[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 25, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4475-S4476]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAN

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the Senate and the Nation are closely 
watching the situation in the Gulf. Last week, the recent recklessness 
from Tehran reached a new level. Iran fired on an unmanned U.S. 
intelligence aircraft that was flying over international waters. This 
is as violent and dangerous an overt provocation as any nation has 
aimed at the United States in, literally, years.
  This is not a time for partisanship, but, unfortunately, we are 
already seeing extreme voices on the far left that are so afflicted by 
the ``Trump derangement syndrome'' that they repeat Iranian talking 
points and advertise the absurd notion that our country, our 
administration, our President are somehow to blame for Tehran's violent 
aggression. Blame America first. By 2019, nobody should need a history 
lesson on Iran, but, apparently, some need a refresher, because there 
should be no question about who is at fault.
  Iran has disregarded international law and violated the laws of armed 
conflict since the first days of the Islamic Republic. Its malign 
activities as the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism 
include its crusade to destroy Israel, including its sponsorship of 
countless terrorist attacks; the malevolence throughout the Persian 
Gulf, including proxies in Yemen who have recently attacked civilian 
targets; perennial threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key 
international waterway that is essential to global commerce; and, of 
course, the longstanding asymmetrical war it has waged against us that 
began with the infamous takeover of the U.S. Embassy in 1979 and the 
50-plus hostages who were held captive for 444 days; the provision of 
weapons, training, funding, and direction to terrorist groups, 
including Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Taliban, 
and Shiite militias in Iraq, which are responsible for the murders of 
hundreds of U.S. servicemembers from Lebanon to Iraq to Afghanistan, 
and more attacks plotted on U.S. targets worldwide, including in our 
own homeland.

  The record is blindingly obvious. It is why so many of us opposed the 
Obama administration's deal with Iran. Many of us understood that the 
agreement not only failed to properly address the nuclear threat but 
that it also completely ignored the other threats that Iran posed to 
international peace and stability. In fact, some prescient Members of 
this body warned that the deal would amplify Iran's dangerous behavior.
  I remember back in 2015 when the current ranking member on the 
Foreign Relations Committee insisted the Obama administration's policy 
would invite the kind of mess we see today.

[[Page S4476]]

  Here is what he said:

       If there is a fear of war in the region, it will be one 
     fueled by Iran and its proxies and exacerbated by an 
     agreement that allows Iran to possess an industrial-sized 
     nuclear program and enough money in sanctions relief to 
     significantly continue to fund its hegemonic intentions.

