[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 82 (Thursday, May 16, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2913-S2914]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                            The Middle East

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, dominant in the news--on which I have 
expected there to be more coverage--is a matter that I think is of 
great urgency to the country, global security, and peace--that being 
the tensions that are rising in the Middle East.
  I have heard a few of my colleagues speak on the floor about it 
today, and I have seen a lot of press report on it, some of it absurd 
and some of it on point. I understand some of it. I thought there 
should have been more information provided to all of the Members. I am 
pleased to see that more will be available next week when we return. 
This is an item I have been talking about for a couple of weeks--of the 
urgent threat, potentially, that now exists from Iran against the 
United States, particularly in Iraq but throughout the Persian Gulf 
region.
  First, let me talk about the threat. To understand the threat, it is 
important to understand how Iran operates.
  Iran is an Islamic republic, meaning it has a political branch of its 
government--a President, a Foreign Minister, and a parliamentary body. 
Then it has a Supreme Leader, who ultimately governs the country. In 
essence, his commands overrule the political branches. That is why they 
call him the Supreme Leader. He is a religious figure. As part of that, 
it has an armed services--an army, a navy, and an air force--that 
protects the country, theoretically. Then it has an armed forces that 
is independent of the army, the navy, and the air force, and that is 
the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, IRGC. First of all, it doesn't 
answer to the President; it doesn't answer to the Foreign Minister; and 
it doesn't answer to regular army forces. It answers directly to the 
Supreme Leader. A lot of times, people don't understand this. They 
ascribe to other countries the attributes of our own.
  The President of Iran is not the commander in chief, in reality, of 
the IRGC. It operates completely separately. By the way, that means 
that the IRGC--the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps--can oftentimes 
operate and do things that the Foreign Minister, who is the 
spokesperson for the Iranian Government, may not even know about. 
Sometimes it does.
  The point is that we have to understand that dynamic. It is not the 
United States. Our attributes should not be assigned to them.
  The IRGC has an organization within it. It has a unit called the Quds 
Force. The Quds Force, led by General Soleimani, is made up of experts 
and has developed expertise in unconventional warfare and in 
intelligence activities, primarily abroad. This is the organization, 
for example, that helped to build all of the IEDs that killed and 
maimed American servicemen in Iraq. This is the organization behind the 
Shia militias in Iraq today. This is the organization behind a lot of 
the efforts that support Hezbollah in Syria and in other parts of the 
world.
  The IRGC's Quds Force is designed to do things that have some level 
of deniability. The IRGC Quds Force has developed an ability, in the 
case of conflict with the United States--and we have known this now for 
the better part of a decade--to attack us using proxies, meaning other 
groups, in order to escape and have some level of deniability. It will 
get some group that

[[Page S2914]]

it has stood up, that it has equipped, and that it has trained to 
attack us in retaliation for something America has done, but it can 
deny it. It can say: That wasn't our army. That wasn't our air force. 
That was this other group that did it on its own.
  This is a capability we know it has built not just in the Middle 
East, by the way, but all over the world. We have been aware of it for 
a long time. It is not a secret to anyone, and it is a capability that 
it has increasingly perfected.
  What has happened here very recently is there has been a persistent 
and clear stream of information--a clear indication--that has arrived 
to American policymakers that the IRGC, the Quds Force, and their 
proxies in the region pose a serious and potentially imminent threat to 
U.S. forces and U.S. civilians in Iraq and in the broader Middle East.
  The President of the United States and the administration are 
confronted with this information. What is the wholly appropriate thing 
for them to do? The appropriate thing for them to do is to reposition 
military assets to the region, No. 1, to protect the Americans who are 
there in case they come under attack and, No. 2, to be in a position to 
retaliate.
  The reason this is important is you hope to deter this sort of 
attack. What you are hoping to do is to show them that we have military 
capabilities in the region so that if we are attacked by their proxies 
at the direction of the Quds Force, we are going to respond to that 
forcefully. What you hope that will do, along with public messaging, is 
get into their heads and make them decide ``We are not going to do 
this.'' That is what has happened here, and it is wholly appropriate.
  For a moment, I want you to imagine. If, in fact, an attack such as 
this occurred and if, God forbid, hundreds of Americans were killed, 
the first question everybody would have is, Why didn't we have military 
assets in the region to protect them? Why couldn't we get them out? 
That is the first question everyone around here is going to ask.

