[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 23, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4603-S4605]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 81
Mr. RICKETTS. Madam President, Iran cannot be allowed to have a
nuclear weapon. This has been a redline for decades, going back to
President Clinton.
The reason is because the results would be catastrophic. It would
create an existential threat to our allies and partners in the region,
such as Israel. Even worse, it would create a threat to our heroic
servicemembers, at a time when Iran and its proxies have already shed
blood and have that blood on their hands.
It would trigger a regional arms race, as countries threatened by
Iran's persistent malign aggression seek their own nuclear deterrent.
And it would lead to an even more assertive and aggressive Iran that
would be emboldened
[[Page S4604]]
by its perceived security guarantees that come with a nuclear weapon.
That is why Israel's recent military campaign against Iran, which
culminated in successful airstrikes ordered by President Trump on
Iran's key nuclear facilities, is so important. Iran is now as weak as
it has ever been since the 1980s, probably weaker. The strikes have
delayed Iran's path to a nuclear weapon by a few years.
But in order to seize this moment, the United States and our allies
must impose maximum pressure to the highest extent possible to force
Iran to permanently and verifiably end its nuclear program, including
its capacity to enrich uranium. This is why the snapback of U.N.
sanctions is so important.
Ten years ago, Iran made commitments under JCPOA, including reducing
its enriching of uranium and its uranium stockpile, limiting the
enrichment of uranium and its centrifuges, and allowing intrusive
monitoring. As a result, the U.N. passed U.N. Security Council
Resolution 2231, which endorsed the JCPOA.
In exchange for Iran's compliance, it provided for the eventual
termination of all previous U.N. sanctions targeting Iran's nuclear
program after 10 years. It also sunset U.N. arms restrictions on Iran
after 5 years and U.N. prohibitions on Iran's missile and drone
activities after 8 years, both of which have now expired.
However, even before the prohibitions ended, Iran was blatantly
violating them, sending suicide drones to Russia and weapons of terror
to its proxies, like Hamas and the Houthis. These sanctions should not
have been allowed to expire in the first place, especially when the
price was destruction of European cities and the lives of American
citizens threatened by Iranian weapons.
Under 2231, any signatory to the JCPOA--which includes the UK,
France, and Germany--can trigger the snapback of these waived sanctions
and restrictions if Iran is in ``significant non-performance of [its]
commitments under the JCPOA.'' Not only has Iran blatantly violated
these commitments, but it has done so repeatedly for 6 years, all
without consequences from the U.N.
On top of that, in June, the IAEA, the world's nuclear watchdog, for
the first time in two decades, declared that Iran had failed to comply
with its IAEA safeguard obligations.
And how did Iran respond? By threatening Director General Grossi and
effectively kicking out the IAEA's remaining inspectors and booting
them out of the country.
From breaching the cap on its stockpile of uranium and enriching to
60 percent, to expanding its nuclear facilities, Iran has trampled on
its obligations under the JCPOA.
So where does that leave us? The West has 87 days before we lose our
ability to snap back tough U.N. sanctions on Iran. That opportunity
permanently expires on October 18. But the real deadline is much
sooner. The snapback process takes at least 30 days to fully complete.
Adding to the urgency, Russia is set to take over as President of the
U.N. Security Council in October. This would allow Russia to use its
position to delay the process and run out the clock. Iran knows this.
Just yesterday, Iran held talks with Russia and communist China to
discuss preventing the activation of the snapback. This cannot be
allowed to happen.
Our European allies have said that they are prepared to trigger
snapback by the end of August if no firm, tangible, and verifiable
nuclear commitments from Iran are in place. This is being done in
coordination with the Trump administration, which continues to pursue
diplomatic talks with Iran.
I commend our allies for setting a deadline; however, this path is
under a timeline that leaves little room for error. Unsurprisingly, the
Iranian regime is resorting to its longstanding play book to delay, to
delay, to delay and prevent snapback from happening.
Later this week, the Iranians are scheduled to meet with the E3 in
Istanbul. There are rumors that discussions could center on under what
conditions the E3 would postpone the snapback. But today, I stand to
urge our European friends to hold the line and not to bend to Iranian
threats or be fooled by Iranian assurances.
