tv Hearing on the Iran Nuclear Agreement CSPAN September 2, 2015 8:45pm-9:59pm EDT
no other purpose than to sell fear -- to so fear in the hearts of israeli families. i piloted an israeli jet and observed firsthand the tiniest of israel airspace from which it is possible to see all of the country's neighbors at the same time. and i have bowed my head at the western wall and offered my prayer for peace, peace for israel, for the region and for the world. i take a backseat to no one in my commitment to the security of israel. a commitment i demonstrated through my 28 plus years in the senate. and as secretary of state, i am fully conscious of the existential nature of the choice israel must make. i understand the conviction that israel, even more than any other country, simply cannot afford a mistake in defending its security. respectfully
disagree with benjamin netanyahu, i do not question for an instant the basis of his concern or that of any israeli. but i am also convinced, as is president obama, our senior defense and military leaders and even many former israeli military and intelligence officials that this agreement puts us on the right path to prevent iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon. the people of israel will be safer with a steel and the same is true for the people throughout the region. that, we areensure also taking specific and far-reaching steps to coordinate with our friends from the gulf states. president obama hosted their leaders at camp david earlier this year. lastited with them in doha month. and this week, we will visit kim
so hon from saudi arabia to washington. there -- they are alarmed by iran's nuclear program. we must and we will respond on both fronts. we will make certain that i ran lives up to its commitments under the nuclear agreement and we will continue strengthening our security partnerships. we are determined that are gulf friends will have the lyrical and the military support that they need. to that end, we are working to develop a ballistic missile defense for the arabian peninsula, authorize urgently required arms transfer, strengthen cyber security, engage in large scale military exercises, and enhance maritime interdiction of illegal iranian shipments. we are deepening our cooperation and support in the fight against the threat posed to them, to us, and to all civilizations by the
forces of international terror, including their surrogates and their proxies. steps and others, we will maintain international pressure on iran. the united states sanctions imposed because of tehran's support for terrorism and its human rights record, those will remain in place. as well or sanctions aimed at preventing the proliferation of ballistic missiles and transfer of conventional arms. the un security council prohibitions on shipping weapons to hezbollah, the shiite militias in iraq, the booty rebels in yemen, all those will remain as well. we will continue to urge tehran to provide information regarding an american who disappeared in iran several years ago, and to release the u.s. citizens its government has unjustly imprisoned. we will do everything we can to see that our citizens are able to safely return to where they
belong, at home and with their families. have no doubt. the united states will oppose iran's the stabilizing puzzle aziz with every international degree -- policies with every security possible. i may clear the administration's willingness to work with them on legislation to address shared concerns about regional security , consistent with the agreement we have worked out with our international earners. this brings us to a second piece of fiction. that this deal would somehow legitimize iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon. i keep hearing this. years, iran has had a civilian nuclear program under the nonproliferation
shoul treaty. it was never a realistic option to change that. is recognizing this reality not the same as legitimizing the pursuit of a nuclear weapon. in fact, this agreement does the exact opposite during under iaea prohibited iran is from ever pursuing a nuclear weapon. this is an important point. i want to be sure that everyone understands. the international community is not telling iran that it can have a nuclear weapon for 15 years. we are telling iran that it can't have a nuclear weapon period. , 15, is no magic moment 20, to five years ago now -- years from now where iran gets a pass. in fact, iran is required by
this agreement to sign up to and abide by the iaea additional protocol that i mentioned earlier that came out of the north korea experienced. and that requires inspections of all nuclear facilities. what does this mean? it means that iran's nuclear program will remain subject to regular inspections forever. iran will have to provide access to all of its nuclear facilities forever. iran will have to respond promptly to request for access to any suspicious site forever. and if iran at any time -- at any time -- and parks nuclear activities that are incompatible with a wholly peaceful program, it will be in violation of the agreement forever. we will know that violation right away and we will retain every option we now have to respond, whether diplomatically or through a return to sanctions
