[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 27, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2485-S2486]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAN

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, earlier this month, the Governor of Iran's 
central bank, Dr. Valiollah Seif, spoke at the Council on Foreign 
Relations in Washington and he made three primary claims. First, he 
said sanctions did not, in fact, lead Iran to agree to the terms of the 
nuclear agreement between Iran and the United States, the United 
Kingdom, France, Germany, the EU, Russia, and China. He said sanctions 
did not force Iran to agree. Second, he said Iran's nuclear program has 
always been entirely peaceful. Third, he said that the United States 
and our European allies have not honored our commitments under the 
terms of the nuclear deal also known as the JCPOA.
  Today I wish to push back against all three of these claims.
  First, on sanctions, Governor Seif said: ``Contrary to baseless 
allegation[s] that some people made, sanctions did not and could not 
force [Iran] to engage into a negotiation with our P5+1 colleague[s],'' 
the nations I referenced.
  The facts clearly say otherwise.
  U.S. sanctions have been a major feature of U.S. policy toward Iran 
since Iran's 1979 revolution. The imposition of international sanctions 
and worldwide bilateral sanctions on Iran began in 2006 and increased 
dramatically in 2010.
  In June of 2010, the Congress passed the Iran Sanctions, 
Accountability, and Divestment Act, also known as CISADA, which 
weakened Iran's access to the international financial system and 
bolstered existing sanctions specifically against Iran's human rights 
abuse.
  That same month, with the support not just of our European allies but 
also Russia and China, the Obama administration and then-Secretary of 
State Hillary Clinton led the passage of U.N. Security Council 
Resolution 1929, which created the most comprehensive and stinging 
international sanctions the Iranian regime has ever faced.
  Two years later, in 2012, the National Defense Authorization Act 
designated the Central Bank of Iran for additional sanctions, which the 
Obama administration successfully used to undermine Iran's ability to 
sell oil on world markets.
  The Obama administration also convinced key allies, such as Japan, 
Australia, South Korea, and Canada, to agree to additional bilateral 
measures that increased pressure on Iran's financial banking, 
insurance, transportation, and energy sectors.
  The effects of these coordinated sanctions were clear, swift, and 
direct. The value of the Iranian currency decreased dramatically. 
Obstacles to Iranian trade forced businesses to close and increased 
inflation within Iran. Iran's oil exports and government revenues 
declined sharply. In 2011, for example, Iran exported about 2.4 million 
barrels of oil per day. By March of 2014, Iran's exports were down to 
just 1 million barrels a day--in a nation for which petroleum makes up 
80 percent of all commodity exports.
  In July of 2012, former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the 
sanctions regime ``the most severe and strictest sanctions ever imposed 
on a country.''
  The coordinated sanctions regime was so effective that Iran's current 
President even described Iran's economic situation as if the country 
had ``returned to the 19th century'' under the sanctions regime. I 
think it is clear on this first point that sanctions imposed an 
unsustainable cost on Iran and forced it to the table to engage in 
negotiations with the West regarding its nuclear program.
  That brings me to his second erroneous argument that Iran has pursued 
nuclear technology with only peaceful purposes in mind. Iran's actions 
directly contradict this claim.
  In 2002, members of the international community revealed that Iran 
had, in fact, been attempting to build a secret uranium enrichment 
facility at Natanz in Central Iran and a heavy water plutonium reactor 
at its Arak facility in the northwestern part of the country. Only 
because Iran failed to keep these facilities secret did the IAEA--or 
the International Atomic Energy Agency--finally begin having the 
opportunity to monitor these sites in 2002.
  In 2009, the United States, France, and Britain revealed the 
existence of another uranium enrichment plant buried deep under a 
mountain near the city of Qom.
  The evidence continues. In 2011, the IAEA released a report on the 
``possible military dimensions'' of Iran's nuclear effort, known as 
PMD. The report detailed areas in which the agency had evidence of 
Iran's past--and potentially ongoing--work on nuclear weaponization and 
the development of nuclear warheads for missile delivery systems.
  The IAEA's final report on the possible military dimensions of Iran's 
nuclear program, issued in December of 2015, found ``a range of 
activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device 
were conducted in Iran prior to the end of 2003 as a coordinated 
effort.'' The report also found that Iran conducted certain activities 
relevant to nuclear weaponization for at least several years after 2003 
and that some of these activities didn't end until 2009.
  It is not just on-the-ground reports and secret nuclear facilities 
that suggest that Iran's nuclear efforts have not always been entirely 
peaceful. Let me remind my colleagues that just last month Iran tested 
a ballistic missile that supposedly had a message on its side 
proclaiming in Hebrew: ``Israel must be wiped off the Earth.''
  An Iranian regime that continues to advocate for the destruction of 
Israel, America's vital ally Israel, does not sound like a nation that 
has been and hopes to continue to develop nuclear technology for 
anything remotely peaceful.
  An Iranian regime that ships illicit weapons to support the murderous 
regime of Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria or the Houthi rebels in Yemen 
or Hezbollah in Lebanon is not seeking to develop weapons for peaceful 
purposes.
  An Iranian regime that illegally tests dangerous ballistic missile 
technology--some of which is capable of carrying a nuclear weapon, all 
of which violates U.N. Security Council resolutions--does not have 
peaceful intentions.
  Because of this behavior, we have every reason to distrust Iran's 
claims that its nuclear efforts were always peaceful. Iran continually 
misled the international community about the nature of its nuclear 
program, and it continually disguised its efforts to conduct research 
and other activities to help it better understand how to develop a 
nuclear weapon. It continues to threaten Israel, to test ballistic 
missiles, and to support terrorism throughout the Middle East.
  That is why I simply cannot accept Seif's argument that Iran's 
nuclear program has always been entirely peaceful.
  The third claim made by Seif last week was that the United States and 
our European allies have not honored our obligations under the nuclear 
deal known as the JCPOA. Iran's evidence for this claim is that the 
sanctions relief granted to Iran for complying with the terms of the 
agreement hasn't suddenly unleashed a flurry of Iranian economic 
activity. As Adam Szubin, our own Department of the Treasury's Acting 
Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, recently put 
it, throughout the negotiations between the United States, our allies, 
partners, and Iran, the U.S. and our allies ``did not guarantee 
economic outcomes, or a flood of immediate business into Iran.''
  Acting Under Secretary Szubin is right. Iran is responsible for 
making Iran an attractive, safe place to do business. For many 
individuals and businesses, Iran appears neither attractive nor safe. 
For example, in October,