After 10 years, Iran does not need more time; it needs more pressure.
A window now exists to completely change the trajectory of the Middle
East for the better, but that window will close unless we convince Iran
that its nuclear weapons program will never be tolerated, period. That
is why this resolution urges the E3 to snap back sanctions as soon as
possible. We must not let Iran off the hook.
At this point, I would certainly love to hear from my esteemed
colleague from Idaho.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schmitt). The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I thank Senator Ricketts for those very
clear remarks that demonstrate exactly why this needs to be done.
I myself for a long time have hoped to see our European partners wake
up to the extreme threat that we all face from a nuclear Iran. Today,
we are 10 years on from President Obama's failed nuclear deal with
Iran. Over the last 10 years, Iran has enjoyed unwarranted sanctions
relief, and time is short before the opportunity expires to snap back
sanctions, as has been described by my colleague from Nebraska.
This resolution would make it clear that the U.S. Senate understands
the threats we face from a nuclear Iran and urges our UK, French, and
German partners to immediately trigger snapback sanctions pursuant to
U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231. We cannot afford to wait until
the end of August. Initiating the snapback process would be right and a
long-overdue move and would deny Iran the resources it uses for its
terror agenda.
The 2015 deal flooded Iran with cash while allowing it low-level
enrichment, a clock to simply wait out, no limitations on ballistic
missiles, and nothing to rein in terror proxies. Years down the line,
the sanctions relief Iran received from this deal directly funded
Iran's terror proxies and led to Hamas's October 7 attack on Israel.
Iran's ejection of the International Atomic Energy Agency from its
facilities marked the latest in a long chain of violations of Iran's
nuclear commitments. These actions confirmed what we have known all
along: The Iran nuclear program is not civilian, as they claim; it is
the pursuit of a bomb to destroy Israel and threaten U.S. national
security interests in the region.
The international community must not tolerate this activity any
longer. The decision to initiate the snapback process is only the
beginning. The U.N. Security Council must fully process and formally
reinstate U.N. sanctions without delay. Furthermore, once sanctions are
back in place, we must commit to their enforcement. Chinese purchases
of Iranian oil and illicit oil smuggling through third countries have
long violated existing U.N. sanctions. Once U.N. sanctions return, all
member countries will have a duty to crack down on this illegal
activity.
President Trump has once again instituted a maximum-pressure policy
to bring Iran to the negotiating table. I hope our European friends
will also take the next step to counter Iran's threat to regional and
global security for good. This resolution will communicate with our
European friends that it is the intent of this body to do so.
With that, I yield back to Senator Ricketts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Idaho's
remarks because they are spot-on with regard to what is going on here.
Under previous administrations like the Obama administration and the
Biden administration, the strategy was to try to buy off Iran, to try
to give them enough money to be our friend. And that is a failed
policy. It has been demonstrated to be a failed policy.
Under the Trump administration's first term, where they applied
maximum sanctions, they were able to take Iran's foreign reserves down
from $122.5 billion to under $14 billion. When that happened, Iran did
not have the money to be able to fund terrorist organizations like the
Houthis or Hamas or Hezbollah. When the Biden administration came in
and opened up the valves for them to get their oil money again, that is
when we saw this problem reoccurring.
To my colleague's point, if you look at what is going on, the
enrichment
[[Page S4605]]
they are doing right now is not for civilian nuclear programs. Mr.
President, 23 countries in this world today have civilian nuclear
energy programs, and what they do is they get their enriched uranium
from other sources; they don't enrich it themselves. This allows them
to have a civilian program. This is what Iran needs to go to. They
cannot be allowed to have an enrichment program.
Maximum pressure is what works. It has been demonstrated to work in
the first Trump administration. The appeasement of the Biden
administration only encouraged them to fund terrorism around the world.
Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism.
So I believe that the European countries need to snap back these
sanctions. This will help us in negotiations with Iran right now. As I
mentioned, they are at their weakest state since the 1980s and may be
weaker. So we must snap back these sanctions. This resolution will
encourage our European allies to do that.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII and
as if in legislative session, the Committee on Foreign Relations be
discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S.
