[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 3, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1223-S1224]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            THE ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER'S ADDRESS TO CONGRESS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, later this morning, the Israeli Prime 
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will deliver an important address to 
Congress. Members of both parties extend a warm welcome to him.
  This leader is a great friend of our country, and his visit comes at 
a critical moment in the relations between our countries.
  The Prime Minister's address coincides with an increasingly 
aggressive Iranian campaign to expand its sphere of influence across 
the Middle East. It represents a threat to both of our countries, it 
represents a threat to moderate Sunni allies, and it represents a 
threat to the international community at large.
  That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu is here today. He is ideally 
suited to explain the multitude of challenges this presents--including 
the threat of an Iran with nuclear weapons capability--and how our 
countries can address them jointly.
  So we are glad the Prime Minister is here with us today. We will be 
listening closely to what he has to say.
  I hope the Obama administration will be listening, too, because this 
visit isn't about personalities, it is about doing what is best for 
both of our countries, and here some context is important.
  As it has been since its founding, Israel is in a constant state of 
existential crisis. It is continuously threatened by terrorists, such 
as Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, who work every day to 
see a democratic Israel destroyed. Israel's leaders wake every morning 
knowing that with just one wrong decision, it could be their last in an 
open and tolerant democracy. That is the frame through which the 
Israelis approach their national security policy.
  Here is the frame the Obama administration uses: It formulates policy 
with two objectives in mind--fulfilling political campaign promises 
made back in 2008 and pursuing politically expedient solutions to 
whatever stands in the way of the first objective. We can see the basis 
for tension right there.
  For me, there are two bookends that define President Obama's foreign 
policy.
  The Executive orders that attempted to close Guantanamo without a 
credible plan for what to do with its detainees, and to essentially end 
our ability to capture, detain, and interrogate terrorists, regardless 
of the threats that remain for our country, represent one bookend.
  The President's push to withdraw all combat forces from Iraq and 
Afghanistan by the end of his term, regardless of the threats posed by 
the Taliban or the senior leadership of Al Qaeda, represents the other 
bookend.
  The politics-above-policy approach mystifies allies such as Israel. 
You can see it in many other decisions too--for instance, the 
President's failure to negotiate an agreement with Iraq for a residual 
military force that may have prevented the assault by ISIL. Instead, as 
threats from Al Qaeda and affiliated groups metastasized, the President 
focused on unwinding or reversing past policies through Executive 
order. Uprisings in North Africa and the broader Middle East resulted 
in additional ungoverned space in Syria, Libya, and Yemen. The capital 
of Yemen is now occupied by the Houthi militia, and the Yemenis are no 
more ready to detain the terrorists at Guantanamo today than they were 
in 2009.
  What has the President's response to all this been? To draw down our 
conventional forces and capabilities.

[[Page S1224]]

  Even as China and Russia have grown more belligerent, the President 
sees no need to reverse the harmful damage of the defense cuts he has 
insisted upon. He sees no need to rebuild our conventional and nuclear 
forces.
  He sees no need to accept that leaving behind residual forces in Iraq 
and Afghanistan represents an effective means by which to preserve the 
strategic gains we have made over the years, through tremendous 
sacrifice.
  The President has always assumed the role of Commander in Chief with 
great reluctance. That is particularly true of his dealings with Iran. 
For years, Iran has continued to enrich uranium. For years, Iran has 
refused to come clean to the IAEA. But ending Iran's nuclear weapons 
program has never fit neatly between the administration's policy 
bookends.
  The President believed he could extend a hand of friendship and bring 
the Supreme Leader to the table. Even though that approach failed, the 
President now seems determined to conclude an agreement with Iran that 
would leave it with a threshold nuclear capability. It is an agreement 
that could allow Iran to retain thousands of centrifuges, master the 
nuclear fuel cycle, advance ballistic missile research and testing, and 
keep secret any possible military dimensions of nuclear development 
that have already occurred.
  The administration has pursued these negotiations not as part of an 
overall strategy to end Iran's nuclear program, but as a stand-alone 
matter of litigation where a settlement must be reached. This 
negotiation should not be about getting the best deal that the Iranians 
will agree to, it should be about the strategic objective of ending 
Iran's nuclear weapons program. To do this, the administration must be 
committed to using force if negotiations fail.
  The strategic ambiguity of leaving ``all options on the table'' has 
never been convincing, and the administration refused to work with 
Congress on developing a sanctions and declaratory military response 
should negotiations fail. It is unlikely that this Congress could be 
convinced to lift sanctions absent a complete disclosure on the part of 
the Iranians of all previous research conducted in pursuit of a nuclear 
device.
  And this gets back to the differences between the perspective of the 
Israeli government concerning Iran's nuclear capability and those of 
the Obama administration.
  Iran is pursuing full spectrum warfighting capabilities to wage war 
against Israel, the United States, and our Sunni allies in the region.
  Iran is developing cyber capabilities to harass and harm its 
adversaries, ballistic missile capabilities, and conventional 
capabilities to deny United States warships access to the Persian Gulf.
  Iran remains a state sponsor of terror.
  Tehran also continues to push ever deeper into Iraq.
  In its fight within Iraq, Iran's proxy Shia militias have gained 
valuable combat experience on the ground to add to the terrorist 
tactics of employing IEDs that were perfected against United States 
forces. The withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq not only led to the 
abandonment of the Sunni tribes which had allied with us in Anbar 
Province, it led to a greater reliance upon the Iranians by the Baghdad 
government.
  The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Qods Force are 
expanding their command and control and combat capabilities in Iraq and 
Syria and gaining valuable warfighting lessons.
  The Qods force and Hezbollah are mastering an expeditionary fighting 
capability that should concern Israel, the United States, and our Sunni 
allies. The Iranians are natural allies of the Houthi militias in 
Yemen.
  Setting aside the nuclear program, from a perspective of strategy, 
the Iranians are advancing across the region in all other aspects of 
warfighting. All of this has occurred while sanctions have been in 
place and the price of oil has declined.
  From the perspective of any Israeli Prime Minister, Iran's advances 
have occurred while the terrorist presence in the Sinai has grown, the 
Nusrah front and ISIL are present in Syria, and Libya has become a 
terrorist training ground.
  Because the administration has all but conceded the Iranian nuclear 
enrichment capability, Israel has grown more isolated. It has come to 
understand that it may have to act alone. Yet rather than ending Iran's 
nuclear weapons program, President Obama's objective seems to be to 
defer any decision about the use of force to one of his successors. 
That may be politically expedient, but it is inconsistent with the 
national security requirements of Israel.
  I say all this to underline the importance of the Prime Minister's 
address this morning.
  We have seen the results of a politics-above-all foreign policy now 
for several years: It leaves our Nation strategically weaker, and will 
make challenges faced by the President's successor all the more 
difficult.
  Israel has seen this too. Israel knows it may well be the first to 
suffer if the Obama White House makes another flawed political 
decision, but Americans should understand it is not just Israel that 
needs to worry. We should be concerned by a nuclear Iran. The whole 
world should be concerned by a nuclear Iran, and the Prime Minister is 
going to help explain why that is. For Israel's sake and ours, I for 
one am very glad he is.

                          ____________________