tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 4, 2015 12:00am-2:01am EDT
in yemen, erika about the most effective things. >> thank you. on the s 300 just announced that they have done these deals. surface-to-air missile programs. russia has use these in the ukraine we are told. russia has said this is mainly a defense of what but allows iran to project power in the region. are you concerned about this development? >> very much for several reasons. while there is know un resolution requirement against that the human language says exercise restraint in providing weapons. the russians been through that and there is no lifting of these resolutions. that is problem number one. number two, the fact that
these have a capability that is under certain circumstances threatening to our air power and those are some of our friends and allies. thirdly, it sends a signal to the region that iran as a big and let's face it, aggressive body backing it, again leading to what the ambassador and i have been talking about a desire part of our folks in the region to say who is backing us and how. >> i thought i might interject a question. is it in our national interest that iran dominate the region as they are beginning to? if not should congress be taking into account as we look at the details of any deal should look at the factor look at whether the administration has that countervailing strategy with potentially this much money coming in their hands and influence in the region should there be a factor is
a look at whether a deal should be approved? >> i think you're right to focus on the details of the deal. i don't see any reason why you shouldn't question with the strategy is. but definitely you should look into that. it is critical. it's not in my view sufficient. the problem that he ranking creating the region additional problems as a result a result of this deal is not a reason for doing the deal. the reason for insisting that there be an effective strategy to deal with the kind of turbo boost that the iranians will have in the region. basic interest comes down to
the free flow of oil at reasonable prices which is less important directly with still critical for the global economy. and, of course the protection of our allies in the region starting with israel. and in that context domination would be dangerous for all of those interests and therefore something that we have traditionally opposed and should continue to oppose. >> very quickly i agree that the answer is absolutely not. furthermore, our whole foreign-policy particularly since 89 has been based upon not allowing anybody to dominate in the region. we went region. we went into combat against milosevic in the balkans against iran and 8788 in 8788 and the tanker war, against saddam and 91 and then later several times.
if you have that the whole international order goes down the drain as one regional hegemon and him as the other countries and starts robbing them of their sovereignty and rights to live in piece and follow their own will. iran has a model, one of the more moderate rain officials, hussein who saw the two was an exile has laid it out and it basically is a security arrangement in the region with israel weekend the united states out of the region, arms sales to allies stopped. stopped. again, a man playing a predominant role. they know what they want and are working on it. >> one quick issue. it is important to understand sunni arab states will not accept uranian domination. consequences of greater success dominating the region will be a
countervailing effort to prevent that from happening and therefore a deepening sectarian sunni shia conflict. >> and to add to the., in sunni arab states if not health, coast led command backed by us they will go about resisting the domination in ways that are not going to like leading exactly to this conflagration. >> thank you both. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you both for your lawn service to our country. the more i listen to your responses the more i am concerned that the strategy that should exist under the hope that we will get an agreement that actually could be supported and embraced as a good agreement is a strategy that is all on the come when it should be up front because the turbo boost that you said is
something that we will be behind the curve on. what worries me as part of that is when the administration says to those who are skeptical about the nature of what the final deal we will be based upon the interim agreement and based upon the different understandings of that interim agreement and based upon actions like iran increasing its fuel and richard by 20% which may be within the depaul but ultimately has to be totally eliminated by june 30 which is an extraordinary action that they will have to do unless they ship it out they say they are not willing to do. you tell your adversary that you are negotiating indirectly. if not an agreement than what? the suggestion commits a criminal war which i reject. think there's a 3rd way. when you send that message it is -- if not an agreement
than what and when you say that if necessary we will use our military capability but then undermine the essence of that capability by saying it won't have much of a result of the end of the day the message that you are sending in your negotiation is one of weakness, not strength everything you at the other side note that you need or want this deal as badly as they do. that is a dangerous negotiating posture for my perspective. but the but the lack of a strategy up front to deal with the aftermath and already sending those messages is a dangerous proposition. it seems to me that this strategy is something that we have had two years of thinking about negotiations, we would have been involving a strategy in the hope that we achieve the successful negotiation and know what to do with in the aftermath. let me ask you a question our focus in the region be to strengthen the state system and the middle east?
