become a nuclear power that Saudi Arabia
would get by watering down the 123 agreement model that we
signed with the UAE?
Mr. Abrams. Well, there is a problem, which is that we are
permitting Iran to enrich uranium, we did that under the JCPOA,
and the Saudis then asked well if your enemies can do it, how
come your friends can't do it?
Mr. Sherman. Well, our enemies get to be our enemies, and
we do many bad things to the Iranian government, and we should
be doing a lot more. And any funding we provide to dissident
groups ought to be done covertly. And I will point out, if you
want to know the weakness of Iran, look at what their
government does. Killing dissidents in Europe, trying to kill
them in the United States, killing their own people, they are
worried, and that tells us their vulnerability.
I yield back.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Sherman.
I now recognize Jim Baird of Indiana.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank our witnesses
for being here. My first question deals with the Washington
Post reported that Iran is pursuing partnerships with two
Chinese satellite companies, and Iran has previously sought
such support from Russian entities. So, how would this help
Iran expand its capability for remote surveillance, potentially
including high resolution images of military targets? And I am
going to start with Ms. Filipetti.
Ms. Filipetti. Thank you, Congressman. So, this is part of
how Iran is able to project power internationally through its
not only nuclear weapons program, which we have been discussing
already, but also through its coordination with other powers
like Russia and China. In particular, we have seen how Russia
has helped amplify the nuclear weapons program that Iran has
been producing.
And so, their coordination with China has also allowed them
to evade sanctions quite extensively. So, we know that their
coordination with both of these powers is intended to
antagonize the United States, and replace the American led
system. So, any additional access they have, particularly
coming from Chinese technology, which as we know is very
sophisticated in terms of its ability to surveil, is deeply
problematic.
And just to connect this back to the Western Hemisphere
component, which is what I always try to bring up, we have seen
how China is also trying to establish satellite connections
here, not only as it relates to surveillance systems in Cuba,
but also over Argentina, which means that if Iran has a
connection to Chinese satellites, then they may also have the
ability to monitor us here.
Mr. Baird. Ms. Fontenrose?
Ms. Fontenrose. I would agree with everything that Ms.
Filipetti just said. I would add that one option we also have
not considered is that Iran has a lot of commercial
availability as well. There are plenty of companies around the
world that sell to the Chinese and Russian government, and also
produce for other markets that are very capable of fairly good,
at least low earth orbit imagery, and surveillance is probably
the least of our worries.
Once Iran is able to surveil, the next step if they're
actually partnering with Russia and China on a space program is
weaponizing in space.
Mr. Baird. Mr. Abrams, do you want to add anything to that?
Mr. Abrams. No, thank you.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. Mr. Lord, do you want to add
anything?
Mr. Lord. I think it has all been quite well covered, but I
do think that the overriding point I think you will hear, is
that to think about Iran in isolation, or even the elements of
Iran's malign activities at this point, isn't just going to cut
it. Iran's capabilities are made worse and more powerful by its
cooperation with Russia, with China, with North Korea, as are
its proxies and partners.
And from here on out when we think about Iran strategy, it
implicates our China strategy, it implicates our Russia
strategy. These things can't be thought about in isolation
anymore. And I hope, as much of a fan as I was of our current
national defense strategy, which really racked and stacked
these adversaries into sort of a priority order, I would expect
and hope that our next national defense strategy starts to
think about them as a combined power.
And what this axis of upheaval is capable of, and ways that
we might work together with our own partners, and animating our
own partnerships and alliances to really confront, create
dilemmas, and challenge the capabilities of these forces
combined. Thank you.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. My next question goes back to you,
Ms. Fontenrose. How can we more effectively block the CCP's
illicit transfer of dual use technology to Iran and its
proxies?
Ms. Fontenrose. Congressman, that is the question of the
year. Because we are certainly trying, but many of these
components, again, are commercially available. A lot of them
are very small and difficult to detect, they are also shipped
in small pieces. A lot of it is blueprints, and much of it is
transfer of knowledge, so it is in the presence of advisors for
instance, instead of in actual pieces.
So, we have to hit rat lines, we have to hit free trade
zones, and look into cargo containers. There is so many things
that go into trying to block that transfer, and really what we
should be looking at also is financial transactions, and just
the relationship, the trust. Because the lest trust they have
with each other, the less they will share. So, there is also an
information operations piece here.
Mr. Baird. I thank all of you, and I would like to mention
that Purdue University has developed a program for making
chips, the CHIPS and Science Act, and they have a program for
undergraduates as well as graduates, so that is trying to
onshore chip manufacturing.
So, I have got 3 seconds left, and I yield back.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you for your generosity, Representative
Baird.
Now I yield to my good friend Gerry Connolly from Virginia.
Gerry?
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our
panel. Good to see you, my old friend, Mr. Abrams. Mr. Lord,
Mr. Abrams in his testimony decried the fact that Iran is now
close to developing, or producing nuclear weapons, is that
correct?
Mr. Lord. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Was there any type of international agreement
that would have stopped Iran from producing highly enriched
uranium, or the plutonium that could be used in such weapons?
Mr. Lord. As I recall, Mr. Connolly, yes, there was.
Mr. Connolly. What was the name of that agreement?
Mr. Lord. It was known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action, or JCPOA.
Mr. Connolly. And were Russia and China party to that
agreement?
Mr. Lord. They were.
Mr. Connolly. And who led that agreement, who initiated,
and helped write that agreement?
Mr. Lord. The United Stats.
Mr. Connolly. It was our agreement?
Mr. Lord. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. And we had Russia, and China, as well as
Iran, and Europe as members?
Mr. Lord. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Wow. As part of that deal, were there steps
taken to ensure that Fordo, Natanz, and Iraq facilities pursued
only low level enriched uranium for civilian work, medical
work, and industrial research?
Mr. Lord. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. And did that agreement require Iran in fact
to ship out of country excess enriched uranium to a third
party?
