[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 7, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S31-S32]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAN

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I spoke yesterday about President 
Trump's decision to remove the chief architect of Tehran's terrorism 
from the battlefield, and I discussed the Senate's obligation to 
approach this in a manner that is serious, sober, and factual.
  It is right for Senators to want to learn more about the President's 
major decision. Once again, I encourage all of our colleagues to attend 
the classified briefing which the administration will provide tomorrow. 
The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the CIA Director will give a classified 
context behind the President's decision, and they will discuss the 
administration's strategy to protect our personnel and defend our 
Nation's interests in the new landscape. I would ask every Senator on 
both sides to bring an open mind to this briefing.
  In particular, we should all remember that the history of Iranian 
aggression began long, long before this news cycle or this Presidency. 
In the decades since the Islamic revolution of 1979, as the White House 
has changed parties and our administrations have changed strategies, 
Tehran's simmering anti-American hatred, proxy violence, and steady 
support for terrorism worldwide have remained entirely constant through 
all of these years.
  In effect, Iran has been at war with the United States for years. 
While it has taken pains to avoid direct conflict, Iran's authoritarian 
regime has shown no compunction about kidnapping, torturing, and 
killing Americans since its earliest days--or Iraqis or fellow 
Iranians, for that matter. From the 52 diplomatic personnel held 
hostage in Tehran for 444 days back in 1979, to the hundreds of U.S. 
servicemembers killed in bombings carried out by Iran's proxies--Beirut 
in 1983, Riyadh in 1995, Khobar in 1996--to the hundreds more killed or 
maimed in Iraq by the explosives and indirect fire attacks ordered by 
General Soleimani himself, to the constant flows of resources and 
equipment that prop up despots and terrorist organizations throughout 
the region, Iran's game plan has been an open book: Use third-party 
terrorism to inflict death and suffering on its enemies while avoiding 
direct confrontation.
  The threat Iran poses is, certainly, not new. Its violence is not 
some unique reaction to President Trump or to Prime Minister Netanyahu 
or to any other current leader. Violence runs in the bloodstream of 
this evil regime.
  In particular, our colleagues who apparently want to blame President 
Trump for Iranian provocative foreign policy should reflect on the 
previous administration's recent history.
  Iran exploited President Obama's withdrawal from Iraq. Soleimani and 
his agents filled the void and dramatically expanded Iranian influence 
inside Iraq. They were able to impose a sectarian vision on Iraq that 
disenfranchised the Sunnis, fueled the rise of ISIS, and plunged the 
region into chaos.
  Over in Syria, more weakness from the Obama administration opened yet 
another door for Iran. The Democratic administration failed to confront 
the Iranian-backed Assad regime as it slaughtered literally hundreds of 
thousands of Syrians and displaced millions more. Once again, amid the 
chaos, Soleimani worked and thrived.
  Of course, all of this was the backdrop for the brazen, legacy-
shopping

[[Page S32]]

nuclear arrangement that sent billions of dollars to fuel Iran's 
further violence.
  Even my friend the current Democratic leader knew it at the time. 
Before he himself voted for a resolution of disapproval on President 
Obama's deal, Senator Schumer said: ``After 10 years, if Iran is the 
same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement 
than without it.'' That was the Democratic leader, who opposed 
President Obama's Iran nuclear deal, and the Democratic leader was 
prescient, for that is exactly what happened.
  The previous administration failed to confront Iran when necessary. 
So the mullahs used their windfall from the disastrous nuclear deal to 
double down on hegemonic aspirations all across the Middle East. A 
Democratic administration just had 8 years to deal with the growing 
threat posed by Iran, and it failed demonstrably. Iran was stronger and 
more lethal at the end of the Obama Presidency than at the beginning.
  So I would ask my Democratic colleagues today not to rush to lash out 
at President Trump when he actually demonstrates that he means what he 
says--when he enforces his redlines, when he takes real action to 
counter lethal threats against Americans.
  Wishing away tensions with Iran is really not an option. The Iranians 
have spent decades making that perfectly clear to all of us. The 
question is whether we as a body would prefer the administration to 
stand by as Iran kills Americans or whether we are prepared to work 
with the President to stand up to Tehran's terrorism and shadow wars.

                          ____________________