>> yes. >> of take that for an answer. >> go ahead. >> very good to see you here. just on the 1st.if i might i don't think that the alternative is war but i but i do think we need to look seriously at what the alternative is. given where we are. if the iranians do not agree to a regime that provides verification, inspection monitoring, and snapback sanctions that we should walk away in my opinion because we will be justified in doing so and he will have a credible case to make to our partners in this negotiation to the p5 plus one another's that the iranians were not prepared
to agree to a deal that was acceptable. and that is the critical issue. but, if they are willing to accept all of our stipulations with it comes to inspection and verification snapback then i think walking away from that deal we will have consequences. it will mean that we will not be able to hold the sanctions, and faced with the kind of erosion of support we will have a much harder time dealing with the uranian nuclear program that will continue and pick up steam and then we are -- >> verification for possible military dimensions for research and development. how you define those are currently important because when we started this negotiation, for example we
were told that iraq would either be destroyed dismantled or destroyed by us. we were told that it will be closed. the reality is neither one of those in the case. and so -- and there is a whole host. so my concern is what is the definition of those elements that you describe. getting back to my question for your answer is we should strengthen the state system and the middle east. now, is it fair to say that iranian influence at least up to the state has been to destabilize state actors in the middle east. and we see that in yemen. we see it you know and lebanon. we see it throughout the region. is that a fair statement? >> sen., it certainly is. there are two majors threats
in the middle east. everything including our security is based upon that. one is extremist sunni movement such as al qaeda and isis. another isis. another is it ran which uses both religion and traditional statecraft to try to subvert countries. and we know the tools. denying a monopoly of force by government to winning over the loyalties are part of the population some of the shia militia. and there is a religious element as well's. this is worrisome. >> if our interest is to support state systems and toronto purpose has to be undermining state systems is it also fair to say that even with the sanctions in the drop in oil prices that has been significantly hitting the economy they are still using a fair amount of
resources to do exactly that would undermine state actors >> yes. it certainly is fair to say. >> and if that is fair to say then when you have even greater amounts of money it would seem to me that, yes sold over domestic purposes what a fair amount of money, if you are suffering and using your money not to help the people but to go ahead and promote terrorism so when you have more money you can help your people to some degree the still promote terrorism is a real concern. finally, let me just say you know, do you think the gulf partners looking at the budapest memorandum think that our guarantees really mean a lot? we told ukraine that if they gave up the nuclear weapons that, in that in fact we would guarantee territorial integrity. it has not worked out too well. you are going to tell the gulf region not to pursue a
nuclear pathway because iran is at the precipice of it, it and we are going to, you know, guarantee your security. i think that is a little tough for the gulf partners to believe in and of itself. if you had the obligation of israel's qualitative military edge to whatever you are going to give the gulf partners and the real concern is a nuclear one, i don't quite see how that works. >> well, 1st of all i think that our gulf partners are far more concerned about iran's activities in their neighborhood than they are about the nuclear ambitions. that is the only way to explain why they haven't sought nuclear capability themselves. they certainly have not lack of funds to do so. so i do think that you can see
coming out of the camp david summit that they do care about getting these assurances from the president. and they and they have committed themselves in that communicate to endorsing supporting to more welcoming a deal that would have the kind of things that we have been talking about in terms of inspections and verification. but i think that what they are looking for reassurance about is that the united states will be with them in terms of the problems that they face. it is not about nukes. that is a much harder thing for us to do. we can protect them against an external iranian threat but dealing with the kind of some version that iran is involved in exporting the chaos in class of institutions in that region is harder to do especially if we are not prepared to
put our own forces on the ground to do it, and we have to find other forces to do it and look to them to do it that is where we talk about partnership. >> thank you for being here. to me it is absolutely critical. we have done nothing to demonstrate is exactly what our commitment is. you mentioned ukraine. there were conversations about that whether or not we would confront iran but i learned from a business career the best deals i ever made were deals where i 1st walked away from the table before i came back because i found out how bad the other guy really want to make a deal. in the worst as i ever made was on the deal was more important to me the common
sense. i worry we are getting into a situation where we are not walking away. have you heard credibly either one of you from your positions of some of the conversations uranian so so we won't allow military bases to be inspected or not allow this and allow that to mac arthur's the type of things they should know we will walk away from immediately? >> we have heard these statements. i have heard the deputy negotiated and has an conversations come to our attention with the parliament in closed session into iran to say that maybe some of these things are negotiable. so it is in play. that is the problem we have. certainly those are important points. you do not have eyes on which supposedly is critical
and is critical to this agreement if you cannot visit military installations and interview their scientists and other technical officials. that is important. this is something the administration should insist on. if they don't get it they should walk away our wait until they do. >> we must be believable and her negotiation will get taken. not -- is a ps 300 of carrying a tactical nuclear warhead? >> i don't believe so. again, it is a surface-to-air system. in theory surface-to-air systems can be refigured to carry nuclear warheads but frankly a ran has a disturbing arsenal of long-range missiles. that that is why we are putting the nuclear defense system in europe. they they have missiles that
either can or soon will be able to go that far. it's basic threat is to shoot down aircraft and cruise missiles. >> let me ask you both the question. let me ask you what do you through are the most about making a deal with the iranians are not? >> in terms of making the deal there are two major concerns which we have been discussing. one is that they will cheat. they have done it before. we have seen it in the case of korea. they got they got away with cheating and built a nuclear weapon. that has got to be the concern to make sure that they don't have that ability i agree with i agree with you that if we don't get that we should be prepared to walk.
in any negotiation particularly in negotiation with the ran being ready and willing to walk away if you can't get the minimum requirement is critically important. i think that the statements they have made which actually do not accord with the things that they have already agreed to in the negotiating room is an indication that they are posturing for the public that the public they have a problem with the public opinion. they have raise the expectation that there will be a deal on their terms. i think that we have a better ability to walk away and they do at this time. that -- we are in a stronger position every focus on the issues within the parameters of the deal and make sure we give get what we need in that regard. the 2nd problem is outside the deal. and we have discussed that already this morning.
how do you contain and rollback their activities in the region? you can't do that as part of the deal but you have to have a strategy to deal with alongside the deal. >> senator, in terms of a deal the thing i am most worried about is that they will wind up looking like to keep on making compromises and therefore are seen as either week which is a huge impact on our ability to determine the region what people will think that us government actually believes that this deal we will change the tune in tehran and that they will be potential status quo power or potential partner and regional security and that is worrisome. in fairness you said worry with or without a deal and having taken a few hits coming here is one of the things that the deal will give us. more international support which is important for two things. the international sanctions do hands on a good relationship.
