[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 5 (Thursday, January 9, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S110-S112]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Iran
Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak about the
policy of the United States toward the Islamic Republic of Iran. I
commend the administration for taking decisive action last week in
Baghdad against Tehran-backed terrorists planning an imminent attack on
American targets.
The administration's action with Qasem Soleimani was not only
decisive but necessary and legal under longstanding Presidential
authority to protect American lives from imminent attack. It is our
obligation, it is our duty to protect American lives, especially when
our national security agencies and personnel know the imminent danger
of attack.
The President made the right call at the right time to neutralize the
threat
[[Page S111]]
and to save American lives. Imagine having done nothing--having done
nothing--and allowing the attacks to proceed. That is exactly what
happened. At yesterday's classified briefing, General Milley and our
national security personnel made it clear: The death of General
Soleimani saved lives.
Our duty in Congress is to protect the United States, its people and
interests, diplomats, and our men and women in uniform around the
globe. The actions taken by our military in Iraq undoubtedly saved
American lives and addressed a clear, compelling, and unambiguous
threat.
The world should not mourn Qasem Soleimani--a man whose name is
synonymous with murder in the Middle East as the head of the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force, which is designated as a
terrorist organization under U.S. law; a man who was personally
designated as a terrorist battlefield commander by President Obama. The
Quds Force was the tip of the spear for the regime in its terrorist
activities abroad and is responsible for thousands of deaths across the
region.
Most importantly, according to the Pentagon, Soleimani was
responsible for the deaths of over 600 American servicemembers in Iraq.
GEN David Petraeus, who commanded our forces in Iraq, stated last week
that in his opinion, taking out Soleimani was bigger than bin Laden,
bigger than Baghdadi.
In other words, President Trump rid the world of an extreme and
lethal enemy of the American people--someone who was actively pursuing
and had killed and taken American lives. I fail to understand how
anyone can question this decision or its rationale. I know they
certainly did not--and rightfully so--when President Obama took out bin
Laden.
We expected an Iranian response, and on Tuesday, Iran launched a
ballistic missile attack against bases in Iraq hosting U.S. troops. I
condemn these attacks in the strongest terms, and we are fortunate that
they did not result in any casualties.
I do not want war with Iran, but the President did not take this
action in a vacuum. Contrary to claims by some of my colleagues in this
very Chamber, it is Iran that has escalated tensions, not the United
States. Over the last several months and years, Iran has sharply
escalated its malign behavior against the United States and our allies.
On June 13, the IRGC attacked two oil tankers in the Strait of
Hormuz, a critical global shipping lane. On June 20, the IRGC shot down
a U.S. unmanned aerial vehicle in international space. September 14,
Iran sponsored an attack on Saudi Arabia's oil facilities, temporarily
cutting off half of the oil supply of the world's largest producer.
December 27, Iranian proxy group Kataib Hezbollah carried out a deadly
attack against a base in northern Iraq, killing an American civilian--
killing an American. The administration appropriately retaliated
against this group on December 29. Then, on New Year's Eve, Iran-backed
militias besieged and damaged the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad for 2 days,
forcing the administration to take prudent measures to prevent further
violence.
When Soleimani was caught plotting additional attacks against
American targets, the administration took lawful and appropriate
action. I now urge Tehran to take the opportunity to deescalate
tensions immediately. The administration must also continue taking all
necessary steps to keep our troops, diplomats, and countries safe, and
to regularly consult with Congress on next steps.
It is my hope that diplomacy ultimately prevails, but we must not
repeat the mistakes of the past. Iran's enmity toward the United States
stretches over decades, not just months or weeks. Following the Islamic
Revolution in Iran in 1979, the ruling mullahs held 52 American
diplomats hostage for 444 days, releasing them only on January 20,
1981, the day President Ronald Reagan was sworn into office. Two years
later, on April 18, 1983, a truck laden with explosives rammed into the
U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 17 Americans. On October 23,
1983, a similar attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut killed 241
American servicemen. Overwhelmingly, the evidence led to Iran and its
wholly owned subsidiary, Hezbollah, as the perpetrator of these
attacks.
The Iranian regime has not changed in 40 years. It targeted and
killed Americans during the Iraq war, supported Shiite militias, and
supplied deadly explosives used to target our troops. Iran continues to
prop up the regime of the murderous Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The
Iranian regime regularly refers to the United States as the Great Satan
and threatens our ally, Israel, which they call Little Satan--threatens
to wipe them off the face of the Earth. The mullahs continue to grossly
abuse the human rights of their own people, as demonstrated by recent
bloody crackdowns on protesters in Iran that have claimed hundreds and
hundreds of innocent lives.
Despite all of this, in 2015, the Obama administration rewarded
Tehran with a sweetheart deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action, or JCPOA, which paved a patient pathway to a nuclear weapon for
Iran, lifted all meaningful sanctions against the regime, and did
nothing to constrain Iran's malign behavior in the region. Iran used
the billions of dollars that were provided in the JCPOA to dramatically
increase its terror funding and its military funding.
The Trump administration rightly exited the JCPOA in May 2018 and
reimposed crippling economic sanctions against the regime. They have
been clear with Iran that the door to diplomacy remains open if Iran
changes its behavior and complies with international norms.
On May 21, 2018, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a speech at
the Heritage Foundation, which clearly stated the administration's
objectives: Iran must forgo its nuclear aspirations, cease its support
for terrorism, and respect the human rights of its people. Secretary
Pompeo said:
Any new agreement will make sure Iran never acquires a
nuclear weapon, and will deter the regime's malign behavior
in a way the JCPOA never could.