Mr. Lord. Yes, sir, in fact it did.
Mr. Connolly. And did that agreement require Iran to close
down a plutonium production reactor?
Mr. Lord. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Did that agreement limit the number of
centrifuges, and the kinds of centrifuges that otherwise might
be used to produce a nuclear weapon, did that require Iran to
agree to stipulation limiting those centrifuges?
Mr. Lord. Mr. Connolly, yes, it did require them to agree.
Mr. Connolly. And did the IAEA certify eight times that in
fact Iran was in compliance?
Mr. Lord. Yes, I believe it did.
Mr. Connolly. And did the Trump administration agree with
that certification not once, but twice in 2017?
Mr. Lord. To my recollection, yes, it did.
Mr. Connolly. So, when we decry the fact that Iran is now
days away if it wants to actually produce a nuclear weapon, it
is instructive, is it not, to reflect on the fact that we
actually had an agreement that was certified, working, and by
the way, I should ask one more question. Because again, Mr.
Abrams complained that Iran is now defying IAEA inspections.
Were there IAEA inspections when the JCPOA was enforced?
Mr. Lord. Yes, sir, there were.
Mr. Connolly. And they were unannounced?
Mr. Lord. Correct.
Mr. Connolly. So, if we were to renounce that agreement
unilaterally, it is a little much to expect IAEA inspections in
Iran if the agreement is no longer enforced, wouldn't that be a
fair statement?
Mr. Lord. At least those that were a part of the JCPOA.
Mr. Connolly. Right, it is kind of in the category of you
can't have it both ways. You can't complain that Iran is close
to a nuclear weapons capacity, which I decry, and that is why I
supported the JCPOA, because it was the only instrument at hand
that actually would push back the nuclear weapons development
program in Iran, would you agree with that statement?
Mr. Lord. Yes, at the time I think it was the most
effective too.
Mr. Connolly. And again, we have IAEA inspections, I know
that for a fact because I actually went to Vienna and got
briefed on a bipartisan basis by some of the inspectors, and
their reports. And I think you have to admit, you tell me if
you disagree, the JCPOA in fact was working. In fact, against
predictions, Iran was complying, is that a fair statement?
Mr. Lord. Yes, it is, sir.
Mr. Connolly. And what happened to the JCPOA that was
working, and they were in compliance with virtually every
metric we set forward in the treaty, in the agreement? What
happened to the JCPOA?
Mr. Lord. The United States withdrew from the deal, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Who did that?
Mr. Lord. That was a decision made by President Trump.
Mr. Connolly. President Trump. And now we are where we are,
is that correct?
Mr. Lord. We are in fact where we are.
Mr. Connolly. Well, forgive an editorial opinion, but for
those who want to decry Iran's proximity to nuclear weapons
development, they have only one person to blame, and that is
Donald Trump.
I yield back.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Senator.
I now recognize Rich McCormick from Georgia. Rick?
Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
witnesses for being here today. Next month marks October 7th,
not only my birthday, but obviously an infamous day in history
in which Israel was attacked, about 1,200 people slaughtered,
250 people kidnapped, including many Americans. This attack, in
my opinion, was made a reality by Iran in support of evil
people.
We have seen them support Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis,
Russia, China, pretty much every enemy we have, they have
supported openly. They have created this unholy axis, which
they as a small country, with a very small GDP has become
literally a purveyor of hate, and death around the world now.
Ms. Fontenrose, it doesn't make the front news anymore, but we
continue to have attacks in the Persian Gulf, mainly from the
Houthis.
We have seen ships attacked, we have seen a couple of them
recently attacked in September, earlier this month, and then
September 9, we shot down another drone. We know that they have
these capabilities only because of Iran. The question is how do
we cutoff the flow of these weapons from Iran that are going to
our enemies, especially the Houthis particularly in this
instance?
Ms. Fontenrose. Congressman, there is a lot of coordination
to happen with some of our partners in the region. Iran uses
both water means and land means to do these transfers. We have
rat lines crossing some of the countries in the south of the
peninsula, and about 6 months of the year when there are not
monsoons, you have dowels taking tiny pieces of weapons that
are hidden in tiny places into Yemen to arm the Houthis.
They also have 3D printers, and many of these parts are
ordered on whole on AliBaba.
Mr. McCormick. Would it be safe to say that it is almost
impossible to cutoff their supply via routes that basically are
endless?
Ms. Fontenrose. Cutting off the supply of much of this
material would be very difficult, yes, you would----
Mr. McCormick. I agree with you.
Ms. Fontenrose. It is better to aim for bigger targets.
Mr. McCormick. There we go, we are setting up the
conversation here, aren't we? Mr. Abrams, since Russia's
illegal invasion of Ukraine, in 2022 Iran provided Russia with
scores of the Shahed suicide drones. Secretary Blinken
confirmed last week that Iran recently provided Russia with a
large new shipment of ballistic missiles that will undoubtedly
be used to kill Ukrainian civilians, and ultimately to try to
win the war for Russia.
Which basically is an invasion of Europe, which NATO was
set out from the very get go to resist, it is the most germane
time of NATO's existence since its creation. So, we are at
essentially war with an invading, expansionist, tyrannical
government into Europe that we formed an alliance to resist.
Why has this administration basically stood idle while Iran
continues to supply our enemies with something that we really
can't stop them from doing just by supply lines, as we already
said with the Houthis?
We are having the same problem with Russia, but on a much
different scale, and for much different reasons, but why
haven't we done anything?
Mr. Abrams. I think that we should be doing much more
enforcement of sanctions. The administration says we don't want
confrontation, and we don't want escalation. I would actually
rather that Iran didn't want escalation, or confrontation out
of fear of us.
Mr. McCormick. Bingo. So, you served in Reagan's
administration, did you not? I am jealous by the way, Reagan, I
mean this guy is the guy for me. What do you think Reagan would
have done given his history with nations that were probably
troublesome, but not even as troublesome as Iran. What kind of
response do you think he would have given?