but secondly several times i cited the importance of us being willing to use military force. our experience has been sadly the family did not have international support in iraq and vietnam being two examples we had a much harder time and therefore international support is a value that you do get in this agreement. it must be balanced against others possibly sending a signal weakness is possibly people questioning our deterrence. nonetheless there is a certain value if it is verifiable and gives you the one your time before they can breakout. >> i will follow. to understand a good deal your definition and mind of a good deal worse is a good
deal for the american people and the people of the middle east will be preferable to them not making a deal because it would raise our stature with the international community. >> no, sir. there is no good deal at this time. a good deal would be no enrichment, they are out of the business of having a nuclear weapon threshold capability. it is a question of a bad deal that may be better than a set of other circumstances or perhaps living with the other circumstances. one of the things that a deal does give us is the ability to mobilize international community if iran breaks out command that ability to mobilize typically has been successful. we have had to use military force such as in korea in 1950 or inchoate in 91. >> thank you very much. >> senator. >> thank you to our witnesses. witnesses. a couple comments and questions. my assessment of the status of the us iran dynamic as
adversaries pre-deploy for pre-november 2013 was that the combined weight of congressional executive international sanctions is putting the pressure on the iranian economy hurting and affecting the iranian economy. but i do not necessarily think that combined with the sdown their nuclear program. it may. it may have accelerated to the extent that they felt isolated. you can look at them as a resistance economy putting an unreasonable amount of effort into advancing the nuclear program. the status before the pres. and american diplomats engaged in this discussion was one where the sanctions were working against the economy but the uranian nuclear program was accelerating in a dangerous way. during the tendency of the chipola since november of 2013 i have been to israel twice once in january -- february and then back in january. and even the israelis are worried about multiple deal acknowledge is that they think the diploma time has
been positive the combination of rollback of elements together with additional inspections has been a positive. a positive. they like it better than the pre- november 13 status quo. now we move now we move to the situation no what will think about respect to a final deal. this is a sincere question. i'm going to ask it this way i don't view this as a negotiation. i view this i view this is a question about whether an adversary we will have a nuclear weapon won't. do either of you doubt that the region, the united states and the world are safer if iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon if they do? >> i think this is the primary benefit of a deal that is enforceable. that is, it will give the region and the united states and our allies there particularly israel a tender
15 year nuclear free iran which we will no longer be faced with this part of says that iran is about across a nuclear threshold. >> in other words a bellicose iran without a nuclear weapon may still be bellicose. a bellicose iran with a nuclear weapon is really dangerous in terms of potentially throwing its weight around in the region and the world. >> correct command we are talking about a region which is in chaos. and so at a nuclear iran to the mix and then the other
states in the region while a strong incentive to go and get nuclear weapons. a nuclear arms race and off everything else going on. yes, we need the breathing space. the breathing spaces were something to us. time is not neutral in the situation. ten to 15 years we could use the ten to 15, we could use the ten to 15 years. >> absolutely. let me explore now the decision tree of no deal in deal. i think i agree with what the chair said. no deal does have some consequences. how important is it to the affect of the sanctions that currently exist and more than we might want to put on that there is an international coalition supporting the sanctions versus the united states just proceeding alone. i would like to see you both talk about that. >> it is important because the sanctions that have really been deep are the nba a sanctions. which countries actually could resist but we had both temporary waiver authority. if they were reducing bit by bit and frankly, they wanted to help us' but it ran under wraps. the cooperation was getting tougher and tougher.
so the 2nd are the eu sanctions all imports of uranian, but frankly through hitting insurance funds transfers banking and other auxiliary elements of the international trade system really led to iran losing more than roughly half of its oil experts combined with the drop in oil prices put her in the economic situation we see. it is important to maintain that if we can't get a deal. >> let me follow up and as this. if there is no deal than it is critical one of the community perceives that the absence of a deal is because iran is being unreasonable or they were willing to be at least somewhat reasonable and the united states or other parties refused to
make a deal. if it looks like iran is being unreasonable there is a greater chance to hold the coalition together. if if it looks like the us or other partners of being unreasonable is more difficult. >> i think that is exactly right. it depends very much on how the deal breaks down. if there is a deal that meets the requirements of the p5 plus one in terms of inspection and snapback and so on and let's say that the congress decides in its wisdom that this is not a deal they can support. we are responsible for walking away, it will be hard to maintain the international sanctions in the circumstances. but if iran refuses to agree to, for instance inspection of its military bases then we have a great deal of credibility and walking away command i think that we should because i believe that they we will then
buckle under and except. >> let me ask about the other part of the decision tree if there is a deal. iran except that we will have to dig into the details. i am particularly interested in inspections there will be inspections. we want to make sure they are vigorous, immediate. credible military threat. to my way of thinking a credible military threat to take out an iranian nuclear program is combined of some elements capacity backbone, willingness, but also the intel that gives you the information about how to do it. now, we have intel now. that has that has been demonstrated. that is not going away. but isn't intel plus the additional information that we get from an aggressive and significant inspections regime better than answer without that? and so when the deal that gives us significant inspections enhance our intelligence and hence the credibility of our military threat?
>> i think that is absolutely the case. being on the ground and being able to go anywhere anytime is critically important. we're going to still need the intelligence assets that we have been using and working with our allies and their intelligence differently. being on the ground makes a huge difference. i had some experience while is in the clinton administration. we had inspectors on the ground even though there were being blocked in various places you remember that cat and mouse game nevertheless we had a much better insight into the iraqi nuclear program. in fact, at that time we were thinking about retiring because we were persuaded because of the inspections that on their front as opposed to chemical and biological we actually knew what they had a knew there
we were able to monitor and control it and prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. weapons. i think that was an interesting example of the way in which both give us an ability to know, and in this case the inspectors are going to be at the minehead at the milling at the enrichment process, the stockpiling and the plutonium reactor heavy water reactor. we are going to have full visibility on the program command that goes on for 25 years, that kind of inspection. that will give us a degree of assurance that we will know if that she. >> thank you. i will interject. that was a good line of questioning and i i appreciate it. there is an agreement that we have not had access to that lays out what iran is able to do from your ten on.
is called the iranian nuclear weapons program. for some reason the administration will not share with us. i have asked at the energy level the secretary of state level and the chief of staff of the president. and so i think there are legitimate concerns about what happens after year ten command it makes me concerned that there unwillingness to share that with us means they think it is something that will undermine the american people's confidence in what they are doing. hopefully there will be forthcoming with that soon. >> thank you mr. chairman. you, mr. chairman. thank you to the investors are being here. in the ambassador's testimony there was a quote i will read. once sanctions are removed iran will be the beneficiary of the unfreezing of assets. it is reasonable to assume a good part of that windfall will be used to rehabilitate
the struggling economy. it is an equally safe bet the revolutionary guard corps will be beneficiaries. do we know what the amount that iran sponsors terrorism the level of funding that they actually contribute to funding of has blind other terrorist organizations? >> it runs by the estimates i have seen to the tens of billions. billions. if you put in the syrian operation which is the biggest support for has blind and their other activities around the region. >> run 200 million or so. tens of millions, 200 million according to reports. >> billion. >> billions. outside. >> not 200 billion, but probably and attend the 20 billion range. >> okay. and the economy is going to turn around. with this encourage them? with a stop?