  What the administration has done to pre-position military assets in 
the region for this potential contingency is entirely appropriate. Also 
appropriate is the notion that we are not going to start a war, but if 
we are attacked by Iran's proxies, we are going to respond against 
those proxies, and we are going to hold Iran responsible. It is going 
to pay a price for this as well. Who could disagree with the notion 
that if we are attacked, we have a right to defend ourselves and 
respond? That is the only thing that is happening here.
  I am pleased that in the last day, more Members of the Senate have 
been made privy to this stream of information so that people can begin 
to see that the actions the administration has taken up to this point 
are not just wholly justified but are appropriate. Yet I am concerned 
about some of the reactions I have seen with regard to this because I 
think they bode ill both for this case and for the future.
  One of the first reactions I have seen is that this is not true, that 
they are literally making it up, that there is no such intelligence, 
and that it is being exaggerated. There are even some leakers--I don't 
know who these people are--who are lying to media outlets about the 
contents of this intelligence because they have axes to grind against 
somebody else in the administration, and they want to create 
embarrassment.
  Look, I get this bureaucratic infighting, but I don't understand it 
when it comes to issues of national security. Even if this information 
is 50 percent accurate, we have an obligation to err on the side of 
caution, especially when American lives are on the line.
  I encourage all Senators to read this information or access it 
through their offices and, obviously, when we have a briefing with the 
appropriate officials, to attend that as well, and I believe you will 
agree with me.
  The second thing I am hearing is ``Oh, this is just a path to war''--
equating this to the Iraq war of over a decade ago. This is nothing 
like that. That was an offensive operation. That was an invasion of 
another country. This is not posturing for a military attack; this is 
military posturing for the purposes of defensive operations. As I have 
said repeatedly, it is very straightforward: If Iran attacks, there 
will be a war. If Iran does not attack, there will not be a war.
  I think the most disappointing is some insinuation, including by 
Members of this body--publicly and privately--that somehow, we are 
going to provoke an attack; that elements of the American Government 
are going to go out and do something to get Iran to hit us so that we 
will have an excuse to go to war. I don't know how you prove a 
negative, but I find that to be wholly unsubstantiated and dangerous.
  Let me tell you why this is problematic. What encourages Iran to 
believe it can get away with this is that it believes if one of these 
groups--one of the Shia militias in Iraq--attacks us, it is going to be 
able to say that it is ``not us,'' that it is some rogue group that did 
it. ``Don't hold us responsible for it.'' The more Iran thinks it can 
get away with that, the more likely it is to do it. So it is important 
that this be exposed for what it is.
  The second reason Iran thinks it can get away with it is I think it 
believes it can exploit our political divisions. I think Iran reads 
these newspapers and watches the news and realizes that some percentage 
of Americans and, certainly, a significant percentage of Americans in 
politics is going to, in some way, take Iran's side on this. People are 
going to say that we provoked it--that this is our fault, that we did 
something that made Iran mad, that we created the tensions that led to 
this--or that the intelligence was flawed or that it wasn't Iran but 
one of these other groups.
  By the way, the more of that Iran reads, the likelier it is to do 
this. That doesn't mean I don't believe we can have a legitimate 
debate. I support designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization. We 
can have a legitimate debate about whether that should have been done 
but not right now. Right now, Americans potentially stand in harm's 
way, and they need the United States of America to be supporting 
efforts to defend and to protect them.
  Here is what I know none of us can disagree with, I hope: No. 1, that 
if there is any serious indication that Americans anywhere are 
threatened, we must position ourselves to protect them, defend them, 
extract them, and retaliate if they are attacked. The second thing we 
should all be able to agree on is that if Americans come under attack, 
even if it is from a proxy force that is directed by a foreign agent 
like the IRGC, not only must we defend against that attack, but we must 
punish it with swift retaliation. That should unite us on a matter of 
incredible importance.
  I hope all of the misinformation will stop because this matter is too 
important with which to play political games.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.