[[Page S2486]]

Iran arrested Siamak Namazi, a businessman who is a dual American-
Iranian citizen. Namazi worked for a petroleum company in the UAE and 
previously ran a consulting business in Iran. He still has not been 
charged. In fact, the only recent development in Mr. Namazi's case is 
his father Baquer--an 80-year-old man who suffers from heart problems--
was arrested in February and sent to Iran's notorious Evin Prison. Why 
would Iranian leaders expect foreign investment to flow into their 
country when it arbitrarily arrests and detains those seeking business 
opportunities for their own country.
  It is not only Iran's flawed legal system or its ongoing human rights 
violations, more than half of Iran's economy consists of shadowy 
organizations controlled in part by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard 
Corps, the IRGC, the hard-line military force committed to the 
preservation of the Iranian regime. The pseudo-private entities that 
are tied to the IRGC include banks, businesses, religious foundations, 
pension funds, and welfare projects that also serve as front companies 
for the IRGC.
  During his question-and-answer session at the Council on Foreign 
Relations, Mr. Seif was asked whether foreign businesses considering 
investing in Iran or doing business with Iran could be confident that 
the money invested in Iran would not fund the IRGC. He was unable to 
declare definitively that it would not.
  The onus, the burden, is on Iran--not the international community or 
the United States--to reform Iran's domestic economy and to make sure 
its businesses are not linked to the IRGC, to make it a country--
transparent and open--and to engage in actions that suggest to the 
world it is a trustworthy partner. The burden is on Iran to comply with 
the JCPOA. The burden is on Iran to stop testing ballistic missiles, 
abusing human rights, and supporting terrorists. If Iran is unhappy 
with the level of economic relief it has received since this agreement 
came into effect, it only has its own actions to blame.
  As Acting Under Secretary Szubin put it, ``the JCPOA [the nuclear 
deal] is an international arrangement, not a cashier's check.''
  I commend Dr. Seif for his willingness to travel to the United States 
and to make his case in front of our Council on Foreign Relations. I 
think this is a constructive step, but as I have shown, I think the 
case he made is a weak one. The evidence is clear. A coordinated 
sanctions regime did, in fact, force Iran to negotiate. Iran's nuclear 
program was not entirely peaceful in its intent or execution. The 
United States and EU aren't holding the Iranian economy back--the 
Iranian Government is. The Iranian Government's actions are.
  In my travels throughout the Middle East and in conversations with 
regional leaders and Ambassadors here, it is apparent these nations all 
share one overriding concern, Iranian aggression. This challenge unites 
countries as diverse as Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United 
Arab Emirates.
  As my colleagues may have seen in an op-ed in the Washington Post 
just last week, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif sought to 
justify recent steps Iran has taken to dramatically build up its 
defenses.
  Countries do, indeed, have a right to self-defense, but there is a 
difference between self-defense efforts undertaken by responsible 
members of the international community and some of Iran's recent 
aggressive and destabilizing actions.
  Responsible nations don't support terrorist groups throughout the 
Middle East and stoke sectarianism to undermine the security of their 
neighbors. Responsible nations don't directly threaten the destruction 
of Israel. Responsible nations seek common ground and the pursuit of 
mutual interests with their neighbors. Responsible nations abide by 
U.N. Security Council resolutions.
  Iran's actions make it clear it is not yet a responsible member of 
the international community. If Iran then has complaints about the 
relief it has received under this agreement, it should move its 
behavior and begin to uphold its commitments under the deal while 
changing the dangerous aspect of its ongoing behavior. Yet, instead, 
Iran continues to try and dominate its region, a valuable reminder we 
must continue to enforce the terms of the JCPOA strictly and push back 
on Iran's bad behavior that is outside the parameters of the agreement.

  While I commend the Obama administration for its recent action in 
interdicting illicit arms shipments from Iran to the Houthis, 
continuing to designate IRGC-linked entities for more sanctions, and 
taking other critical steps to push back on Iran's bad behavior and 
destabilizing activities in the region, I also remain concerned about 
the administration's willingness to entertain Iranian complaints about 
sanctions relief.
  I urge the United States and our allies to remain cautious in our 
dealings with Iran. We must remember that the most important contract 
with Iran is the one we have already agreed to--that is, this nuclear 
deal--and we must continue to remind Iran that its own behavior is the 
real cause of its continuing international isolation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________