>> it is almost inconceivable from any analogy or historical example for historical example i have seen that a country that has an aggressive foreign-policy if it comes upon further resources were then ratchet back. typically they will double down and try harder. that does not mean they would use all or even most of the money because they have pressing domestic needs and they have a lot of popular pressure to spend more on a consumer economy. some of them will flow to the domestic side but clearly some of it will flow almost by all evidence we have seen with iran and another country, the nefarious activities to the region. >> nefarious activities are not going to make israel more safe as a result of this agreement. is that is that correct? >> of they're not going to make anyone safe in the end.
>> thank you ambassador. and in your testimony you stated that any agreement should be judged not only on the basis of its or a firewall restraints but also by the context within which the agreement would operate, readiness to back it by an explosive incredible readiness to use force to stop a breakout and the far more active us program to contain the asymmetrical military ideological religious economic and diplomatic moves to expand influence in the region. the president has said there is no military solution. could you explain that? >> to the extent that i can. officially he said that he will use all necessary measures. he has he has also said that he does not think that a military solution is going to buy you much. he said that the other day it would give you a temporary start. that is true, but we have seen military force before
against direct three times by the israelis and by us and 91 and bias and 98 lead to the termination of weapons of mass distraction. we we have seen in the case of israel striking syria. after 2003 that is when they halted their weaponization program and while will it is decided it was high time for him to give up the programs. military force can have an effect beyond how many targets to hit and now lawyer we will take to reconstitute. it does have a political influence. >> there has been conversations opinion pieces written in the "wall street journal" and others talking about this bifurcation in these negotiations of political restraint with nuclear restraint that the agreement seems to have a tunnel a television on the issue of nuclear restraint without addressing other areas.
and that is ideological religious, economic diplomatic moves to expand influence in the region or use those efforts of nefarious ways against our allies and indeed against the united states. do you think of these negotiations have we lost track of the fact that we have other areas the need to be restraint? >> i don't think so but it is important to understand it was not possible to address concerns in this negotiation without weakening our ability to give what we needed in terms of blocking iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon. if we had allowed the agenda the wind do express the issues of activities in the region they would have use it as a trade-off linked to behavior in the region to the negotiations about the nuclear program. they would have agreed to do less' regional regional
disturbing activity and expect us to be more lenient on the nuclear program. herb allies citizen of your business to be discussing those issues were not at the table. that affects our direct interest. i don't think it was possible to address it would then context of the deal but we do need to address it outside the deal and in parallel. that is the burden. one other thing about force. the use of force the threat of the use of force in a credible threat is critically important in terms of deterring a breakout. but actually using the force that's what the president was referring to commend that's what happened in the case of israel bombing of the aussie
nuclear reactor. but reactor. but they did was take the whole nuclear program underground. we had no we had no visibility i command we were surprised when we went into the country and 92 to discover 92 to discover that they had this massive nuclear program that we knew nothing about. that is the danger. if we have to use force will we will end up with is something less than what we can have to the deal itself. ten to 15 years of a nuclear free iran versus two to three years. they have the they have the know-how. they can rebuild. they will no longer be under obligation. they will claim they have a justification for any nuclear weapons. >> would you like to respond? >> absolutely right. i would add i would add that the reason we went in and 92 was on the back of american tanks. >> thank you both for your service to the country.
i think there has been a good discussion and you have had some very insightful comments. one of the issues here that has been raised is iranian dominance irani and hegemonic desires that kind of thing. you believe our us foreign policy has contributed to the strengthening of the ran in the region? some of the decisions we have made? >> now we will get contentious command i do not mean to be so. >> am not trying to be. >> no, i will be. because look, again getting back to the experience of the clinton administration we have real concerns about what saddam hussein was doing to his people. constantly looking at what we needed to do.
we were always constrained by the concern that we had that if we took them out we would open the gateway to the influence of iran and iraq. there was a major concern during that time. now, that is what happened as a result of taking them out. i was in favor of that war, i was also in favor today of doing a lot of things that would have prevented the map but that is what happened. once the gates of babylon world that opened the way for them to exert there influence across the region. there were already in lebanon. but there was a big prize a big prize command it was done courtesy of the u.s. army in taxpayer. >> ambassador, you have the same view? >> certainly going into iraq was a benefit to the rim
but it did not have to be as bad as it turned out to be. there there were steps we could have taken over -- >> what should we have done. >> we could have made it clear that in other ways we would have stay there longer and iraqi security was in our interest and that we were there for the long haul not trying to get out. as the 1st thing. >> for staying their for the long haul what it meant changing this year government in such a way that they would be inclusive you think we could have made them do that? it looks to me like there was a real desire in terms of dominance, not be inclusive and i don't know how the united states can you tell me how the united states can make the government do that? >> the answer is we can't.
what we can do is have influence. these are rational people. some of them are pro- irani and, some are not. some are opportunistic. from roughly 2008 when the shia militias were put down to roughly 2012, 2012, 2013, the country was able to live in relative piece and rapprochement between the various groups. two things happened. slowly because we did not have the influence we should have other forces including you ran leading the charge pushed toward a more shia dominated system. secondly and far more seriously syria happened. nothing in the last 15 years has said the same effect on the region is what happened in syria and the fact that we did not react to it.
