[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 4 (Wednesday, January 8, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Page S70]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                  Iran

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday evening, Iran launched more than 
a dozen ballistic missiles against military bases in Iraq, which house 
U.S. troops.
  After General Qasem Soleimani was killed in a targeted drone strike 
late last week in an act of self-defense and to deter further 
aggression against America and our allies, our forces were on high 
alert for an Iranian attack. President Trump and our military leaders 
emphasized that we would be prepared for whatever response Iran chose 
to deliver, and by all accounts we were.
  If the present circumstances hold, it appears that no U.S. 
servicemembers were harmed during this attack last night by Iran, which 
is the best outcome we could have hoped for. In addition, I am glad no 
Iraqi troops appear to have been injured or killed in this strike as 
well.
  While the result of this provocation by Iran could have been a lot 
worse, it does not diminish the fact that the world's leading state 
sponsor of terrorism has a sophisticated and capable ballistic program. 
We know that those capabilities only accelerated under the Joint 
Comprehensive Plan of Action--the so-called nuclear deal during the 
previous administration--as has the regime's pursuit of their nuclear 
aspirations.
  I am confident that this administration's maximum-pressure campaign, 
combined with our unparalleled military capabilities, as well as the 
President's decisive actions that have culminated in the airstrike last 
week, have prevented a much worse outcome from this attack by Iran.
  Last week, I had the opportunity to visit Strategic Command, 
STRATCOM, in Omaha, NE, where their motto is ``strategic deterrence.'' 
I think that is an important goal to keep in mind; that is, having the 
means and capabilities not only of hitting back but a message of 
deterrence to our adversaries to dissuade them from initiating 
hostilities in the first place.
  President Ronald Reagan had his own notion of strategic deterrence. 
He called it ``peace through strength.'' I believe that is something 
the President's actions last week have begun to restore, no less a 
luminary than former GEN David Petraeus, who said, after the Soleimani 
attack, that perhaps--just perhaps--this would reestablish deterrence. 
Indeed, based on the response by the Iranian regime last night, where 
they obviously targeted uninhabited areas, and they wanted to save face 
by showing that they were doing something to retaliate but not wanting 
to escalate, I think General Petraeus is right on. What has happened, 
to this point, is reestablishing some level of deterrence.
  I applaud the President for speaking to the American people this 
morning and making it clear that, under his watch, Iran will never ever 
have a nuclear weapon. In my view, this is the single most important 
policy objective for the United States and our allies in the Middle 
East.
  Deterrence through strength, combined with additional economic 
sanctions, are designed to encourage and persuade the Iranian regime to 
rejoin the community of nations, which will help pave the way for a 
better way of life for the Iranian people and to give up these tools of 
terror which have characterized the Iranian regime since 1979, since 
the revolution--exporting that terror to other countries. There was no 
one more responsible for doing that than General Soleimani, who was 
taken out in an airstrike last week.
  As we move forward, the United States and our allies can't turn back. 
We can't relieve this maximum-pressure campaign, and we also must 
remain cognizant of the dangers of creating power vacuums in the Middle 
East.
  I also hope our allies in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom 
will work with us to persuade the U.N. to invoke the snapback 
provisions under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to restore 
international sanctions and restrictions on the Iranian regime to 
further persuade them to join us in negotiations, which will lead to a 
better outcome for all. It will be helpful if our friends and allies in 
the UK, France, and Germany will join us in that effort.
  While the United States has not purposely sought out further conflict 
that could lead to an unnecessary loss of life, we need to defend--we 
must always defend American personnel and our interests in the Middle 
East.
  As the President has pointed out this morning, one of the things 
that, historically, has given Presidents like Jimmy Carter the 
determination to declare the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz as an act 
of war during his administration was our overdependence on energy from 
the Middle East. As the President pointed out this morning, thanks to 
the creativity and innovation in places like Oklahoma, Texas, North 
Dakota, and elsewhere, we are now largely energy independent and self-
sufficient. We can now use this as a tool to engage other countries 
that are completely dependent on countries like Russia, Iran, and 
others in the Middle East for their energy needs. So this is changing 
the geopolitics of the world. This is not just the President taking a 
divisive action against the leading master of terrorism in the Middle 
East; the geopolitics of the world have shifted, and I hope we will all 
work together to take advantage of that.
  As I said, I appreciate the President's courage and leadership. This 
must have been no easy decision, to be sure. I continue to be proud of 
our military leadership and the rank-and-file servicemembers who have 
worked so hard to protect the United States and our national interests 
in the Middle East and around the world.