[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.