it is delivered repeatedly in bad ways. the rise of isis the biggest humanitarian. >> can you also make the argument that the rise of isis came as a result of what we talked earlier i mean i think there is a significant connection there to what is going on. he has mentioned syria there should be a no-fly zone. do you think that should be done unilaterally? should it be done collectively through the un or other multinational organizations? >> i don't think that the un collective action is an option because the russians will veto it. >> is there any reason to push it anyway? >> look, we are operating a kind of de facto no-fly zone
in parts of syria already just because the serious air force wallflowers does. we can -- there are plenty of ways in which we can affect the calculus of the syrian asad regime. you know i don't know why we can't take out the helicopters that are dropping belmonts' and syrian civilians. the syrian regime we get the message. there are certainly things that we could do that i think would stop short of a formal declaration of a no-fly zone that would give relief to the syrian people and would send a very important signal to not just our arab allies but so many across the arab and muslim world that our deeply
affected by the fact that we are not doing anything. we anything. we're flying against isis but not doing anything against the syrian regime. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. >> thank you for your testimony. i have been supportive of these negotiations partly because i sense that it would be tough to hold the coalition that we put together together for much longer. i agree with your assessment that he was the international nature and multilateral nature of the sanctions that bit. and the success came because it was iran versus the west rather than iran versus the us. so going through these negotiations would probably -- the only way to really keep this coalition together (does not comply now and we could come back and it won't be that simply nothing will
be good enough for the us but there is a material breach that is demonstrated that iran simply will not live to the agreements that are set out. i have been supportive of negotiations. i agree with the formulation that senator mccain put forward. sanctions were effective and debilitating their economy but it did not do much to slow their drive the drive for a nuclear weapon. i don't know how the same level of sanctions over another amount of time while we would expect that to have a different result. so now given where we are command i agree with the formulation that an agreement that really truly does limit there ability to move forward to nuclear weapons if only for ten or 15 years is better than not having an agreement and we
can focus on the other issues, but that's what i want to ask you about. ambassador jeffrey in your remarks you state that in the region we need a strong commitment from -- the region needs a strong commitment from the us to push back irani and action in iraq and syria and elsewhere. what would that look like? what would a stronger commitment from the us look like right now? >> the camp david meeting actually had a final statement that had some pretty good language. the parties believe that iran should be required to agree, engage in the principles of good, neighborly relations strict noninterference and the affairs of other countries and respect for territorial integrity throughout the region. these are exactly the things it is not doing.
in a rack one reason karen is gaining influence command we saw this in the balance between tikrit and the mahdi is that we are not as present as we should be as and therefore the iraqi people including many of the sunnis i no are having to turn to the shia militia some not some not all of whom are under the thumb of the rent has below our heart and to considerable degree the three major ones. there is not an effective iraqi military. one of the reasons there is not is that we have not put our troops as we have done in every other conflict i have been involved in on the ground with these units technically to advise them, to call in air support but frankly to strengthen there spine and to reassure them that as long as our troops are there they will get air support, medevac resupply
command will be overrun because we won't let it happen. i cannot describe what a difference that makes. i sighed in vietnam, iraq. having americans out there will increase the capabilities of the iraqi forces tremendously. it would tremendously. it would also show that america cares. they are willing to put skin in the game. they are willing to do this because rack is important. elaine is willing to put people out there. >> any thoughts? >> i think that it starts at the political level. the parties, definitely. but but his commitment to inclusiveness is somewhat constrained in particular but pressure from iran and we need to be equally assertive. on the political level when it comes to the sunnis they feel excluded.
as long as that continues it will affect the morale of the military the willingness of sunni soldiers to fight. that is.number one inclusion is currently important and we need to be actively engaged. number two we should be building more actively the capabilities of the sunni militia and the kurdish #. again, because of our respect for the sovereignty where going through the iraqi government. the iraqi government under pressure is restraining what we can do their. i think we have made some kind of breakthrough. i heard just this morning with the sunni militias that ours will be going. that is critically that is critically important. we need to be arming the kurdish forces well in a more robust way. of the military level
endorse what ambassador jeffrey said in terms of embedding special forces, but it is also political and arming of the militias. >> let me return to the nuclear negotiations for a minute. if we concede our goal is to try to keep them on a one-year break out if we assume they are that close what is the motivation the real motivation now to come to the negotiating table? wouldn't they have more leverage if they were to complete that march toward a weapon in the negotiate after? why do you suppose there coming to the table now? >> my view is they were very close to that. the prime minister went to the un in 2013 andrew the red line of a 20 percent enriched uranium. when you get a little bit above you will have enough for what is called a significant amount.
you have the briefings. at least one nuclear device. they were right after that. but also in the international community was sitting them. having a huge impact on there economy. israel and the united states or making noises about military strike. that not only have an effect on the rent that a frightening effect and many of our friends. maybe a bit unfair but they were nervous. they will willing to do is very dramatic sanctions ending oil imports. you had a combination of events that put it under pressure and then i decided maybe will back off a little bit. the important thing is they are giving up nothing the decision of the supreme leader not closing anything down blowing up a reactor
not admitting guilt. they are basically just putting things in storage for a while but they are not admitting guilt or really changing the entire program to get to this. >> there giving up something significant when it comes to the heavywater reactor which is the most dangerous and expeditious way that they could get a free nuclear weapon. they have agreed to reconfigure the core. and not to have any kind of reprocessing facility. that is a robust measure and it is designed specifically that way
because that is precisely the way that the koreans broke out. and so while it is true they have not blown up anything they have accepted the kind of curves that we need to be sure that they have -- that we have blocked their pathway. we have to be concerned about what happens at the end of the road. within the confines of the iranians time essentially it's not a bad deal. in that regard to good deal. >> in your testimony you call for an advanced
authorization for use of military force is to prepare for the possibility that has not yet been reached. this is the community that would have to pass an advanced authorization for the use of military force. we already have two authorizations that are open-ended not limited by geography and the 3rd one that is pending for this committee with regard to limitation for the authorization of military force by the united states against isis. could you talk a little a little bit about what you think should be in that resolution? >> at the military forces should be a specific bring in and what should be the conditions under which is committee passes advanced
authorization given the fact that we don't know what the conditions will be that could possibly then trigger the use of the advanced use. >> thank you, senator. this is something that would be part of a package if in fact the senate did not. if we do get to an agreement the 1st step under the iran nuclear review act we looked at the act and he did not take action to stop the lifting. a measure to ensure that if we do have this agreement is clear to all including the iranians and also our friends in the region that this is not a watershed event in our relations.
