[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9404-9405]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             NATO AND IRAN

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to share with our colleagues 
remarks I have made recently at the Atlantic Council, the Council on 
Foreign Relations, and other forums regarding a role NATO should 
consider by joining others seeking to achieve a diplomatic resolution 
of the potential nuclear weapons threat posed by Iran.
  I have long been, and remain to this day, a steadfast supporter of 
NATO. No alliance, since World War II, has achieved a more successful, 
steadfast record of achieving peace.
  I applaud NATO for embracing the concept of ``out of area'' missions. 
In Iraq, despite continuing violence, a new unified government is 
emerging. Even with the differences of opinion among NATO nations 
related to Iraq, NATO did step forward to participate in the important 
mission of training Iraqi security forces.
  There is no better example of NATO undertaking important ``out of 
area'' missions than the leadership NATO is providing in the 
International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, in Afghanistan.
  Recently I was in Afghanistan and saw firsthand how ISAF is expanding 
its reach to provide security and stability throughout Afghanistan. 
ISAF forces are accepting risks in the face of a rising number of 
attacks, while the new Government forges ahead putting down roots of 
democracy so that Afghanistan can take its place among the free nations 
of the world.
  The principal focus of my remarks today is on how NATO might respond 
to the greatest threat to regional and global stability that we face 
today: Iran.
  I had the privilege this week to join Senator Lugar and other Members 
in a

[[Page 9405]]

private meeting with Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the 
International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA. Dr. ElBaradei generously 
shared his insights on the situation with Iran, and how he continues to 
try to fulfill the responsibilities of his organization. I greatly 
respect his views.
  I agree that when faced with a fork in the road between negotiation 
and confrontation, the world has rightly chosen, for the present, the 
path of negotiation. There is time--but not unlimited--to pursue a 
peaceful resolution to persuade Iran not to pursue steps leading to the 
development and acquisition of nuclear weapons.
  Underway at this very moment are negotiations--the United States 
together with France, Great Britain, Germany, and other members of the 
EU, are doing everything to persuade Iran not to develop nuclear 
weapons.
  The U.N. Security Council and the IAEA are also playing important 
roles in these diplomatic efforts.
  Currently, Iran boasts about its inventory of missiles which can 
range throughout the Middle East and reach Europe. If Iran defies 
diplomacy and develops nuclear weapons, the threat will increase 
exponentially.
  Free nations are and must face this reality now. As the Israeli Prime 
Minister Ehud Olmert warned in his address to a joint session of 
Congress this morning:

       A nuclear-armed Iran is an intolerable threat to the peace 
     and security of the world. It cannot be permitted to 
     materialize.

  I support the principle of preserving as many options as possible in 
diplomacy.
  One of those options is to engage in bilateral talks between the 
United States and Iran, and/or between one or more other nations that 
share our objectives and Iran.
  Just this morning, the international press is reporting that the 
Iranian leadership is making serious overtures to the United States to 
initiate a bilateral dialogue. Dr. ElBaradei confirmed in our meeting 
with him that Iran is open to such a dialogue. The United States should 
keep this option on the table, and consider when it is timely to 
explore procedures for bilateral talks.
  Iran needs to understand that the free nations of the world are 
serious. Iran can go ahead with its civil nuclear program, under the 
inspection regime of the IAEA, insofar as it relates to Iran's 
legitimate energy needs, but we will not, as a consortium of free 
nations, permit Iran to acquire a nuclear weapons capability.
  Another option is deterrence. Let's reflect on the worst case 
scenario: If diplomacy did not succeed, at some point in time, and 
there is confirmation that Iran is defiantly going forward with a 
nuclear weapons program, what is the response of the team of nations 
conducting the diplomacy?
  We should reflect on the lessons of the Cold War, when deterrence 
succeeded. We should consider erecting a ``ring of deterrence'' that 
would surround Iran and deter the use of actual force, as was done so 
successfully during the Cold War.
  Initially, such a plan could be limited to a stand-off naval force 
operating in international waters, and a stand-off air capability in 
international airspace.
  Has any organization had a better record for planning and effecting a 
policy of deterrence than NATO?
  I call upon the North Atlantic Council of nations to discuss the 
option of deterrence and hopefully to initiate a study of what is a 
logical sequence of actions to show support to the path of negotiation.
  Such a step forward would give NATO a place at the international 
table as a partner in the diplomatic efforts being pursued by the IAEA, 
the U.N. Security Council, and a consortium of nations who are deeply 
concerned such as Great Britain, France, Germany and the United States.
  Such an initiative would signal the seriousness with which the 26 
NATO nations view the concerns of the international community, and 
would lend important support to the combined diplomatic efforts 
underway.
  I bring to your attention two quotes which, though not directly in 
context, demonstrate general thinking on why NATO should begin to 
prepare to address the potential threats from Iran.
  In a speech on November 3, 2005, the Secretary General of NATO, Jaap 
de Hoop Scheffer, said:

       Either we tackle challenges to our security when and where 
     they are, or they'll end up on our doorstep.

  He is absolutely right.
  On February 10th of this year, 2006, the Secretary General said at a 
press conference:

       Iran is of course a very, very, relevant subject for NATO. 
     That Iran can be discussed in NATO, yes.

  With a sense of fairness, I point out that in his remarks of February 
10, 2006, the Secretary General also said the following:

       We follow the EU-3 in their negotiations with Iran, 
     together with America, we follow Russia, the IAEA, and we 
     have no intention of playing the first violin, or playing any 
     direct or active role in this dispute.

  I say, most respectfully, to the Secretary General: Mr. Secretary, 
the problem of Iran could be on your doorstep very soon, if it is not 
already there. The time to join the roundtable of diplomacy is now.
  As we in the Congress, and others, continue our work and support of 
NATO, we have got to prepare for the many challenges in this troubled 
world. We may not know today what some of those challenges may be, but 
we must keep NATO strong, viable, and forward thinking.
  NATO's most valued asset is the respect, confidence, and, above all, 
the trust people have for its past record of success and future 
potential.
  We sleep better at night knowing that NATO is standing watch.
  I say to all who support NATO, we cannot allow ourselves to lapse 
into an exercise of nostalgia, basking in the greatness of this 
organization, greatness achieved by our predecessor trustees and 
respected leaders of NATO, down through the past half century.
  In my most recent consultation with General Jones, I recorded a few 
notes, which I share with you today. We agreed on the following: ``NATO 
has been and must remain a great alliance. Great alliances do great 
things. It is possible that NATO's most important days and most 
important missions lie ahead in the future.''

                          ____________________