or by other means. agreement gives us unprecedented tools and all the time we need to hold iran accountable for its choices and actions. the specialme of additional restrictions that we successfully negotiated, those begin to ease after a period, in some cases 10 or 15 and others 20 or 25. but it would defy logic to vote to kill the whole agreement with all the permanent npt restrictions by which iran has to live for that reason. after all, if your house is on fire, if it is going up in flames, would you refuse to extinction because of the chance that there might be another fire in 15 years? obviously not. fire and youhe
take advantage of the extra time to prepare for the future. my friends, doesn't make sense to conclude that we should vote no now because of what might happen in 15 years, thereby guaranteeing that what might happen in 15 years will actually begin to happen now. because if this agreement is rejected, every possible reason for worry in the future would have to be confronted now, immediately, in the months ahead. once again, and soon, iran will begin advancing his nuclear program. we will lose the benefit of the agreement that contains all these restrictions and it would give a green light to everything that we are trying to prevent. needless to say, that is not the outcome that we want. it is not an outcome that would be good for our country during nor for our allies -- for our country nor for our allies or for the world. there is a third myth, a more technical one, that iran could get away with building a covert
nuclear facility. in truth, there is no way in 24 days or 24 months or 24 years for that matter to destroy all the evidence of illegal activity that has been taking place regarding fissile material area because of the nature of fissile materials and their relevant precursors, you can't eliminate the evidence by shoving it under a mattress, flushing it down a toilet, carting it off in the middle of the night. the materials may go, but the telltale traces remain year after year after year. and the 24 days is the outside. of time -- outside period of time during which they must allow access. dispute to access in any location, the united states and our european allies
have the votes to decide the issue. once we identify the site the raises russians, we will be watching it and tenuously until the inspectors are allowed in. let me underscore that. the united states and the international community will be monitoring iran nonstop. and you can bet, if we see something, we will do something. the agreement gives us a wide range of enforcement tools and we will use them. and the standard we will apply can be summed up in two words. zero tolerance. there is no way to guarantee that iran will keep its word and that's why this isn't waste on promise or trust. but we can guarantee that, if iran decides to break the agreement, it will regret breaking any promise that it has made. there are many other myths circulating about the agreement,
but the last one i will highlight is economic and it's important. the myth that sanctions relief, receivean will will be too generous and too dangerous. like any serious negotiation, this involved quid pro quo. iran wanted sanctions relief. -- world wanted without the trade-off, there could have been no deal and no agreement by iran to the constraints that it has accepted , very important constraints. but there are some who point to sanctions relief as grounds to oppose the agreement. and the logic is faulty for several reasons and the first and most important is that absent new violations by iran, the sanctions will erode regardless of what we do. it's an illusion for members of congress to think that they can vote this plan down and then
turn around and still persuade countries like china, japan, south korea, turkey, india, iran's major oil customers. that they ought to continue support sanctions that are costing them billions of dollars every year. is not going to happen. and a forget that the money that has been locked up as the result of sanctions is not sitting in some american bank under u.s. control. the money is frozen and being held in escrow by countries with which iran has had commercial dealings. we don't have that money. we can't control that. it will begin to be released anyway if we walk away from this agreement. remember as well that the bulk of the fans iran will receive under this actions relief are already spoken for. and they are dwarfed by the country's unmet economic needs. a crippled infrastructure, energy
infrastructure. it has to rebuild it to be able to pump oil. it has an agriculture sector that has been starved for investment. massive pension obligations, significant foreign reserves that are already allocated to a foreign projects. and a civilian population that is sitting there expecting that the lifting of sanctions is going to result in a tangible improvement in the quality of their lives. is notctions relief going to make a significant difference in what iran can do internationally. never been based on money. make no mistake. the important thing about this agreement is not what it will enable iran to do, but what it will stop iran from doing. and that is the building of a nuclear weapon. before closing, i want to comment on the nature of the debate which we are currently engaged in. some have accused advocates of