simply a deal to get them to start moving toward nuclear weapon skip. therefore if they were to try to break out under the agreement that current us policy laid out by the president repeatedly is that we would use military force to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. given recent events it would be helpful if we knew that the us people through the u.s. congress supported that action. >> may i just ask, i just ask, just so i understand you want us, this committee to authorize's the use of military force explicitly in the event that they violate the agreement or in the event that there is no agreement? >> in the event with or without an agreement that he
worry partly because it puts the iranians think you're on our trigger. and i am not sure that is why is. but the president's statement he is willing to use all means necessary to get a nuclear weapon is clear. we have to play a significant forces in the gulf to take measures with our allies to ensure the radiance understand there is a real capabilities so if we try to get at the question of will that there are other ways that's can be done as to how we would respond.
>> obviously the goal of the agreement is to move toward a normalization. is that possible? we don't know that at this point but there will be some attempt with the rapprochement between the area -- the arab governments. surely it is based upon of action that is preapproved by this committee with the secret use of military with regard to compliance. so i disagree i think it would be a dangerous
statement for us to be making that it is acceptable with a the agreement and actually it is a sigh of relief across the planet to be a necessary escalation of the dynamic that is potentially created between our country and iran. it is the policy of u.s. government as it is announced repeatedly by the president at every opportunity to talk about the iranian situation. second gunman said deal with syria though willingness to negotiate a deal happens only after this committee passed the authorization to get syria. >> i would say again that
while is the policy of the country iran would not be allowed to have good nuclear weapon and the premise is they will not get a weapon because of the safeguards that are in place for what we need to know to have was sacked that they're not in compliance to authorize the military force would complicate dramatically our to gain the full benefits of the treaty we hope to be negotiated. >> ambassador after you leave secretaries -- secretary carey says he goes hours later and i want to give you an opportunity to use day but if you have to leave your welcome to do
that. >> the key very much i apologize to all of you that i have to chair a meeting and i could not change that and i apologize for that purpose i have to the. >> thank you for your service and the record will remain open if you would answer questions with greatly appreciated. and with great appreciation you are dismissed. >> mr. chairman, mr. jeffrey average like your thoughts but my problem with all of this is i have a threshold question. that we've made reference to today that's when we started these negotiations the we will sit down with the iranians that we will be a normal country to give up
meddling in other people's affairs giving up to be sponsors of terrorism and quit doing acts of terrorism that i find out it is not that at all. here is the problem might have got to the negotiations are regarding the next 10 years developing a nuclear weapon. but if i vote for that i am voting for a condition by which we and everyone here will boost the radian economy -- iranian economy. and we know for a fact, an absolute fact a portion of that money will sponsor terrorist activities and it will kill fellow human beings.
but i know for a fact to release the sanctions to be sold in the death of the human being somewhere in the world forgot the other side know we have to go for this because to build the nuclear weapons and. we don't know what will happen in. we could get them to stop that but i know for a fact what will happen if i vote for this. hardier justify that? >> is a tough question. if i make the case first brought it is separate from all other nefarious activities. as we have discussed here today. >> is tied closely and
directly. >> but if the agreement is not only linked with very clear american willingness to use force either on the nuclear account to block their actions in the region to kill more people to do international support but in the hands you may be more effective to stop them if it is clear to everybody that we are in the business to stop these guys and what you have heard it isn't clear we are the business of stopping them that is what i am focused on. >> i appreciate that. but the second dilemma that i have when though whole thing started when i was strolling down is two
parties sitting down at the table wanted to get to a different point for cry have yet to be convinced that irradiance article in -- i radiance are getting to the point to have that they are negotiating for a path that they could count on a nuclear weapon. we're dealing with agriculture that is 5,000 years old ten year deal is nothing in the overall scheme of things even if you stretch it at 15 as some people prefer to. wasn't there that concerns us is we're not getting the answers we want what happens
at the end of the ten year period? even with classified setting stared at taliesin things that we need to know. if i were the iranians cut the best deal that i can to get the sanctions off the economy grows people are happy we did use of money to do the research we need to do and at the end of the 10 years we've made in an agreement and we kept our part for you keep your eyes and leave us alone. we will build a nuclear weapon and. so far nobody can assure me it is such that they say we will never built a nuclear weapon. that probably is that what we will see but then they have effectively negotiated a path towards which they
can have a nuclear weapon. just to put this off seems to be non a good bargain at all. >> first of all, this agreement does not stop anything it is all about that period of time. if everything that the administration say happens you get approximately one year of the edification of assuming that you have inspectors on the scene during which you could react if they stop by elevating the agreement at the end of that year they could get a nuclear device regret the end of ted years that time period strengths -- shrinks because that restriction on 5,000 functioning centrifuges goes away. they could increase to almost any number and the limitation on the centrifuge
is far more efficient if it goes away even more efficient ones over the next tenures. >> sewed to assume the hypothetical cases there are rules they cannot do that is the 15 year rule so at the end with the limited centrifuge to have 18,000 with these new ones i have seen indications that within a couple of months almost as fast as where they are now they can return to a nuclear weapons capability a significant amount. it doesn't mean they will do it. one year or one week if they
move to a nuclear weapon what will we do about it? more importantly what will we do? what if he/she uses military force? that is the only thing that stops them from getting a nuclear weapon. >> the comment was made that all this does is put things into storage they need to understand. >> but let the record show they do change the core of the of plutonium and that is the one concrete thing that goes away in this entire agreement for 15 years.