Mr. Abrams. He would have tried to talk them into,
negotiate them into stopping, and if it failed he would have
acted, and----
Mr. McCormick. He would have acted.
Mr. Abrams. In 1988 he did, sank half their Navy.
Mr. McCormick. He certainly did. And I remember people
going oh my gosh, it is the beginning of the end, these guys
are going to come after us, they hate us. Yes, they do. And
Muammar Gaddafi, after losing a son, rolled over on his back,
showed his belly, and said I want to be friends. Because we
understand that region, and they understand strength. If you
show weakness, you give them an inch, they take a mile.
And thank you for being of service to such a great
President, such a strong President. I saw it during Reagan's
administration, I saw it during Trump's administration. When
you break out the MOAB, the mother of all bombs, when you hit
somebody in the jaw that is a bad person, they roll over and
they say I don't want any more of this. And this is the time to
act, in my opinion, before they become a nuclear power.
Are we waiting for Iran to become a nuclear power before we
do something? And then of course we won't, because we will be
scared to. This is the time to act, weakness has created war.
Weakness creates death. Weakness creates a propagation of this
hatred, and these propped up enemies that we have. And I think
we should hit Iran hard, it really disappointments that the
Biden administration has been absolutely inept, weak, and
ineffective.
With that, I yield, thank you.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. McCormick.
Ms. Manning, ma'am, you are recognized.
Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
bringing a slice of Hee-Haw to this hearing, it takes me back
to my childhood. So, the threat posed by Iran has been clear
for many years, as evident from all of your expert testimony,
and we have made wide ranging efforts to stop Iran's malign
behavior. We have imposed sanctions, we have worked with our
allies, and entered into the JCPOA.
As Mr. Connolly so deftly detailed, Donald Trump pulled us
out of the JCPOA, and Iran is now closer than ever to becoming
a nuclear power. We have asked our allies who remain in the
JCPOA to trigger snap backs. We have worked with Arab allies to
create a regional alliance to stand together against Iran. We
have moved Israel from European Command to CENTCOM, where they
logically should be.
And yet, Iran continues to wage its holy war against
Israel, against the U.S., against the west, and against its own
people. So, what should our short, medium, and long term
strategy be to defeat Iran's battle against Israel, against the
U.S., against its own people? And I know this could be a 24
hour answer, so I am going to try to ask each of you to give me
a piece of that answer.
Mr. Abrams, please address the nuclear issue, because I
know you had a lot of questions, you disagreed with the JCPOA.
I don't know whether you would agree that maybe we were better
once we were in it, and not getting out of it. But what should
we be doing to address the nuclear issue?
Mr. Abrams. One of the most effective things we could do
now, I think is snap back. I think we should be asking, you
mentioned the British, French, and Germans to do that. I think
that if a new President asked them to do that, they may well be
willing to do it. And that would have a real impact on----
Ms. Manning. So, we should ask our allies to do what we are
no longer really able to do because we got out of the deal?
Mr. Abrams. Correct.
Ms. Manning. Anything else?
Mr. Abrams. Well, I would like us to enforce the oil
sanctions, because the more funding that regime has, the more
harm they can do.
Ms. Manning. And what should we be doing to address their
other, their non-nuclear malign behaviors?
Mr. Abrams. Well, we have talked about the Houthis, and I
think we should be--the U.S. Navy should have a much stronger
response in keeping the sea lines of communication open.
Ms. Manning. That is one instance, but should we have a
grand strategy for addressing the non-nuclear malign behavior?
Mr. Abrams. Well, one piece of it, again this could be 3
hours, but one piece of it, the ultimate solution is a
democratic Iran with a different foreign policy. And we should
be doing more to help the people of Iran in their struggle
against that regime.
Ms. Manning. OK, I can't disagree with you, but I am going
to move to Ms. Filipetti on this one, because you addressed the
issue of what we should be doing to help the people. And I
guess my question for you is how should we address Iran's
attempt to radicalize people around the globe to spread an
anti-western holy war?
Mr. Abrams. Thank you for the question. One of the most
significant threats that I think Iran poses in addition to its
nuclear threat, is the disinformation and propaganda risk that
it is posing, both outside the United States, as we see all
across the world through, as I laid out their propaganda
outlets. But also inside the United States. So, we are
constantly seeing them use social media, use TikTok and other
outlets in order to promote anti-American propaganda.
So, we need to figure out how to address the propaganda
aspect of this in addition to the nuclear component of it. I
would also say that this Congress passed some really important
legislation that allows for more human rights related
designations against the Iranian regime, like the Mahsa Act.
And I have not seen that the executive branch has yet used
those authorities, which I think are critical authorities.
So, ensuring executive branch compliance with the
authorities that this Congress has rightly passed is key.
Ms. Manning. So, enforce the laws that we have already
passed, and be more vigilant in enforcing that. Ms. Fontenrose,
like you, I am deeply concerned by the director of national
intelligence's finding that Tehran has sowed discord here in
the U.S., particularly some of the anti-Israel protests that
have taken place on college campuses. They have emerged as the
leading source of disinformation, and a top threat to the
security of our elections.
So, what should we be doing to address that, what
consequences should Iran face?
Ms. Fontenrose. First we should do something here at home,
which is inoculate our own population, make sure they are
extremely aware that this is happening. And frankly, this ODNI
report is perfect justification for something as Jonathan
mentioned, a bipartisan approach to this kind of conversation.
This is something we cannot countenance as a country, this kind
of meddling.
And it is not only Iran, it is other actors as well. So,
there is really a larger strategy that needs to be looked at
here.
Ms. Manning. OK, thank you. I wish I had three more hours
to get your answers to these difficult questions, but my time
is expired.
And so, I yield back.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Ms. Manning.
Gabe Amo, how do you say your last name, Gabe?
Mr. Amo. Amo.