the iran agreement coming rooting me, of conjuring up frightening scenarios to scare listeners into supporting it. curiously, this allegation comes most often from the very folks who have been raising alarms about one year another for years. planruth is that, if this -- this plan is voted down, we cannot predict with certainty what iran will do. but we do know what iran says it will do. and that is begin again to expand its nuclear activities. and we know that the strict limitations iran has accepted will no longer apply because there will no longer be any agreement. iran will then be free to begin operating thousands of other advanced and other centrifuges that would otherwise have been mothballed. they will be free to expand stockpile ofull --
enriched uranium, move ahead plutonium.s grade who will be held responsible for this? not iran. iran was prepared to implement the agreement and will have no reason whatsoever to return to the bargaining table. the world will hold accountable the people who broke with the consensus, turned their backs on our negotiating partners and ignored the council of top scientists and military leaders. the world will lend the united states. when those voices that accuse us of scaremongering begin to warn, iran's nuclear activities are once again out of control and must at all costs be stopped, what do you think is going to happen? build, myre will friends. the pressure will build for military action. the pressure will build for the
u.s. to use it in your -- unique capabilities to disrupt iran's nuclear program. negotiating is not going to work as we just tried it. president obama has been crystal clear that we will do whatever is necessary to prevent iran from getting a new your weapon. the big difference is at that point we will not have the world behind us the way we do today. because we rejected the fruits of diplomacy, we will be held accountable for a crisis that could have been avoided but instead we will be deemed to have created. why in theion is world would we want to put ourselves in that decision on having to make that choice especially when there is a better choice, a much more broadly supported choice, a choice that sets us on the road to greater stability and security but that does not require us to give up any option
at all today. here is the decision that we are called on to make. isvote down this agreement, to solve nothing because none of the problems we are concerned about will be made easier if it is rejected. none of them. not iran's nuclear program, not iran's support for terrorism or sectarian activities, not the then rights record and not opposition to israel. to oppose this agreement is or not totended to -- recommend a policy of national paralysis. it is to take us back directly to the very dangerous spot we were in two years ago only to go back there devoid of any realistic planner option. by contrast, the adoption and implementation of this agreement will cement the support of the community behind a plan to ensure that iran does not ever
acquire or possess a nuclear weapon. in doing so it removes a looming threat from a uniquely fragile region. discourage others from trying to develop nuclear arms, make our citizens and our allies safer and reassure the world that the hardest problems can be addressed successfully by diplomatic means. at its best, american foreign-policy in the policy of the u.s. combines immense power with clarity of purpose, relying on reason and persuasion whenever possible. as has been demonstrated many times our country does not shy from the necessary use of force but our hopes and values push us to explore every avenue for peace. the iran deal reflects our determination to protect the interests of our citizens and to
shield the world from greater harm but he reflects as well our knowledge that the firmest foundation for security is built on mobilizing countries across the globe to defend actively and bravely the rule of law. ago,ptember, 228 years -- franklinnkly in closed a debate on the constitution. he told a rapt audience that when people of opposing views and passions are brought together, compromise is essential. and perfection from the perspective of any single participant is not possible. he said that after weighing carefully the pros and cons of that most historic bait, he said the following.
thissent, sir, to constitution because i expect no better and because i'm not sure that it is not the best." my fellow citizens, i have had the privilege of serving our country in times of peace and war and peace is better. i have seen our leaders act with incredible foresight and also seen them commit tragic errors like plunging into conflicts without sufficient thought about the consequences. can old ben franklin, i claim and do claim no monopoly on wisdom and certainly nothing can compare to the gravity of the debate of our founding fathers over our nations founding documents. but i believe based on a lifetime's experience that the iran nuclear agreement is a hugely positive step at a time