>> thank you for sticking with us. so it doesn't matter if year talk about 10 or 50 years because we will always talk about a certain period of time. it is important to note is to the enriched content so you would agree that as they spin more centrifuge after 10 years but the fact should they abide by their continued restriction soaked with that capacity? then the most this is pure uranium and that does take longer but the one year
period between one-half and one-third of that in the period between 10 and 15 years almost all restrictions are off and from that period it is of limited but the president said some time ago this ted years he has changed his mind since then but then you should hang your hat on ted years. >> the inspection is between 10 and 15 year time frame. but to come back to the comprehensive strategy to try a two-room pushed back off of the growing influence with the rewrite of history
to suggest a set of sanctions to change this position was about all of their other behavior of and i certainly believed if that should they choose a different path that we wouldn't gauge about withdrawing those sanctions that is why we have us separate set in place it in reserve the right to increase those should they not change that behavior. so i understand the moral question that it may be used but to accept the premise if we extrapolate to other behaviors' so let's talk about the of comprehensive approach that you and the
ambassador referenced. part of my confusion is it begins and ends with the increase military capacity we give to our partners in the region to control the of bloodshed once it starts happening rather than all the ways we can and tamp down on the reasons groups like hezbollah and isis have influence in the first place of deteriorating conditions. of rule of law. with what we should be doing to grow that comprehensive strategy and it is limited to a handful of military tools that you are recommending. as a growth is comprehensive strategy is in to more important to put in place a
set of nonmilitary tools so the conditions are not so ripe for the insurgency instead of having conversations of the military tool kit? director reason i focused on the military it is with any administration but frankly i have seen every administration have hesitation about military force. it is necessary but not sufficient parts of the package to deal with the iranian threats to the region that is not aggression on the of gulf states or other allies with the f-16s and air defense missiles but infiltration but the subtle actions have
a military component in people are nervous to get involved in that requires the use of military force but one of the concerns that we have that our allies will go off and conduct policies and operations that are to military or will lead to escalation. we have a certain amount of moderation. that is where people like me to what to do to leverage military or sanctions and policies to get people to sit down to resolve disputes whether syria or lebanon -- yemen that is part of the package but earnest monday on the table particularly now has to be a willingness
of a necessary to use military force it has to be part of the packaging and people don't think it is. >> ag may misread the reluctance of congress does is save as much to find the of military but all of the non kinetic to wills better part of the comprehensive strategy. what about we have the ability to increase sanctions against iran for the continued development of the ballistic missile program and their support of terrorist groups in the region. what you make of the potential for a separate set of sanctions and the expansion to take part of this comprehensive strategy? >> it is always helpful with the u.s. congress speaks with one voice and does something that will get a
lot of attention as opposed sanctions but they are international. the ones brought to the table and at this point nearly focused on the nuclear account it is hard to get global sanctions for activities since syria that is the problem right there. >> parts of the reason it is hard to grow in international support for those other activities to stop the ambition if you take that off of the table for a short period of time, it gives the room to build a comprehensive set without russia to influence other behaviors. i am over time. thank you. >> thank-you embassadors for
being here and for staying for people like we do have another hearing so i am late. there has been speculation if iran gets a nuclear weapon, what that does to new keeler proliferation -- nuclear proliferation. is there some reason to think that's if garett is success with the final negotiations that would have the opposite effect and would help to redress some of those concerns we have heard from other countries? >> we have heard the nonofficial gulf states personalities open day and more efficient ones say this
is an option if we're not happy with the results. i think this is a possibility from the rat -- written testimony but what i say it is our friends in the region will get everything they're doing. it is definitely not the policy of this administration of to have anybody in the region with the breakout nuclear capacity. so we're not in favor of that. the more we choose things we need better harder security deco's into long term, but we will have to persuade them not to go down that road. the more they feel lonely and if iran can have it, why
can't i? >> they will be more interested. again the ambassador talk about a possible nuclear guarantee over the region. that is another idea. these things that involve american commitments will give more leverage to persuade these people not to go down that route but it remains open to them if they don't like what they see out of washington and there is a real possibility some could go in this direction. >> talked a a little bit more and i know it is the extension of u.s. nuclear deterrent umbrella for the countries in the region but do you see that as making a real difference how countries like i rand
reactive redo that post negotiation? >> i'd like my suggestion for the advanced use authorization of military force and when i talk to was a little equal vocal about but it we're trying to do the same thing to desperately look for the united states to show symbolically we are in the game with these people whether by decisions by congress or nuclear commitments, there are other ways. one or the other should be tried among other things to deter these people from trying to get their own capabilities. i am preaching to the choir but people are not happy with this agreement in the region and. >> but to go back to senator
murphy line of questioning, you have suggested that other securities supports or from the direction that we would like them to go. what other options are most important but a ploy this most important but there are some of members of your committee against their local for sarah and the pace and islamic forces that is
the threat we are facing with the military component whereas the rest? we should not pick fights the should be careful about talking their internal situation is. region and to achieve much about it. there is ways you can do this quietly reassured that choose the latter. target age beverages a sense for those groups with the generators of instability and a more willingness to a tide of military to a negotiated solution. there are ways to resolve serious but they require both sides be ready and one is not.