Mr. Burchett. Amo, all right, brother, I got it, Amo.
Mr. Amo. All right. Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you
regardless. Thank you so much to our witnesses for being here
today. As we approach the 1-year anniversary of October 7, I
reiterate my call for an immediate and lasting cease-fire. One
that releases the remaining hostages, and surges humanitarian
aid into Gaza. I also reaffirm my support for a long term plan.
One that ensures a lasting, peaceful, two-State solution,
and provides self-determination for both Israelis and
Palestinians. An immediate cease-fire, and comprehensive day
after plan are essential for containing the conflict, and
countering the threat of Iran and its proxies. Even before
October 7 though, it is clear that Iran has been a
destabilizing force in the region, threatening our national
security interests, and preventing a lasting peace from taking
hold.
For decades, support for regional proxies has been central
to Iranian foreign policy. It has funded armed groups and
terrorist organizations including Hamas and Gaza, Hezbollah and
Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and militias in Iraq and Syria.
Iran has reveled in chaos as it seeks to expand influence by
carrying out attacks on Israel, and United States personnel in
the region. The United States considers Iran the foremost State
sponsor of terrorism for good reason.
After October 7, we have seen increased activity from
Iranian proxies in the region. We need to understand the kind
of support that Tehran is providing to prevent future attacks.
So, I will start with Mr. Lord, but I certainly welcome other
feedback on my query here. How is the United States tracking
the support Iran is providing their proxies, and let's project
a little bit, but what should we be expecting in the support of
proxies as we move along and they continue their campaign of
chaos?
Mr. Lord. Mr. Amo, thank you for the question. We have a
pretty capable means of tracking, and there is a pretty good
doctrine in history to follow here, where Iran has sought to
move sophisticated weapons to these partners, and then over
time actually move the capability to create those sophisticated
weapons in those partner zone territories.
And we have seen that with Hezbollah, who really is the
most developed proxy, and partner of Iran, certainly the
oldest. Where it begins, or began as the shipment of weapons
and capabilities, and then really began to morph into the
shipment of the industrial means to build those capabilities in
Lebanon's--in Hezbollah's own home turf. So, those are the
things that we have seen Israel over time really attempt to
target most in their campaign between the wars.
Their m'aracha bein ha-milchamot, as they call it, mabam,
when we get news reports of something blowing up in Syria or in
Lebanon, or at IRGC Quds Force individual, and some others,
they are going after the capability that allows Hezbollah to
continue to perpetuate conflict. So, we have to think very
carefully about how we do that ourselves, or how we support
that with lethal intelligence with our partners.
If in fact we ourselves want to engage in that, and I have
heard a lot of tough talk here about what we should be doing on
Iran, and I think I said it last year on a Syria hearing, I
will say it again. If you are interested in a war with Iran, if
you are interested in getting kinetically involved,
congratulations, you serve on the one committee in this House
that has jurisdiction over war powers.
And so, if there is to be an authorization of the use of
military force, it is going to get marked up here. So, if that
is something that you believe the President should be doing, it
really starts with you, here on this committee. So, I have
talked enough, but I will leave it at that.
Mr. Amo. Great, thank you. And I know I have got limited
time, but I do briefly want to speak to the concerns that I
expressed in April about the growing ties between Iran and
Russia, and whether they would continue to share advanced
technologies. And we have heard from Secretary Blinken in the
past week, and the Department of Defense, the confirmation that
Iran is sending ballistic weapons to Russia to support their
illegal invasion of Ukraine.
Trade is a two way street, raising some real concerns that
Russia is sharing advanced, and even possibly nuclear
technology, or information with Iran. And so, briefly, Mr.
Lord, can you share any concerns that you might have about that
transfer of nuclear technology, or information between Russia
and Iran, and what more can we do to counter this growing
relationship?
Mr. Lord. We are short on time, so I will be very quick.
The stockpiling of uranium is a problem, but the technological
deficit that Iran has to actually weaponize is the X mark
beyond building the stockpile. That is a gap that Russia could
choose to close instantaneously if they felt they needed to, if
they needed more arms and support, if Iran wanted to extract
something from them.
We need to think exactly about this problem, and how we
create dilemmas for Russia and Iran. And I will just point to a
piece of legislation that came out of the House, I believe it
was written by Mr. Trone, sponsored in a bipartisan way by Mr.
Scott, Mr. Schneider I think was a co-sponsor of this amendment
for the NDAA that would actually make it easier for the
administration to take weapons that were captured from Iran on
the way to the Houthis.
And then use Presidential draw down authority to send them
to our partners in Ukraine to fire back at Russians. And I
think those are the types of things we need to be thinking
about that this Congress could be helping to do. Unfortunately,
that amendment did not make it past Rules Committee here in the
House. It may be under consideration in the Senate version of
the NDAA, but I would strongly encourage those types of means
as a way to think creatively about how we can impose real
dilemmas on this axis.
Mr. Amo. Thank you for your responses.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, sir.
I now recognize Kweisi Mfume, did I get that right? Close?
Mr. Mfume. Mr. Chairman, you are in the ball park, God
bless you, you are a great American.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, brother.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you very much. My thanks also to our
witnesses today. Mr. Abrams, it is good to see you from way,
way, way back, and not through the Wayback Machine, but in
terms of working together on a lot of these issues. It was
instructive to me when the chairman talked about how in fact
far back we go on this issue as a Congress.
And it occurred to me that as a young member of this body
in 1987, it was Ronald Reagan that called myself, John Lewis,
Nancy Pelosi, Ben Cardin, and a bunch of us who were part of
the freshman class to the White House to get to know us, and to
have some off the record talk, but mostly to reach out. He had
been under a lot of criticism from some of us during our
campaigns, and so we had a chance to talk there.
