[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23380-23383]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR THREAT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, it has been a profoundly 
significant day in the House of Representatives. And I suppose one of 
the things I would like to say first, Madam Speaker, is that the world 
will go on. We have made a decision today, I believe, that will 
ultimately serve the United States well. I believe the economic 
challenges before us in this country are significant. I also believe 
that we should always prefer temporary failure at that which will 
ultimately succeed than temporary success at that which will ultimately 
fail. And I believe that market factors were put in place long before 
this President came into office that are ultimately responsible for the 
challenges that we face today. However, I also believe that we're going 
in the right direction.
  Senator John McCain empowered House Republicans in a very significant 
way a few days ago. And we made tremendous improvements, I believe, to 
move this toward a market-based bill that will call upon the private 
sector to capitalize the recovery of this economy. And I believe we're 
going in the right direction. And for those, Madam Speaker, that would 
question the commitment of this Government to make sure that we 
stabilize our economy, I would say to them, just wait. We will come up 
with something that will be far better than anything that we've 
discussed heretofore. And I believe that ultimately we will succeed and 
that America will be stronger and better for the fact that we have 
stepped back and chosen to regroup and come together to make an even 
better plan.
  Madam Speaker, tonight I come really not to talk about the economy. I 
come to talk about something that in my judgment can affect the 
economy, the national security, and each one of the citizens of this 
country, and even the freedom of the world in a very significant way. I 
would remind us that as we talk about economic challenges, we have to 
remember that we are talking about a $700 billion bill today, and yet 
remember that two airplanes hitting two buildings cost this economy $2 
trillion. September 11 certainly was more than just an attack on the 
Trade Center.
  But the fact is that it had a profound impact on our economy. And we 
need to understand that as we deal with the economic issues that plague 
this Nation, they have always been there. But so have issues of 
significant national security.
  And so tonight I want to address this body on something that I have 
wanted to address it for a long time. Because I believe that a nuclear 
Iran represents one of the greatest threats to peace facing the human 
family.
  So, Madam Speaker, let me begin first by saying that there are 
millions of innocent, freedom-loving citizens in Iran who are truly 
good and gentle people suffering under brutality and oppression. They 
long for true freedom and partnership with the international community. 
To them, I first want to say that America stands with you. To them I 
first also want to say that we long to see you become a true democratic 
ally in the Middle East that rejects the ideology of jihadist terrorism 
and upholds the protection of the innocent and equal human dignity. 
America will do everything in our power to hasten the day when Iran and 
its proxies will no longer threaten the world with nuclear jihad, and 
when we will have the privilege of walking together, I pray, Madam 
Speaker, in the sunlight of human freedom.
  And, Madam Speaker, almost exactly 3 years ago, I stood at this 
podium and called upon the United States to clearly define its position 
towards what is now the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, the 
Islamic Republic of Iran is, in my judgment, the world's largest 
sponsor of state terrorism. And I called upon the IAEA to refer Iran to 
the Security Council at that time because I believed then, and I 
believe now, that Iran is systematically pursuing the development of 
nuclear weapons.
  At that time, while Iranian President Ahmadinejad had made very clear 
his intentions to pursue nuclear capability, to eradicate the nation of 
Israel and to offer material support to Hezbollah and other nonstate 
terrorist actors, the nation of Iran had not yet been referred to the 
United Nations Security Council.
  Since then, Iran has been the object of two U.N. resolutions that ban 
trade and freeze assets of Iran's nuclear and related entities. 
Beginning from August, 2006, Iran has blatantly ignored deadlines 
established by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, and 
refused to comply with repeated Security Council deadlines to cease its 
uranium enrichment.

[[Page 23381]]

  Meanwhile, the lack of regard by the Government of Iran for innocent 
human life has continued to be horribly demonstrated in its own human 
rights violations that currently plague the entire nation that are 
causing the Iranian people to suffer. Ahmadinejad's tyrannical regime 
continues its brutal suppression of dissension by routinely employing 
torture, executions, kidnappings and arbitrary arrests and detentions.
  Despite claiming to desire peace, Iranian President Ahmadinejad has 
undermined every advancement toward peace and emerging democracy in the 
Middle East by actively supporting terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, 
Hamas, Shiite insurgents and militias in Iraq that are responsible for 
killing and maiming U.S. and Coalition forces and countless innocent 
citizens.
  Iran, Madam Speaker, has now catalyzed a nuclear arms race in the 
Middle East. Previously there was only one nuclear aspirant in the 
Middle East. That was Iran. Now there are ten.
  Now, Madam Speaker, the coincidence of jihadist terrorism and nuclear 
proliferation represents the greatest immediate threat to the peace of 
the human family in the world today. Iran, because of its ideology, 
represents a significant danger. The past 2 years have provided 
incontrovertible evidence of the conclusion reached in the March, 2006, 
``National Security Strategy'' report. Let me quote it verbatim, Madam 
Speaker.