Res. 81. I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the Ricketts
amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the preamble, as
amended, be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered
made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, diplomacy
cannot be all stick and no carrot. There is no question that the recent
U.S. strikes dealt significant damage to Iran's nuclear program. Yet it
is still unknown whether the use of military force will induce the
Iranians to come to the table. Instead, our attack may lead to the
opposite effect--hardening the regime's opposition to U.S. demands.
From the perspective of Iran's leader Ayatollah Khamenei, submitting to
U.S. demands now would be perceived by Iranians as surrender.
It is unknown yet whether the combined U.S. and Israeli bombing of
Iran's nuclear facilities will lead to an end to their nuclear program
or a sprint to the completion of a weapon. In fact, our attack on Iran
may turn out to be a disaster. It is unknown. It may turn out that it
could be the final catalyst for Tehran to double down on an effort to
secure a nuclear deterrent to ensure that their country cannot be
attacked with impunity again.
Now, we hear from the same voices in the establishment who were
adamant that war would be a panacea that the imposition of more
sanctions is the solution. The Washington establishment doesn't seem to
be familiar with Einstein's famous definition of insanity.
Sanctions have been consistently ineffective at altering Iran's
behavior in a manner favorable to U.S. interests. Repeatedly, as we put
sanctions on, there has been no change in Iran's behavior.
Sanctions are often counterproductive. Sanctions immiserate the
civilian population to such an extent that they rally around the regime
in opposition to foreign interference. Some in this body maintain that
sanctions will prompt the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow the
despotic regime that rules over them. That would be great, but history
suggests otherwise. Instead, we may stoke the flames of nationalism by
directing the ire of the people away from the Ayatollah and toward the
United States.
Additionally, this resolution's purpose--to urge the United Kingdom,
France, and Germany to invoke sanctions--is rich given that it was the
United States that unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action. So it is a bit inconsistent for us to be arguing that
Europe should by all means apply and adhere to the JCPOA which we no
longer participate in. If the United States is no longer a member of
the JCPOA, what gives Washington the right to advise those who remain
in it to invoke certain mechanisms within the agreement?
Washington's determination to worsen relations with Iran risks
further military confrontation and diverts finite U.S. resources from
other more pressing domestic and international concerns. That is why I
am offering a substitute amendment to S. Res. 81 that makes clear the
futility of sanctions and the needless risk of further escalation.
My amendment leaves room for President Trump to fund a diplomatic
solution. It resolves that the United States supports the deescalation
of tensions between the United States and Iran, affirms that stable
relations with Iran are in the United States' national interest, seeks
a peaceful resolution to concerns regarding Iran's nuclear program, and
urges the Trump administration to prioritize diplomacy with Iran over
further war. Prudent diplomacy requires tact and respect.
Instead of adopting the same tried-and-failed policies of the past,
let us today have the courage to forge a new path. I urge my colleagues
to support my amendment.
Therefore, I ask the Senator to modify his request to include my
amendments to the resolution and preamble, which are at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Nebraska so modify his
request?
Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, my
esteemed colleague from Kentucky has argued that we should pursue
diplomacy, and, indeed, the Trump administration is pursuing diplomacy.
However, the path he is arguing for right now was tried by the last
administration and failed miserably.
What Iran respects is strength. While we are certainly not advocating
regime change, what we are advocating is the use of policies that were
effective in the first Trump administration. As I stated already, in
the first Trump administration, by applying maximum pressure, the Trump
administration was able to take Iran's foreign reserves down from
$122.5 billion to under $14 billion. They may have had the desire to
fund terrorism, but they did not have the ability to fund terrorism.
That is what these sanctions would continue to do, is put pressure on
Iran. We may not be able to change the regime, but we can make them
poor so they cannot fund terrorism.
Yes, by all means, we should continue diplomacy, but we should do it
from a position of strength, which is why we are encouraging the
European nations of France, Germany, and the UK to snap back those
sanctions, to give us that strength going into these negotiations to
convince Iran that there is no path for them to have a nuclear weapon.
They must give up that plan; they must give up their enrichment.
Therefore, I will not modify my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection to the modification is heard.
Is there an objection to the original request from the Senator from
Nebraska?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.