And one of the things that I remember President Reagan
specifically taking pride in was his decision to carry out the
Carter administration sanctions against Iran, rather than,
after he got the hostages released, as we know in January 1981,
rather than to go in a different way. And I guess he was trying
to signal bipartisanship. One of the things I learned is that
there have been a lot of lessons to be learned about Iran over
the years.
And the poignancy of all of this are the lessons that have
not been learned. And one of those lessons is that you can only
trust Iran so far. That is the bottom line. And so, when we
look at what occurred during the Reagan administration, or fast
forward to the Bush administration, and in 2005 that
administration decided, because Iran did not want to stop its
uranium enrichment, to pretty much sever ties, and to start
putting in sanctions.
And through the Obama years with the Green hostages, and
the things that went along with that, one thing that keeps
coming back to me is we, in the absence of a consistent, and I
do mean very consistent approach to Iran, we are going to hop,
skip, and jump from one administration policy to another, to
another, to another, which does not give us credibility in my
mind, in the larger international community.
Because it becomes well, we will see what the American
policy is with the next President. And the people who are
sowing the bad seeds, and are creating the unrest have that
luxury, to sit back, and to wait in a very clandestine manner,
do what they were continuing to do all along. And then there is
another election, and there is another version of U.S. foreign
policy.
It just does not bring about the kind of change that we
want. So, I want to ask all of you a question about our allies
in the region. I know we are sharing intelligence, but I don't
know how that is taking place. And if the intelligence sharing
is in fact something that can be quantified, where we see real
results. Because this is about our allies in the region, and
how Iran continues to sow its terror that affects all of us in
the larger international community.
So, Mr. Elliott, since I have known you the longest, I am
going to begin with you, and we can go down the line. If you
would take a short, 30-second period to respond, that would be
good to everyone.
Mr. Abrams. Thanks, Mr. Mfume. We get a fair amount of
intelligence on Iran from Israel, and we get intelligence on
Iran also in knowledge from allies outside, because they have
something, many of them, we don't. They have embassies in Iran.
So, we get from those embassies, from their Ambassadors, a much
better sense of what is it like, what is going on in there,
that we actually lack because we don't have an embassy.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you.
Ms. Fontenrose. Congressman, I interpreted your question
slightly differently, I thought you were asking about how we
share intelligence with our regional partners, so I will
address that just briefly. And we do have very close
intelligence sharing relationships with most of the Gulf
countries, with Egypt, with Jordan, they do complain they don't
get enough.
We are doing some things right now to try to pass more. A
lot of the issues are trust within them, we have to serve as a
hub, because intelligence can't be shared, for instance, with a
group of them, since they simply don't trust one another. But
CENTCOM has done quite a bit through the integrated air and
missile defense construct, to the regional construct they are
building to share intelligence.
And we have seen the proposed AI Accords Act that will have
additional steps for intelligence sharing with countries in the
region.
Mr. Mfume. OK.
Ms. Filipetti. I am happy to pass to my co-panelist if he
has anything to add.
Mr. Lord. You are very kind, Carrie, thank you. Very
little, but just to sort of hop on Kirsten's point, our
intelligence sharing with partners has grown tremendously over
the past few years. We almost feel a duty to share. The
challenge is there is intra-Gulf tension which reared its head,
I think in 2017 which we saw with the Qatar rift. But some of
these partners trust Israel a lot more than they trust their
neighbors for a whole host of reasons.
And so, if we can think about ways that we can build trust,
and comity between our partners in the Gulf, that can go a long
way to supporting a broader intelligence network, as well as
our efforts to build the interoperability, regional security
architecture that we are seeking.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you. Let me reclaim my time quickly. The
key is trust, so each one of you spoke and said the same thing.
The problem here is that you never know who trusts who, and who
is doing something that is clandestine that ultimately
undermines that trust. I mean, it is a terrible steer of
operation, because it is porous, it has got holes in it.
And I am asking this because I am really concerned about
the safety of our troops, of our intelligence people, of our
people who are on the ground over there, and ultimately what I
have said before, the security of this Nation, and the security
of our allies. My time is up. Mr. Chair, I want to yield back.
I do want to underscore the consistent refrain that we have got
to find a way to have a cease-fire, to bring the hostages home,
and to have a, again, consistent foreign policy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back, and I appreciate the
extra time.
Mr. Burchett. No, I appreciate you, and I appreciate your
little bit of history lesson in the beginning, you as a
freshman, I thought that was pretty cool. I actually visualized
that as you were saying that, and that was kind of cool.
Mr. Mfume. A long time ago.
Mr. Burchett. Yes, sir, I guess I was a sophomore in high
school if that makes you feel any better.
Mr. Mfume. No, it doesn't.
Mr. Burchett. I know, I am sorry, sir, but you have always
been extra kind to me, so I appreciate you very much.
Mr. Mfume. Thank you.
Mr. Burchett. Mr. Schneider, Brad, you are recognized.
Thank you, brother.
Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
you and the ranking member, but also all the panelists for
being here today, this has been very helpful, and informative.
I want to pick up on what Mr. Lord, you said in your opening
remarks. I appreciated them talking about the Jewish traditions
of mourning, and our tradition is really centered around this
idea zachor, memory.
And it is true that we keep, generation to generation, the
spirit alive. We are coming onto the 1-year anniversary of
October 7, immediately after that is Yom Kippur, the holiest
day in the Jewish year. Where remember all those who came
before us, that we have lost. But the high holidays, Rosh
Hashanah, and Yom Kippur, Sukkot, which was connected to the
October 7 attacks, is also a time of renewal.
And I appreciated your remarks about a vision of peace and
security for Israelis, Palestinians, and everyone in the
region. I think that is truly what we are here talking about at
its core. Is there a way, and the way I frame it, a breaking
free from the gravity of so much of the history of this region
to create a path to peace, or we are going to be stuck in a
cycle of war.
And at the core of that cycle of war is Iran, who with
support of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, I can go down the
list, they are the single largest sponsor of terror, and the
threat to peace. Which is why we are here today. And October 7
a year ago was not an isolated incident, it was a pinnacle, the
timing was also not by accident. Saudi Arabia and Israel were
this close to normalizing relations.