                              {time}  1545

  ``The United States faces no greater threat to our future security 
from a single Nation than Iran.''
  Madam Speaker, let me for a moment speak to Iran's capacity to do 
this Nation harm. Iran's clandestine nuclear program has been in the 
works for nearly 20 years. As a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation 
Treaty, Iran's radical regime has pursued a hidden nuclear program in 
flagrant violation of its treaty commitments and obligations. Their 
actions over the past 18 years are clearly directed toward building a 
nuclear weapons capability.
  Today, Iran is enriching uranium with approximately 3,000 centrifuges 
operating at its Natanz uranium enrichment facility. Madam Speaker, a 
total of 3,000 centrifuges is the commonly accepted figure for a 
nuclear enrichment program that is past the experimental stage and that 
can be used as a platform for a full industrial scale program capable 
of churning out enough enriched uranium and materials for the building 
of dozens of nuclear weapons.
  The Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, concurred with 
Israeli intelligence reports earlier this year when he testified before 
the Senate Intelligence Committee. He stated that 3,000 centrifuges 
operating continuously would produce enough fissile material for a 
nuclear weapon in less than 2 years. In less than 2 years, Madam 
Speaker. Iranian leadership has now announced its intention of 
increasing its number of operational centrifuges from 3,000 to 9,000.
  Moreover, Madam Speaker, Iran is now beginning to manufacture its own 
centrifuge, the IR-2, which improves on the advanced P-2 centrifuge 
used to build Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and that are capable of 
producing enriched uranium two to three times faster than the older 
models. Iran says that it plans to move toward a large-scale uranium 
enrichment program that will ultimately involve 54,000 centrifuges.
  Madam Speaker, a few days ago, in comments prepared for delivery to 
the IAEA board members, the European Union warned the world that ``Iran 
is nearing the ability to arm a nuclear warhead.''
  Iran's President says its activities are intended for domestic energy 
production only. Let's examine that for a moment. Iran already 
possesses a wealth of its own natural gas, and that is the ideal fuel 
for generating electricity. Here in the United States, for instance, we 
have largely mastered nuclear power plant technology, but natural gas 
is still the overwhelmingly preferred fuel for our own electric power 
plants.
  So, Madam Speaker, how can the world believe that Iran is continuing 
enrichment of uranium for only peaceful purposes, when it would be far 
easier to utilize the wealth of natural gas it already has at its 
fingertips? It makes no sense whatsoever that Iran has gone to the 
expense of building a facility of 3,000 centrifuges to ostensibly 
enrich uranium for a nuclear power plant, when they could easily buy 
that fuel from Russia at a fraction of the cost. This is like building 
an entire factory to make a ham sandwich. And this is from an oil rich 
country that imports 40 percent of their gasoline, rather than building 
the refining capacity to refine it from their own oil.
  Madam Speaker, if Iran's uranium enrichment program is only for 
producing legal power plant fuel, why have they hidden it for 18 years?
  The IAEA had this to say: ``Iran is making an enormous investment in 
facilities to mine, process and enrich uranium, and it says it needs it 
to make it for its own reactor fuel because it cannot count on foreign 
supplies. But for at least the next decade, Iran will have at most one 
single nuclear power reactor. In addition, Iran does not have enough 
indigenous uranium resources to fuel even one reactor over its 
lifetime, though it has quite enough to make several nuclear bombs.''
  So we are being asked to believe that Iran is building uranium 
enrichment capacity to make fuel for reactors that do not exist from 
uranium Iran does not have.
  Iran is also conducting covert research on the technological 
requirements to build and deliver a nuclear weapon, including explosive 
tests and the ability to modify its Shahab-3 ballistic missile to 
accommodate a nuclear payload.
  The IAEA reports that Iran has already manufactured enough uranium 
hexafluoride to ultimately manufacture at least 20 nuclear bombs. Media 
reports suggest that Iran has built numerous underground facilities, 
including those at Natanz, and further it has been reported that Iran 
now has experimented with polonium.
  Madam Speaker, polonium is a radioactive isotope with only one 
principal use, and that is to trigger a nuclear explosion.
  All of this is incredibly disconcerting by itself. However, Madam 
Speaker, Iran is pursuing something even more ominous, something that 
should gain the immediate attention of every American and indeed every 
person in the civilized world.
  There is now strong reason to believe that Iran is pursuing a nuclear 
high altitude electromagnetic pulse weapon, or an EMP capability. An 
EMP attack on America would consist of a nuclear blast detonated at 
high attitude which would instantly generate an electromagnetic pulse 
over our homeland with devastating effect.
  Madam Speaker, I almost hesitate to lay out the grim scenario of a 
major electromagnetic pulse attack on our country, because it almost 
seems like science fiction and there is always the risk of being called 
an alarmist by those who cannot contemplate such a weapon in terrorist 
hands. But, Madam Speaker, I willingly take that risk, because I now 
have two little baby twins at home and I want to make sure that they 
and millions of the other children like them grow up and are able to 
walk in the sunlight of American freedom as I have. And, very simply, 
that may not happen if the Nation of Iran gains electromagnetic pulse 
weapons.
  Madam Speaker, Dr. William Graham, White House science advisor under 
President Ronald Reagan and current chairman of the Commission to 
Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse 
Attack, has now testified twice before the Armed Services Committee, of 
which I am a member.
  According to Dr. Graham, the electromagnetic pulse produced by 
weapons deployed with the intent to produce EMP have a high likelihood 
of damaging electrical power systems, electronics and information 
systems upon which American society depends. The effects on those 
critical infrastructures could qualify as catastrophic to the Nation, 
he says. While no one would die instantly, within days and