  This was said by our colleague from New Jersey, who was the ranking 
member on the Foreign Relations Committee back in 2015.
  Here is my colleague from New York, the current Democratic leader, 
and what he said: ``Under this agreement, Iran would receive at least 
$50 billion in the near future and would undoubtedly use some of that 
money to redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle 
East and, perhaps, beyond.'' That was from the Democratic leader in 
that same year.
  He acknowledged that the hard-liners' ``No. 1 goal [is] strengthening 
Iran's armed forces and pursuing even more harmful military and 
terrorist actions.''
  This is exactly the situation President Trump inherited in 2017, as 
emboldened Tehran was committed to spending its new resources on 
military capabilities, exporting terrorism, and pursuing regional 
hegemony. So President Trump was right to seek a better deal and apply 
maximum pressure on Tehran until it changed its destabilizing behavior. 
Tough sanctions are compounding the economic pain the mullahs have 
brought on their own people through corrupt mismanagement.
  Iran is responding to this legitimate and judicious application of 
diplomatic and economic pressure the way it has effectively operated 
for years--what do they always do?--through violence, attacks against 
commercial vessels in international waters, sponsored attacks against 
civilian targets in the Gulf, and then last week's unprovoked attack on 
our unarmed aircraft.
  We face a choice here. Will we legitimize and incentivize Iran's use 
of terror and aggression or will we stay resolute and apply appropriate 
and proportionate pressure until Tehran respects the fundamental norms 
of international behavior?
  Last Thursday, President Trump consulted with a bipartisan group of 
congressional leaders and national security chairmen and ranking 
members. The President weighed advice from a number of sources. It is 
clear he was listening to congressional leaders. Clearly, the President 
wants to avoid war--hence the deliberate and judicious approach he has 
taken since the shoot-down; hence his repeated efforts to give Iran's 
leaders an off-ramp toward negotiations.
  Nevertheless, there is a general consensus that this act of 
aggression cannot stand. Tehran must understand it may not respond to 
legitimate diplomatic pressure with illegitimate violence. It is in our 
national security interest for the United States to deter attacks 
against American forces that are operating legally in international 
waters and to honor our long history of defending the freedom of the 
seas and the freedom of international commerce.
  Since Iran's aggression and threats to global commerce threaten 
everyone, I hope all nations will join the United States and its allies 
in condemning Tehran and imposing significant consequences for its 
hostile acts.
  Look, I understand the significant appetite in Congress for the 
President to consult with us as he continues to deliberate. Obviously, 
that is appropriate. My colleagues should share their views with the 
administration. I understand that the Foreign Relations and Armed 
Services Committees will be holding hearings with senior administration 
officials after July 4. What is not productive is an effort being 
promoted by the Democratic leader that would preemptively tie the hands 
of our military commanders, weaken our diplomatic leverage, embolden 
our adversaries, and create a dangerous precedent.
  Therefore, I will strongly oppose the Udall amendment, which would 
gratuitously take crucial options off the table. It would hamstring 
both our commanders and our diplomats, all of whose leverage depends on 
the knowledge that the United States reserves the right to act 
forcefully if and when necessary.
  Ten years ago, my friend the Democratic leader said verbatim: ``When 
it comes to Iran, we should never take the military option off the 
table.'' That is exactly what the amendment he supports would do.
  Nearly every President has utilized a limited use of force against 
adversaries without pre-authorization from Congress. Nearly every 
President has done that. Of course, major hostilities require 
congressional concurrence and the support of the American people. So 
the Democrats should stop their fear mongering because no one is 
calling for major military operations--not the President, not his 
military commanders, not the Republicans in Congress.
  This amendment would impose unprecedented limitations that would go 
far beyond the War Powers Resolution. As drafted, it could prevent U.S. 
military forces from defending themselves against an attack or 
conducting a timely counterattack. If we had actionable intelligence 
that an attack were imminent, it would prevent U.S. forces from doing 
anything about it. If Israel were attacked, it would prevent U.S. 
forces from providing immediate assistance to our closest ally in the 
region.
  This amendment flies in the face of many Democrats' past clarity 
about Iran, and it casts doubt on our seriousness in defending our own 
military personnel, much less the freedom of the seas.
  The Democrats must set aside the habit of unthinking, reflexive 
opposition to every single thing this President does. That is why I 
call it the Trump derangement syndrome. Perhaps it would help if they 
were reminded of what the Democratic candidate for President in 2016 
had to say about what her policy would have been toward Iran and the 
Gulf had she been elected.
  Here is what Hillary Clinton had to say:

       I will reaffirm that the Persian Gulf is a region of vital 
     interest to the United States. . . . We'll keep the Strait of 
     Hormuz open. We'll increase security cooperation with our 
     Gulf allies, including intelligence sharing, military 
     support, and missile defense to ensure they can defend 
     against Iranian aggression, even if that takes the form of 
     cyberattacks or other nontraditional threats.

  She went on:

       Iran should understand that the United States, and I as 
     President, will not stand by as our Gulf allies and partners 
     are threatened.

  She concluded by saying:

       We will act.

  That was from Hillary Clinton.
  So nearly every word of that statement accurately describes the 
policy the Trump administration has pursued for the last 2 years.
  Our Gulf allies and partners are threatened by Iran. Israel is 
threatened by Iran. The Strait of Hormuz is threatened by Iran. And 
America has been attacked by Iran. The threat is not in doubt. The 
question is whether Democrats still mean what they said or whether they 
completely changed their minds about how the U.S. must respond simply 
because--simply because--the White House has changed parties.

                          ____________________