when problem-solving and danger reduction have rarely been so urgent, especially in the middle east. the iran agreement is not a panacea for the sectarian and extremist violence that has been ripping that region apart but history may judge it a turning point, a moment when the builders of's -- of stability sees the initiative from the destroyers of hope. when we were able to show as that generations -- as have generations before us that when we demand the best room ourselves and insist that others adhere to a similar high standard, when we do that, we have immense power to shape a safer and more humane world. that is what this is about. that is what i hope we will do in the days ahead. thank you very much. [applause]
>> the iran nuclear deal is expected to come to the vote at the senate and house floors next week even as democratic leader to vote.osi has john maynard -- john boehner released a statement saying the obama at -- administration has a lot to explain. as our focus on the iran nuclear agreement continues we will have british defense secretary liam fox on the consequences of the deal and what it means for regional and global security. that is 11 a.m. eastern here on c-span. defense secretary ashton carter and joint chiefs staff chairman martin dempsey testify
about the iran nuclear accord area they are joined by secretary of state john kerry, energy secretary ernest moneys, and treasury secretary jack lew. all of whom helped negotiate the agreement. from july, this part of the hearing is about two hours. we welcome our distinguished witnesses and thank them for joining us today. we appreciate senators kerry and secretary minis and secretary lou being here. i did not request the presence of secretary kerry or moniz or secretary lew. i am glad they are here at their
desire to do so since the focus of today's hearing is on the strategic and military implications of the iran agreement. othere want to know among things as how this agreement will affect regional security, proliferation, and the balance of power in the middle east. what impact it may have on iran's malign activities and hegemonic ambitions in the region. what it means for perceptions of american credibility and resolve among our allies and partners, and what the consequences are for u.s. defense policy, military planning and structure. when we consider the consequences of the agreement, the second order effects what has been a bed deal and it looks that much worse. to this committee perhaps of most concern about the agreement itself pertains to the verification and monitoring publiclys as has been
reported, the inspection of iran's facilities will be conducted by the international atomic energy agency or iaea. there will be no americans allowed on the ground and the details of how these monitoring will occur in certain important instances are contained in a separate agreement between the iaea and iran, which the u.s. government and the congress have not seen. tothermore, the mechanism thelve the concerns about possible military dimensions of iran's nuclear program is contained in another side agreement between iran and the iaea. which the u.s. government and the congress have also not seen. to be sure, much is known about iran's past weaponization activities, but we can never know what we do not know, which is why the director of the iaea has said that effective verification depends on
resolution of the pmd issue. how that will occur, we do not know. this presents a major problem. all of us will soon vote on the iran agreement and the merits of this agreement hinges on its verifiability. and yet my we cannot read key documents pertaining to these verification measures and our own government is not even party to those agreements. i find that deeply troubling. what is more troubling on the broader military -- are the broader military implications. iran is not just a arms-control challenge. it is a geopolitical challenge. for years many of us have urged the administration to adopt a broader strategy to counter iran's malign activities in the middle east. unfortunately, that has not happened. instead we have watched with alarm as iran's military and intelligence operatives have stepped up their destabilizing theirties and increased
influence and control in places like syria, iraq, lebanon, yemen, bahrain, and gaza. iran has done all of this under the full pressure of sanctions. now iran will soon receive a windfall of sanctions relief estimated at roughly $60 billion or possibly as much as twice that. yes, a good amount of that money will surely go to iran's mystic priorities. this is money that will likely boost support to proxies and to double down on bashir aside when he needs it most. present a host of new challenges for the department of defense. what is worse, not only could this agreement strengthen iran's
malign activities in the region it is likely to enhance iran's acquisition of conventional military capabilities. for nearly a decade and arms embargo has heard iran's ability to build up and modernize its aging military. throughout the nuclear negotiations the administration that its diplomacy was limited exclusively to the nuclear file. just a few weeks ago general dempsey told this committee that "under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking." and yet, thanks to last minute concessions by the whatistration, that is this agreement would do. at year five, the international arms embargo would disappear and iran would be free to acquire advance military capabilities.