[[Page 23382]]

weeks, the ultimate impact on this Nation would be far more devastating 
than a nuclear blast in an American city.
  According to Dr. Graham, millions of people would begin dying within 
weeks. He says, ``People in hospitals would be dying faster than that, 
because they depend on power to stay alive. But then it would go to 
water, food, civil authority and emergency services, and we would end 
up with a country with many, many people not surviving the event.''
  He goes on to say, ``Most of the things we depend upon would be gone, 
and we would be literally depending upon our own assets and those we 
could reach by walking to them.''
  Then he was asked just how many Americans would die if Iran were to 
launch the EMP attack it appears to be preparing.
  Now, Madam Speaker, Iran is still a ways off, but I believe they are 
moving in that direction, and I want to make that very clear. Dr. 
Graham gave a chilling reply to the question. He said, ``I would have 
to say that 70 to 90 percent of the population would not be sustainable 
after this kind of attack.''
  Madam Speaker, could Ahmadinejad have been thinking about an EMP 
attack when he said ``a world without America is conceivable.''
  Experts say that a determined adversary can achieve an EMP attack 
capability without having a high level of sophistication. For example, 
an adversary would not have to have a long-range missile capability to 
conduct an EMP attack against the United States. Such an attack could 
be launched from a freighter off the U.S. coast using a short- or 
medium-range missile to loft a nuclear warhead to high altitude. 
Terrorists sponsored by a rogue state could execute such an attack 
without even revealing the identity of the perpetrators.
  Iran has practiced launching a mobile ballistic missile from a vessel 
in the Caspian Sea. Iran has also tested high-altitude explosions of 
the Shahab-3, a test mode consistent with EMP attack, and described the 
test as successful.
  Madam Speaker, Iran military writings explicitly discuss a nuclear 
EMP attack that would gravely harm the United States.
  According to Dr. Graham, Iran has also conducted a group of tests 
involving the Shahab-3 launches where they ``detonated the warhead near 
apogee; not over the target area where the thing could eventually land, 
but at altitude.'' And Graham also asked the question, why would they 
do that? Then he proceeded to answer his own question by saying, ``The 
only plausible explanation we can find is that the Iranians are 
figuring out how to launch a missile from a ship and get it up to 
altitude and then detonate it.''
  He said, ``That is exactly what you would do if you had a nuclear 
weapon on a Scud or Shahab-3 or other missile and you wanted to explode 
it over the United States.''
  Madam Speaker, I have just described the exact profile of a high-
altitude electromagnetic pulse weapon, and all Iran needs to activate 
such a weapon now is a nuclear warhead, which in this moment they are 
intensely pursuing.
  In my opinion, Madam Speaker, an electromagnetic pulse weapon is the 
most dangerous asymmetric terrorist weapon in the world today, and 
unless we understand what we are up against and respond, the Nation of 
Iran is poised in just a few short years to gain such a weapon.
  We must first prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons capability at 
all. We must also diligently develop a robust missile defense 
capability to deter and defend against such a cataclysmic danger.