And who loses from that most? But it would be Iran and
their aspirations for chaos within the region. Iran's role
can't be over stated, Tehran has long funded, armed, and
trained Hamas and the other terrorist organizations, enabling
them to launch attacks on civilians, and disrupt the hope for
peace. We are currently facing a very real threat of a second
front opening in the north against Hezbollah, between Israel
and Hezbollah.
Hezbollah has 150,000 or more rockets, many of which are
precision-guided, poised to escalate. We saw this week Israel
in a clandestine attack, detonate the pagers of Hezbollah.
Anyone who had one of these was connected to Hezbollah, was a
member of a terrorist organization. Well, not everyone, because
the Ambassador from Iran to Lebanon also had one of these
Hezbollah pagers.
Why is Iran communicating in a terrorist communication
chain with this? And there was tens of thousands, nearly
100,000 people in Israel on the north evacuated from their
communities, I met with many of them yesterday. They can't go
home because of the threat from Hezbollah. And until we
relocate the Radwan fighters away from the border, to the north
of the Litani River, there is not going to be peace.
And we can talk about Iran, and we touched on that--not
Iran, Yemen, we touched on that. Yemen is a wildcard in all of
this, because yes, they are being armed and funded by Iran,
they also overtook all of Yemen's government's weapons, and
they aren't necessarily going to just listen to Iran. In all of
these threats, we are left with the threat of a nuclear Iran,
and I have questions, and looking at the time, I want to get to
these questions.
But we cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. We have
been fighting this, or working against this for now more than a
generation, and Iran has kept marching forward. Ms. Filipetti,
you talked about the anniversaries, it was Iran and Hezbollah
who bombed the Marine barracks. It was Iran who bombed the
Jewish community center in Argentina, I was there for the 30th
anniversary.
It is Iran that is expanding and building its nuclear
stockpiles, but also working to develop all the other aspects
to have a nuclear weapon, which threatens the region. And a war
with Iran today is nothing compared to what a possible war with
Iran would be if they have a nuclear weapon. We cannot allow
that to happen. So, we have to see a different path forward.
And the Abraham Accords are a piece of that, we have talked
about that, building on those opportunities. Many of us are
part of the Abraham Accords Caucus, bicameral, bipartisan, in
fact today we will have a meeting with the Ambassador from
Saudi Arabia, and a bipartisan group of members from the House
to talk about that different vision. My broad question, and
everyone has gone long, so I am going to ask for some
indulgence here.
I will start with you, Mr. Abrams. We talked about Iran
can't have a nuclear weapon, but we are, for 25 years we have
been trying policies and different tactics. What can we do to
make our policies more effective? You touched on some of those
earlier. What do we need to do, how can we make Iran understand
that the United States are deadly serious, that our allies are
deadly serious, and we will take whatever action is necessary?
Mr. Abrams. Thank you. First, I think, as I said before, I
think both Presidential candidates should say this.
Mr. Schneider. Absolutely.
Mr. Abrams. And particularly, more important, whoever is
elected should say it. And I think we should take the military
moves that suggest to Iran that we are serious. For example
having the force structure there, because I think if they think
we are really serious, then they may not cross the threshold.
Mr. Schneider. Just go down the line.
Ms. Fontenrose. Sanctions only work if they are on the
books, and if they are enforced. So, that is certainly a first
start. We also have other tools available to us, we don't have
to be talking about air strikes on Iran necessarily, we have
lots of cyber tools, we can build human asset tools. There are
ways to dismantle programs once they exist, or ways to prevent
the acceleration of the program that perhaps won't cause mass
casualties.
Ms. Filipetti. Thank you, Congressman, I would only add I
agree with both of my co-panelists. I think a lot of this has
to do with constraining the resources that Iran has in order to
commit acts of terrorism. When you look at the threat again
from the Western Hemisphere, we have seen many Iranian spies,
and terrorists who have attempted to plan for attacks on
American soil from their position in Latin America.
So, that means we need to deny the Iranian regime the
resources that it needs in order to fund raise for these
attacks. That is why I think in addition to the 2231 snap back
that Mr. Abrams mentioned, it is also important to work with
friendly jurisdictions to make sure that they are also
sanctioning not only the IRGC, but also Hezbollah, Hamas, the
Houthis, other terrorist entities.
I also think that we need to look at shifting to a full
terrorist designation for the Houthis given the severity of
their attacks on global shipping.
Mr. Schneider. OK, and Mr. Lord, in 2 seconds, because I am
getting the hook here.
Mr. Lord. Very quickly. Sanctions are being enforced, and
they are being as effective as they can be. Iran is getting
better, and more capable at evading those sanctions. Sanctions
themselves are a tool, they are not a policy. We need to think
much more broadly. Finally, I will say this President has been
very effective in deterrence. I think we had a moment here, we
could have seen a repeat of April 13th after Haniyeh was
killed.
But the presence of two carrier strike groups, and not only
that, but the messaging about all the stealth capabilities, F-
35s, F-22, a guided missile destroyer, these are first strike
capabilities. And obviously it is not going to get talked about
publicly, but I am fairly convinced that Iran was put on
notice, and President Biden had his hand on the holster, and
made it very clear. Deterrents can be effective.
Mr. Schneider. Thank you, I will close with this, Mr.
Chairman. Sanctions are most effective on their first day, and
whoever is under sanctions are going to try to get around them,
we need to ratchet them up. And last thing to say with the USS
Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt, among the escort ships
was the USS Cole.
The irony should not be lost that the ship that Yemen tried
to destroy a generation ago was defending the U.S. interests
and our allies interests, including Israel this summer, and let
all know that the United States stands prepared, and that is
our committee's responsibility. We will not allow Iran ever to
have a nuclear weapon.
I yield back.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you for yielding negative time to me.