a year 8, restrictions will disappear and iran will be free to acquire through entirely licit means, the necessary technology and materiel forever more sophisticated ballistic missiles including icbms. in all of this iran will not only have billions of dollars with which to go on a shopping spree in the international arms market, but it is also sure to find plenty of states that are eager to sell those weapons, especially russia and china. in this way, the iran agreement not only paves iran's path to a nuclear capability, it will further iran's emergence as a dominant military power in the middle east. dangerous direct and implication for u.s. armed forces. the ultimate guarantee that iran will not get a nuclear weapon is document. a 109 page
it is the capability of the u.s. military to do what is necessary if all else fails and yet this agreement would enable iran to construct the kind of advanced military arsenal that could make our military option far costlier to employee. instead of enhancing our deterrence, this agreement seems to enhance iran's deterrence of us create if this agreement fails, the u.s. service members are called upon to take action against iran. their lives could be at greater risk because of this agreement. that is perhaps the most troubling aspect of all about this agreement. what it means for america's credibility in the middle east. since 1979, republican and democratic administrations have sought to contain the islamic republic of iran and prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. our allies and partners have been -- and trusted much of their security to the u.s. because they have leave that our .ommitment were credible
in this way, america's role in the region has to been -- has been to suppress competition between states with long histories of mistrust and to prevent that competition from breaking into open war. i fear this agreement will further undermine our ability and willingness to play that vital stabilizing role, our allies and partners in the middle east have increasingly come to believe that america is withdrawing from the region, and isng so at a time when i ran aggressively seeking to advance its hegemonic ambitions. now we have reached an agreement that will not only legitimize the islamic republic as a fresh -- a threshold nuclear state with an industrial enrichment capability but will unshackle this regime and its long-held pursuit of conventional military power and make consolidate the islamic republic's control in iran for years to come. after turning three decades of uris foreign policy on its head,
is it any wonder that this agreement may lead our allies and partners to question america's commitment to their security? happens, the states are increasingly likely to take matters into their own hands and indeed, we already see evidence of that. these fateful decisions may well manifest themselves in growing regional security competition, new arms races, nuclear proliferation, and possibly conflict, all of which would demand more, not less u.s. leadership and presence in the region. and not be ironic historically unprecedented that a diplomatic agreement attend -- intended to decrease risk of conflict actually increased those risks instead. be of us hope that will not the case now. it is the job of the defense department to be ready when our highest hopes fail us and i fear there is much work to do. i welcome the witnesses.
good morning. your appearance comes a little more than two weeks that after 20 months of negotiations the p-5 plus one and iran agreed on the terms of the joint copperheads of plan of action. the agreement no matter your position on it is historic and if implemented scrupulously, inld use -- serve as a point every -- relations with iran, and for the political and security dynamics in the middle east and i commend the president and his negotiating team from cabinet people to scientists. we have an obligation to review the details of this agreement and to independently validate that the agreement will meet our common goal from -- of stopping
iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. today's hearing is part of that obligation and i look forward to your testimony. secretary kerry, you are the key -- ofect of this area this. i hope you understand why it is your assessment that this is a good deal. and addressing iran's destabilizing agreement. acretary moniz, you have been strong advocate for the comprehensive plan of action. i hope you will help us understand what gives you confidence in the safeguards built into this agreement, particularly with regard to the cutting off of iran's pathways increaser weapons, to [indiscernible] manage purchases and the
iaea for enhanced it special and -- inspections. iran's limitation of enrichment program. secretary carter, you are a unique secretary of defense with a phd in physics and having so, i look forward to your technical insights as well as those of secretary moniz. thee neither of you were in negotiations you spoke with your counterparts of the applications were regional security. you undoubtedly heard the assessments of our partners and allies on a range of issues including how iran may use sanctions to pursue its ambitions, expand its support to terrorist proxies, and invest more heavily in its military. these are serious concerns and ones in which i share. our partners in israel see iran
as a significant and ongoing threat to their national security interest. while prime minister netanyahu is unlikely to ever endorse this deal it is incumbent on the u.s. to deepen further our corporation on military and intelligence matters with israel and to better understand the concerns of israelis. we will continue to stand alongside them. the joint statement following the u.s. cooperation council, innings at camp david provided a roadmap for how the administration intends to proceed. in makes clear the department of defense will be at the forefront of these efforts. critics point to perceived flaws related to iran's ballistic missile capability and the support of terrorist proxies across the region. the camp david statement