>> i hear what you say but it appears this is what we tried to do it in number of countries in the region. yemen, egypt, a phoenix area. early on was in that category but yet it has not led to use excess. what is the missing ingredient? i think there is a lot of concern that i hear from people in this country engaging in troops in the same way we have done with iraq and afghanistan so what are the missing ingredients that the to be included to get to success? rick unhappier period of highlife i was involved in the balkans and we had to conflicts. in bosnia seemed to be a
more intractable but the country one-tenth the size. on lot of the attention was on the military and later in kosovo but it was a series with those efforts to mobilize passing the claims that everybody would get something out of this offering governance economic support caring for refugees it is the entire package put together led by the united states with the flashy military element but others as well and worked in bosnia when the regime tried for years later we did it again and cosimo and this time the serbian people decided they had enough of him but these were limited conflicts the use was restrained and
backed by diplomacy with legitimacy and by economic and development programs continuing to this day. that is what i would point to. >> again it appears to me that is what we are trying to do but yet we're not seeing that same level of success. >> i said happier days because while they seem intractable there more difficult they and the middle east. if you have spent a lot of time there, you know there are no easy answers to those underlying problems that is what we have those six elements of violence and social breakdown but we the people have figured out how to deal with them. there is not going to be a final or incomplete notion
[applause] thank you very much. and college i worked at though horse racetrack the most viable experience of my life. is a great pleasure to be here. thank you for inviting me with foreign policy and politics is an invitation could not pass up it is the pleasure to be here at george mason university named for one of the great contributors of the best government on earth as prescribed by the
constitution the george mason helped to write we will elect a new president in 2016. we have many facing america and today we formally enter the race with the democratic nomination for president. [applause] if we as leaders to show good judgment and good decisions we can fix what is ailing us. but if to keep ourselves from expensive wars just think of how bitter the money could be spent to. for is since said transportation network is becoming dangerous. we should increase our investment empire or idi and public schools and colleges. this is important is some of our cities with the annoying sense of hopelessness and
economic disparity. and with the disadvantaged americans come let's push the and we can address climate change senate to of both paved these had to with infrastructure in prime ministership of and i am also running for president because we need to be smart with these follette tile times overseas -- paula told times overseas.
[inaudible conversations] fisker is authorized to declare a recess at any time. we appreciate years be here for the third panel hub of this tuesday hearing to ensure compliance with the freedom of information act. the president has committed to creating the unprecedented level of openness in government and those are his words but not with filling the foyer of request -- foia request was reported more than any other administration that was denied access. last year and a huge - - use exemptions to withhold after 550,000 times. agencies that may involve
documents with equities. but justin last year the government has been fully denied access sally's 250,000 cases for cruz the highest ever of a preface to wait years that that come from the national refusal relief role organizations remember when reset the system is broken and have made we received numerous in hilla and and all of which hindered transparency. the epa she should be avoided disclosure but discussing those with have
>> i handled the decision this variance lou well if pet day seated tonight in an private loan dash the we also see those in the program reductions from the sec. a redacted documents show they blacked out the chairman's initials on every e-mail he sent or received. to do so they claimed a personal privacy exemption is it percival even with lower levels? they also claim the staff commentary was the liberal give a and redacted under the five exemptions. the time and expense it takes to do such silly
government certainly did that corruption the irises still obstructing efforts prefer just moving here today i am sure there will have a subpoena. >> the others is they all agreed and they all showed up. but you have dealt with this for years. but yet we have the issue and when we send a letter asking for some basic information anywhere between 28 and three different is a
false. >> almost nothing? the other four did. we will drag them up here every single we can do will respond united states congress is for the american people. you work for them you will not drag us around for the other way round of the irs went then you would jump for it at the head and we have a constitutional duty tonight
garcia from the research centers said they have hired contractors for their primary person it - - purposes to close a case not exploring that. requesting records from milan security to inquire whether or not they are still interested. lester it failed to respond to 65 percent of request. it created 15 of the top agencies to give the state department stowe letter f on
the process for the agencies before today's need to bring sunshine in the leadership has failed to make it a priority. that makes the job of the witness there are a lot of people who'd tried them on andirons painful for their service. >> it is our role and responsibility to understand how it works and what you are up against, what you are dealing with an a very candid way so we can help make it better and understand it. and data the their past to be changes. my guess is we want to pay and. you represent literally thousands of people who are
trying to do their job and deal with the tensions that come from a political persuasion that has been in both us democrat and republican side of the aisle with career professionals we want to hear candid the from new. wide is working or not but to better understand so that is your president's presence will recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you very much for holding these very important hearings on the freedom of information act which is the cornerstone of our nation as governmental laws. also thank you to the agency witnesses for being with us today. you do have a critical responsibility which is to make federal records
available to the american public as effectively and efficiently as possible. you'll also charge to implement the directive as the obama issued on the first day in office to implement a new presumption of openness that reverses the policy of withholding withholding, grace, the private bush administration but his job is getting harder by implication you in the president are blamed for the increase of foia backlogs as he heard at the hearing yesterday said foia backlog is a result from that number of personnel for a of request that is part of the request but not just to
hear that. >> that we have to have an honest assessment of lot alwin's going on for fear they feared kim but to honor them the radiation be. but if that is the case may need to hear about that. going back to personnel the number of request sky rocketed and in 2009 when a bomb to office there were five pager 58,000 requests submitted to the federal agencies.
in 2014 the number rose a research i've 28% but you can have flows time agency senator dropped three -- with a decrease of 4%. but for congress to continue to star federal agencies for resources with the budget cuts and staffing reductions and sequestration them blame those agencies for not being able to do their jobs effectively but i want to go back not only deal with the
personnel issues bucked fell whole culture that he talked about of responsiveness because i want the total picture to be effective to remedy this situation. if we went to foia to work with staffing and training to handle that increasing workload. is there an issue of trading? it is one thing to have personnel it is another to have them properly trained. but this is not what house republicans are doing today right now. down the hall in the appropriations committee republicans are voting to withhold $700 million, $700 million from the operational budget
to improve documentation of process industries. but with the record number of foia request for of the answer will be that two-thirds of $1 billion is more than all state department's combined. how is a the world is using heath -- keith. >> we know there are problems we know we must do better. but it is hard to imagine a more counterproductive attack on the foia process. i take issue with the claims