This reminds me of that scene from Godfather where he stands up
and says I have to go chair my own committee now, so I will not
be able to listen to any more of this. But the difference is I
am not a United States senator, and you all are definitely not
mobsters.
So, other than that, I am going to yield to Mr. Lawler from
New York, and I want to remind him the great power that comes
with that gavel, and don't let it go to his head. Thank you
all, it has been a pleasure.
Mr. Lawler [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now
recognize myself for 5 minutes. As we have talked about
repeatedly, the main way that Iran is funding their terror
proxies has been through the illicit oil trade with China. And
over the last three and a half years under Kamala Harris and
Joe Biden, the illicit oil trade has increased by over $100
billion.
That is what is being used to fund Hamas, Hezbollah, the
Houthis, and other terror networks in the region. And it is
what is being used to fund Iran's nuclear program. I have
fought to get two of my bills, the SHIP Act, and the Iran China
Energy Sanctions Act passed through this Congress, and signed
into law. Both of these bills were included in the supplemental
aid package that passed months ago.
Regrettably, the administration has failed to act. They
have failed to uphold the law. And only a few days ago did the
President finally task the Secretary of Treasury and State with
these authorities. Secretary Yellen was here before our August
recess, and I asked her specifically about the SHIP Act, and
you would have thought I was speaking to her in a foreign
language.
She had no idea what I was talking about. So, my question
is how is cutting off Iran's revenue stream from China, where
China is purchasing 90 percent of Iran's petroleum, how do you
see that impacting Iran's ability to fund terrorism in the
Middle East? Mr. Abrams?
Mr. Abrams. It would be very important to do that. At the
end of the Trump administration, Iran had reachable foreign
currency assets of about $4 billion. And now it is something
like 60 billion. I mean, they have made, as you said, over $100
billion. So, denying them these resources, which, I mean, we
know what they do with them: Their own armed forces, and these
terror proxies. It would have a real impact on the threats we
face.
Mr. Lawler. Any other comments?
Ms. Filipetti. Congressman, I would only add that during
the Trump administration, one of the actions that was taken was
specifically designating some of these Chinese companies,
including COSCO, which is a significant Chinese purchaser of
Iranian origin crude. Those sort of sanctions were effective in
deterring China from continuing to engage, which is how we got
to the 4 billion dollar number in foreign currency reserves.
So, additional sanctions that target those suppliers and
those purchasers, I think would be very beneficial to our
counter Iran policy.
Mr. Lord. Nice to see you, Chairman Lawler. I was a
resident originally of Rensselaer County, it makes me proud.
Let me just say that your characterization of the Biden
administration's actions during this time, I think, are a
little bit unfair. I am not a surrogate or representative of
the administration, but I think it is important to note that
this administration took some very creative, and effective
action in closing the dollar options in Iraq.
Which were a massive sieve by which Iran and its proxies
were able to gain dollars, as well as Syria, as well as other
illicit actors. As many as 80 percent of those transactions
were sketchy at best. There is a lot of work to be done, but
that happened under this administration. I think if you look
across the recommendations in our testimoneys, there is a lot
of shared thinking here.
And it is not because I am a fake Democrat, or Carrie, or
my colleagues are fake Republicans. It is because fundamentally
the Biden administration, the Trump administration,
Republicans, Democrats really want the same thing here. The
challenge becomes what you are discussing when it comes to
China, is this implication of our China policy.
When we start sanctioning Chinese entities, we start to
implicate the issues and questions around Taiwan, and we get
well away from my level of expertise, so I will leave it there.
But I will say that there is a tremendous amount of sanctions
busting and evasion which sanctions is not going to get to,
because they have de-dollarized these processes.
Mr. Lawler. Look, a broken clock is right twice a day, OK?
And yes, the administration has taken some actions that have
supported the effort to crack down on Iran. But when Joe Biden
and Kamala Harris came in, their objective was to renegotiate
the Iran nuclear deal. And as part of that they lifted the
secondary sanctions that were implemented under the Trump
administration to go after the purchasers of Iranian petroleum,
OK?
And so, by doing that, the illicit oil trade was allowed to
resume, and thrive. And you have over $100 billion that came
in. We have talked in this Congress about the $6 billion in
unfrozen funds. That pales in comparison to what was allowed to
occur under this illicit oil trade. So, the approach to Iran
has been wrong. This administration has taken a very wrong tact
in trying to go after Iran and its proxy network, which is
raining terror across the Middle East.
And Hamas, where they get--93 percent of their budget comes
from Iran. So, these are fundamental problems that, frankly,
this administration has failed miserably to address. And yes,
if they take a right step, great, bravo. But they have taken
many wrong steps that have created this climate we are dealing
with. My time has expired.
I now recognize for 5 minutes, the gentleman from
Minnesota, the Ranking Member Dean Phillips.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just, in
response to this last exchange, State my opinion. Which is as
long as the world relies on petroleum, there will be a flow of
dollars to our adversaries. And it is clear that Iran will
direct resources to our adversaries at expense to their own
population. Their economy is in the worst condition it has been
in, probably during my lifetime.
And I would simply pose that I don't think there is any
sanctions regime that can effectively stop that flow. So, I
would like to go down, dig a little bit deeper, and try to find
solutions. But first a question about the West Bank. I am
concerned about escalating violence, there have been, I think
1,350 attacks by Israeli settlers on Palestinians.
A reduced flow of resources to the PA, which is the only
source of stability. So, let me actually start with you, Mr.
Abrams. Do you believe current Israeli policy, as it relates to
security policy, economic policy, and otherwise in the West
Bank is accretive to stability and security, and also to United
States objectives?
Mr. Abrams. I think there has been a real effort, there is
a real effort in the last year or two to introduce money and
weapons to Jordan and the West Bank by Iran. A real effort to
create violence and subversion in both places. And we have seen
a diminution in the ability of the Palestinian Authority
Security Forces to control the West Bank. I think Israelis are
actually reacting to that.