We will not repeat the mistakes of past administrations,
and we will not renegotiate the JCPOA itself. The Iranian
wave of destruction in the region in just the last few years
is proof that Iran's nuclear aspirations cannot be separated
from the overall security picture.
Secretary Pompeo was clear that once Iran changes its behavior, it
will reap the benefits, stating:
[The United States is] prepared to end the principal
components of every one of our sanctions against the regime.
We're happy at that point to re-establish full diplomatic and
commercial relationships with Iran.
And we're prepared to admit Iran to have advanced
technology. If Iran makes this fundamental strategic shift,
we, too, are prepared to support the modernization and
reintegration of the Iranian economy into the international
economic system.
I hope the latest events have made it clear to Tehran that the United
States will never back down from protecting our people, our interests,
and our allies. Now the ball is in Tehran's court to choose the path of
peace or the path of confrontation. It is my sincere hope that they
choose the path of peace.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I have come to the floor today to talk
for a while about the nomination of Paul Ray to serve as Administrator
of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. I will do that,
but first I want to take a few minutes to set the record straight on
what we just heard.
Tom Friedman, who writes for the New York Times, is a famous author,
lecturer, and a brilliant guy. Among the things he has mentioned in his
writings over the last 3 years is something called the Trump doctrine.
The Trump doctrine goes something like this: Barack built it. I, Trump,
broke it. You fix it.
There are any number of examples where that has happened: Paris
accords on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide on our planet and the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, where the United States would lead 11 other
nations in a trade agreement around the world. Those 12 nations would
be responsible for 40 percent of the world's trade. Under that
agreement negotiated in the last administration, the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, we would lead that 12-nation group in 40 percent of the
world's trade. China was on the outside looking in. This administration
walked away from that.
The greatest source of carbon emissions in our planet and the
greatest threat to the future of the planet for
[[Page S112]]
these young pages--whom I am looking at now--is way, way too much
carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. It is getting worse, not getting
better. The greatest source of carbon emissions on our planet are
emissions from our cars, trucks, and vans.
The last administration negotiated a 50-State deal, which would have
reduced emissions from mobile sources dramatically in the years to
come. This administration broke away from it. They walked away from it.
The last administration negotiated a rule regulation to dramatically
reduce emissions from the second greatest source of carbon emissions in
this country and from our utilities: coal-fired utilities, primarily.
If you add together the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions going
forward from our mobile sources negotiated by the last administration
and negotiated in a regulation called the Clean Power Plan, they would
provide almost half of the emission reductions by 2050 that we need--
almost half. This administration walked away from both.
The last administration argued that rather than always be threatening
war with Iran and doing these proxy wars with Iran, maybe what we
should focus on is the main thing. A friend used to advise me. He said:
Tom, the main thing is keep the main thing the main thing. The reason
why we negotiated the JCPOA deal with Iran was to deter Iran from
developing and having nuclear weapons that could create a nuclear arms
race in the Middle East and put them and, I think, the rest of our
planet, literally, at risk. Under the agreement negotiated with Iran
and six other nations--including the United States, the Brits, the
French, the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese--under the agreement,
the Iranians had to agree to stand down, to slow down much of their
nuclear enrichment that could actually lead to nuclear weapons. They
had to agree to intrusive inspections by the IAEA, the international
watchdog for atomic energy. In return for their willingness to do those
things, we would reduce the very harsh sanctions that had been put in
place by the last administration--very harsh economic sanctions.
The Iranians did what they agreed to do. They stood down their
development. They opened up their facilities to intrusive inspections
by the IAEA for the last 4 years. There were almost 20 different rounds
of inspections, each of which came to the same conclusion: Iran,
whether we like it or not, whether we like their leaders or not, kept
their word. Some of us remember what Ronald Reagan used to talk about.
He used to say that in terms of doing nuclear deals with the Russians--
the Soviets--he used to say: ``Trust but verify.''
Well, what we did with the Iran deal was mistrust or distrust. We
didn't trust them, but we would verify that they were keeping their
word. Whether we like it or not, surprisingly, they did, until this
administration came along and walked away from that agreement, which
was working. It imposed even harsher sanctions on Iran and led us to,
really, where we are today.
Again, Tom Friedman, who gave us the Trump doctrine: Barack built it.
I, Trump broke it. You fix it. This is just another example of that
happening. We shouldn't be surprised by the events of the past week. It
didn't have to be that way. It didn't have to be that way.
I think in the country of Iran, half of the people are under the age
of 25. They were never born when the original Ayatollah was in charge,
and they had the Iranian revolution. The younger people there would
like a better relationship with us. They have elections there, too,
where people can actually show up and vote--men and women--vote for
municipal elections, for mayors, city councils, and so forth, for
Parliament--their Congress is called the Parliament--for their
President. I think the last time they voted was 3 years ago. You know
which forces gained votes? They don't have Democrats or Republicans
over there. They have hard-liners, and they have moderates. The
moderates gained election victories in mayoral elections across the
country and city council elections across the country. The moderates
picked up a lot of votes in the Parliament. The hard-liners lost votes.
The actions of this administration over the last 3 years have pushed
Iranian voters, including a lot of young people, away from supporting
the moderates in their Nation and pushed them into the arms of the
radical extremists, the hard-liners. It didn't have to be that way. It
didn't have to be that way.
I don't know how we put this mess back together again, but we need
to. I am not sure. I don't have a lot of confidence that this
administration is going to be able to do that, given their track record
over the last 3 years--at least on this issue.