outlines our capabilities and their interoperability to increase collective defense in order to counter iran's support of terrorist proxies. the joint statement indicates we will be increasing our training and exercise engagement with special operation force elements to better enable our partners to confront iran's asymmetric capabilities. i want to make one final point. these negotiations focused on denying iran a pathway to a nuclear weapon. a nuclear iran would be a more formidable force in the region and as it has repeatedly demonstrated, not a force for peace and stability. but one that it -- supports terror and seeks to impose its will throughout the middle east. a nuclear iran would prompt an arms race that through accident or design could lead to catastrophe. none of us would condone it or other destabilizing activities
in the region but the focus of these negotiations will focus on nuclear weapons. the history of arms control makes this point. as fred kaplan pointed out, the treaties did not require the soviet union to disavow communism or institute jeffersonian democracy but they deals were useful. the capped and reversed nuclear arms race and provided a form for diplomacy, a cooling off of the distrust and hatred at a time when no other issue could have done so. i look forward to the panel's meansses and evaluate the to cut off all pathways to a nuclear device so an appropriate response can take place. thank you. mccain: secretary carter, could we begin with you? secretary carter: thank you and
with your leave, i think you preferred and that is fine with us if only i and general mc make opening statements. senator mccain: i hope that is agreeable to the other witnesses. carter: it is. thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify this morning on our defense strategy toward this critical region. reide wake of as senator noted of my travels to the the chairmaneek to and two weeks after the conclusion of the joint comprehensive plan of action. i am pleased to be joined by my fellow cabinet members who can talk in detail about that agreement reached in vienna. that deal is an important step. one brought about by the
leadership of president obama and the persistence of secretaries kerry and others. and congress helped put in place. it is a good deal because it prevents iran from getting a nuclear weapon in a comprehensive and verifiable way. once and verifiable way. once implemented, it will remove a critical element of risk and uncertainty. one element of risk and uncertainty. element from the region. for those reasons, and those my colleagues have provided in testimony, urge you to support it. i also urge you to support the broader elements of the defense strategy in the middle east i will describe including and especially by supporting a stable and reformed defense budget. the successful negotiation of
this deal is one part of our broader foreign and defense policy as the most influential power in the world, we have responsibilities all over the globe. the middle east remains important to america's national interests and as a result, the department of defense is committed to confronting the region's two principal security challenges, iran and isil. strategicment's approach to protecting our interests and confronting those challenges will remain unchanged. we will continue to maintain a strong military posture to deter aggression, bolster the security of our friends and allies, especially israel. navigationreedom of in the gulf. to track -- to check iran's malign influence and degrade and defeat isil. we are dangerous to us, israel, continuing to advance our military dangerous to us, israel, capabilities that provide all options as the
president has directed should iran walk away from its commitments under this deal. last week i was in the middle east and i had an opportunity to visit with some of our men and women in uniform who are carrying out this strategy. i know how much all of you care for them and like me, you're proud of their impressive work. i will tell you this morning when i told them. we are continuing full speed ahead standing with our friends, standing up to isolate, and standing against iran's malign activity. on isil, as i testified earlier, we have the right strategy in place built on nine synchronized lines of effort to achieve i sold's lasting defeat. we continue to strengthen execution. today in iraq and other places where working with partners on the ground and the global coalition to enable ground forces to win back iraq sovereignty and peace on its own
territory. i saw several parts of that effort last week and spoke with some of our partners on the ground. we have made some progress but we need to make more. on iran, this new deal when implemented will place significant limitations on iran that will effectively cut off its pathways to the fissile material for a nuclear bomb. it is also important to note ont it places no limitations -- no limitations on what the department of defense can and will do. to pursue our defense strategy in the region. it places no limits on our forces, our partnerships and alliances, our intensive and gone -- ongoing cooperation or the feeling of new capabilities. if iran were to commit
aggression, our robust force posture ensures we can surge and -- an overwhelming array of forces, leveraging our most advances -- advanced capabilities married with our ability to put no target out of reach. iran supports the assad regime in syria, backs hezbollah in lebanon who is fighting positions i observed firsthand during a visit to israel's northern border with israeli defense minister. and it is contributing to disorder in yemen. iran still direct hostility and violence to our closest ally in the region, israel. in the second -- the the face of that activity will come -- continue to meet our commitments to friends and allies in the region and build on and enhance our cooperation in meaningful
ways. i made that clear last week. saudi arabia, jordan, and iraq. i also made clear that we will maintain our robust regional ashore and afloat which includes tens of thousands of american personnel and our most sophisticated ground, maritime, and air and ballistic .issile our friends understand that we have an enduring commitment to deterrence and to regional security. i'm proud to say that our partnerships have never been stronger. as i made clear and as we agreed at camp david, we are committed making them even stronger and more capable.