  The next critically important step is for us to finish the European 
missile defense site in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend Europe, 
our foward-deployed troops and the United States homeland from Iranian 
nuclear weapons.
  Madam Speaker, as always, any credible threat is not only evaluated 
by the capacities that I have just explained, but whether the enemy 
also possesses the intent to inflict harm, and it is obvious to any 
reasonable observer that Iran is rapidly daily coming closer to gaining 
the capacity.
  So let me now speak to Iran's will and intent. The despotic regime 
now governing Iran has been explicitly clear in its intention and 
desire to see the destruction of the United States and the Nation of 
Israel wiped off the face of the Earth. Iranian President Ahmadinejad 
has stated that a world without Israel and the United States is 
possible.
  Earlier this year, Ahmadinejad took part in a military parade 
exhibiting troops, tanks, antiaircraft guns and the newly revealed 
Ghadr-1, Iran's newest long-range missile with a reported range of 
1,800 kilometers, which is capable of reaching Israel and vital U.S. 
bases throughout the Persian Gulf region. The parade featured a litany 
of slogans calling for ``death to America,'' ``death to Israel.''
  President Ahmadinejad said to America and to all the nations of the 
world really ultimately on Iranian television, ``And you, for your 
part, if you would like to have good relations with the Iranian nation 
in the future, recognize the Iranian nation's right, recognize the 
Iranian nation's greatness and bow down before the greatness of the 
Iranian nation and surrender. If you don't accept, the Iranian nation 
will later force you to bow down.''
  Ahmadinejad is just one really happy guy, Madam Speaker. But, 
unfortunately, he and those behind him are also unspeakably dangerous 
to the peace of the world. Do we trust such a man leading the world's 
most dangerous regime to have his finger on a button that could launch 
nuclear missiles targeting our children and families? And how do we 
intend to negotiate with a nuclear Iran, as Senator Obama has 
suggested, when their jihadist ideology considers Armageddon a good 
thing?
  Ahmadinejad himself has also promised to share nuclear know-how with 
other Islamic nations ``due to their need.''
  Madam Speaker, the Pentagon estimates that hundreds of U.S. and 
coalition soldiers have died, as many as three in four of our 
casualties in Iraq, as a result of Iran supplying terrorists in Iraq 
weapons such as highly sophisticated explosive form penetrators 
designed to destroy American armor and its vehicles. What possesses us 
to believe that they would not do the same with a nuclear weapons 
capability?
  The 9/11 Commission warned in its final record that al Qaeda has 
tried to acquire or make nuclear weapons for at least 10 years. 
According to the commission, al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden's 
associates ``thought their leader was intent on carrying out a 
Hiroshima.'' In 1988, bin Laden called it ``a religious duty'' for al 
Qaeda to acquire nuclear weapons.
  Madam Speaker, if Iran gains nuclear capability, they will give it to 
terrorists the world over. No wonder the Nation of Israel is concerned. 
Ahmadinejad has said, ``Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the 
fire of the Islamic nation's fury.''
  He has consistently denied the existence of the Holocaust, calling it 
a myth or a fabrication.