Now, settler violence is something else, that is unlawful
activity, and it should be prevented, and it should be punished
whenever it occurs. But the background here is a big, new
Iranian effort in Jordan and the West Bank.
Mr. Phillips. But anything more--what about current
Netanyahu policy toward the PA, do you think this is helpful,
or not?
Mr. Abrams. I think the Palestinian Authority has, for
certainly a decade now, proved itself to be corrupt, and
incompetent. And I don't think that Netanyahu policy--well, I
mean it does go back more than a decade, but is the problem
here. I think the problem is the PA.
Mr. Phillips. OK, and Mr. Lord, your perspective on my
questions about current policy, settler violence, and also
strategy toward the PA?
Mr. Lord. Yes, respectfully, I will have to disagree a bit
with Mr. Abrams on this one. Really for about the last 20 years
Israel has been operating on a national security paradigm that
assesses that this conflict is only manageable, and not
solvable, coming off of the failures of Camp David in 2000. But
unlike previous paradigms of conflict management, this one has
been inextricably tinged by an ultra-nationalist ideology,
which fundamentally rejects the two-State solution.
And we have seen that most prominent, most vocal in this
last government led by Prime Minister Netanyahu, where
settlement has grown at an extraordinary pace. Settler violence
has similarly grown, and the consequences for settler violence
have never been lower. And all one need do is look at the overt
statements of the ultra-nationalists in this government who
have their fingers on the knobs of this.
To know exactly their purpose is trying to destroy the
Palestinian Authority, and export the chaos we are seeing in
Gaza to the West Bank, that fundamentally allows them to come
in, and ultimately annex large swathes of the territory. And I
think it is inimical to Israeli security interests.
Mr. Phillips. All right, I appreciate it. I want to move on
to the border between Lebanon and Israel. Ms. Fontenrose, do
you see any potential, especially in light of what has
transpired over the last few days, to enforce Resolution 1701,
to actually establish a reasonable buffer zone, and how should
we in Congress, and how should our allies proceed with re-
establishing dynamics for a return for both Lebanese and
Israelis that have been displaced?
Ms. Fontenrose. At the expense of sounding flip, I think
the actions of the last 2 days may encourage fighters to move
away from that border simply because hospitals are full. But
certainly, it was a message sent about the reach of the
perpetrator to Hezbollah's rank and file. So, they will have
much more trouble now conducting command and control. They will
have obviously trouble communicating, they will have trouble
recruiting.
You will have mothers throwing away anything with a battery
in it in their son's bedrooms, and locking them in. We have
definitely seen where the network reach goes, and that will
give many of the rank and file fighters cause to question
whether or not this is an activity they want to engage in. I
think the time for negotiating that is a bit stronger now. On
Israel's side, it is certainly worth an attempt.
Mr. Phillips. OK. And back to you, Mr. Lord, on the same
question, your perspective on 1701, and the dynamic in the
buffer zone?
Mr. Lord. Immensely difficult. What we have seen in the
last few days is some cause for concern. I have been very
public in the indicators and warnings that will see forces come
away from Gaza and start to be repositioned north, likely in
advance of a conflict on the northern border, and we are now
starting to see that. What we have seen really in just the last
48 hours, 72 hours, I think may be unrelated to that, but may
not be.
And Israel is trying to use unpredictability, and
demonstrate ways in which they can come at Hezbollah in
unpredictable, unknowable ways from Hezbollah's perspective to
make them more compliant, and put them in a position of
weakness. Because very much right now, they feel they are in
the driver's seat, and it is leading toward a bad scenario.
Mr. Phillips. I want to close with one more question, and
any of you can respond. As I reflect on post-World War II, and
the Marshall Plan, and how our arch enemies became friends
through investment, it is my belief that the human condition
will act in the same way when it is oppressed, does not see
hope, whether it is Gary, Indiana, or the Gaza Strip. Do you
see any analogy between how we handled post-World War II
investment in peace, and the Middle East?
If so, how might that look, a Marshall Plan of sorts for
the region? And if not, what are the impediments? And I would
welcome perspective from any of you before I close. Not all at
the same time. Mr. Abrams.
Mr. Abrams. I would resist the Marshall Plan analogy for
one reason at least, which is that Marshall Plan countries for
the most part were industrial democracies. So, you were
rebuilding, you were returning, you weren't trying to create
something that had never been there before. I think everyone
wants ultimately to move to the reconstruction of Gaza. The
problem there, I think, is the security side of it, without
which it won't work.
But the difference I think in the Middle East is that there
are lots of local resources in the Gulf, but not only in the
Gulf. I mean Lebanon, apparently, has a fair amount of offshore
energy wealth, although it is the kind that you might not like,
and so does Israel obviously, and so does Egypt. So, there are
local resources that could be applied.
Mr. Phillips. OK. Any--Jonathan maybe, or Ms. Filipetti,
anybody to close?
Mr. Lord. Thank you, sir. Yes, I think there is real
opportunity here, but the challenge is getting to the day in
between, let alone the day after. Security is going to be hard,
but fundamentally there needs to be a change of understanding
in Israel politically about what comes next. If not immediately
a two-State solution, and I have a report coming out on this
next month.
I am advocating for a bridging paradigm that enables the
reconstitution of Palestinian governance and security
institutions in concert that brings in these partners to
rebuild, and displace Hamas, and terrorist organizations, and
creates the ability to come forward incrementally. But everyone
ultimately needs their goals to align, and we are missing that
right now.
Mr. Phillips. I look forward to reading it. Many thanks to
each of you, and appreciate your perspectives.
And I yield back.
Mr. Lawler. The gentleman's time has expired. I want to
thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony, and the
members for their questions. The members of the subcommittee
may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we
will ask you to respond to these in writing. Pursuant to
committee rules, all members may have 5 days to submit
statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the record
subject to the length limitations.
Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:54 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]