                              {time}  1600

  He has repeatedly called for the destruction of the Jewish State and 
has also promised to ``wipe out Israel in a sea of fire.''
  I am speaking to the intent. A 50-kiloton warhead on an Iranian 
Shahab-3 missile would only be 12 minutes from Israel. In less than 15 
minutes Tel Aviv could be ashes. Israel would have only a 50/50 chance 
of knocking even just the first missile down.
  Israel has very few options and no margin for error. Iran is 
currently ruled by a regime that thinks it is a will of God to 
annihilate the Jewish state. Any responsible Jewish leader understands 
that a terrorist state like Iran that desires to see Israel erased from 
existence must not be allowed to obtain or develop nuclear weapons 
capabilities.
  For that reason, Israel has said it rejects to option to prevent Iran 
from obtaining nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran is an existential threat 
to human peace and freedom everywhere, not just

[[Page 23383]]

Israel. The world is derelict to place Israel in the untenable position 
of having to act unilaterally to protect themselves and humanity from 
the threat that a nuclear Iran would present to the entire civilized 
world.
  Israel has been our truest friend and ally in the Middle East now for 
60 years. During that entire time it has faced unthinkable threats from 
enemies who would desire to see its absolute annihilation.
  Now, more than ever, the United States of America must stand with the 
Nation of Israel against the threat of a nuclear Iran and against those 
who would see our two nations and all those who love human freedom 
eradicated from the face of the Earth.
  Let me just remind all of us that the very first purpose of human 
government is to protect its people. As a member of the Armed Services 
Committee and the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I received many 
briefings regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions, and now more than ever 
before, I am absolutely convinced that Iran is a growing threat to the 
stability of the world and to humanity itself. The recent anniversary 
of that tragic, horrific day that we all remember as 9/11 should also 
remind every one of us that we face a jihadist ideology that motivates 
terrorists to kill their own children for the sake of being able to 
kill ours.
  At the risk of sounding political, I, at the willing risk of sounding 
political, I am convinced that Barack Obama does not understand this 
mindset of terrorism. Terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas and 
the terrorist state of Iran have all openly endorsed and supported 
Barack Obama for President because they understand that he does not 
understand.
  Senator Obama has been quoted as saying, ``I don't agree with a 
missile defense system.'' He has suggested that we can cut the program 
by $10 billion, but, apparently, he doesn't seem to realize that the 
entire missile defense budget of the United States is only $9.6 
billion. He also does not seem to understand the unspeakable danger of 
allowing this country to be vulnerable to nuclear weapons in the hands 
of jihadist terrorists.
  Congressman John Dingell of this body, a supporter of Barack Obama, 
has said ``I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah, or for or 
against Israel.'' That kind of mindless, moral relativism, which 
deliberately ignores all truth and equates merciless terrorism with 
free nations defending themselves and their innocent citizens, is more 
dangerous to humanity than terrorism itself. It is proof that liberal 
Democrats like Barack Obama and John Dingell simply underestimate and 
misunderstand the enemy we face. They do not realize what the price to 
humanity, what it would be, if Islamist fascism, ideology, spreads 
unabated throughout the world. They do not understand the price it will 
exact from future generations.
  As much as I sincerely believe we should pursue diplomacy, 
negotiations, sanctions, political pressures and everything short of 
military action to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state, 
ultimately I believe only two things will prevent Iran from becoming a 
nuclear power. I believe that we need to consider this very carefully.
  I believe that those two things are either a direct military 
intervention on the part of the United States or someone else or the 
conviction in the mind of the Iranian leadership that military 
intervention will occur if they continue to develop nuclear weapons 
capabilities. Our greatest hope to prevent war with Iran is to make 
sure their leaders understand that America will respond militarily 
before we allow them to threaten the world with nuclear weapons.
  President Ronald Reagan gave an address in 1983, when the world faced 
a similar threat in the growing strength and nuclear ambition of the 
Soviet Union.
  He said; ``I urge you to be beware the temptation . . . to ignore the 
facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to 
simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove 
yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.''
  There were those in 1938 who would have deemed ambitions of Adolf 
Hitler and the Third Reich a giant misunderstanding. The free nations 
of the world once had opportunity to address the insidious rise of the 
Nazi ideology in its formative years when it could have been dispatched 
without great cost, but they delayed. The result was atomic bombs 
falling on cities and 50 million people dead worldwide, and the 
swastika shadow nearly plunging the planet into Cimmerian night.
  I think it's time that the world's free people resolve once and for 
all, for the sake of our own children, and for the children of the 
world and for all generations, that we of this generation will not 
stand by and watch a similar dark chapter of history be repeated.
  I actually believe that freedom will ultimately and beautifully 
prevail, but we must not rest until it does.

                          ____________________