to some of our golf partners. in conclusion, this is a good deal. it removes a continued source of threatened uncertainty and equipment of an verifiable way in preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon. it is a deal that takes no option away from a feature president. this is in important achievement that deserve your support. now, the u.s. and pregnant defense of the men and women are the world has ever known -- and world defense of the men and women the world has ever known. we need to counsel as soul and
iran's malign influence. -- we need to counter isil and iran's malign influence. >> think you members of the committee for the opportunity to address your questions regarding the military implications of the negotiated deal with iran. i will keep my comments brief. i was consulted on the military implications in the course of negotiations and provided my best military advice appropriately. if i, the deal addresses one critical and the most dangerous with iranian regime. it gives us an original partners concern.
this runs to weapons technology to the use of circuits and proxies to enable activity and to malicious activities in cyberspace. the negotiating deal doesn't change the military options at our disposal. in our ongoing efforts to counter that a rainy and's -- iranian's malign activities -- ultimately time and iranian behavior will determine if the nuclear agreement is affect and sustainable. -- effective and sustainable. i will present military options. i stand to subject to your questions. >> i mentioned to my colleagues we have a vote right now. usually we bounce back and forth . i think this is important enough for us to reassess -- until the vote.
i ask the indulgences of our witnesses and i apologize if we could recess for approximately 10 minutes well we are able to complete these2 votes -- these two votes? i think all members would like to your the complete testimony. -- here the complete testimony. i apologize. we will recess for 10 minutes. the committee will reconvene. i want to thank the witnesses for their patience. i'm sure they understand that from time to time we are required to vote. i went to thank the witnesses for being here. general dempsey, your statement has been completed. is there any other statement?
you will begin with questions and we will have five minute. secretary carter, the issue -- there is side agreements that have been made between the iaea and the land. apparently congress hasn't been privy to. could i ask that since these agreements -- side agreements have to do with weapons programs of the iranians and the inspection and verification of those programs, will we in congress receive the information concerning those side agreements in order to make a judgment as to the degree of verification?
>> i think it is important that the content of those agreements in the manner of which they provide for verification of the new their undertakings iran is making in this agreement and the procedures of the iaea be known. i cannot speak for the actual specific documents themselves. i'm sure secretary kerry can. it is an important part of the verification agreement and privacy their vacation is an important part of any agreement. let me as secretary moody if you would like to add anything in this six of the iaea. >> thank you. first of all, i would not call them side agreements. the agreement is that iran must cooperate for the iaea to complete its process. then the iaea as a standard
negotiate a safeguard confidential document to define the protocols. >> those protocols are very important. will we be aware of those protocols? the devil is in the details. >> the documents -- >> it is absolutely astounding. haven't seen the documents? >> all at the tate>> is that the agreement required -- all i could say is that the agreement requires operation with the iaea this is critical to all of us. >> what is critical to all of us is that we have verification of the inspections of iranian activities. they have a clear record of
cheating. we agree that we should see those insurance of verification. otherwise, how could we make a judgment as to this agreement being coerced or verified? this country has a long record of cheating. >> the iaea will take the information that iran must provide by october 15 and complete their report here and that time i think we will understand the iaea confidence in their verification measures. it is a very long history. >> we have the confidence of the iaea and not the actual viewing of the agreement and verification. i don't think many of us would agree with that assess. -- process. you told the committee "under no
circumstances should we believe pressure on iran's missile capabilities and arms trafficking. we are seeing a relief of sanctions on conventional arms and eight years ballistic missiles. >> it wouldn't surprise you to know that my recommendations is to keep pressure on iran for as long as possible. i will say that -- i supported. >> do you believe that iran will change its behavior as this
agreement is finalized? >> i'm not speaking just from my own judgment. i don't perceive that or have any information to see. that is why it is important the agreement be verifiable. it is important iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. it is important we do everything that we need to do. that is why our allies need to remain strong in the gulf. the agreement doesn't limit us in any way. i see no reason to foresee that. >> i have seen secretary lew's
testimony in others. they're doing it now -- and others. they are doing it now. one can only imagine what they are doing with additional dollars. and know the witnesses have very busy schedules. i'm grateful that i testified before the committee today. i thank you senator reid. >> the u.s. hasn't given up any of the military options with respect to the region. in hasn't given up any of its military intelligence operations with respect to iran. those operations would be -- is
that your sense, too? >> yes without going into detail here. we certainly have activities focused on iranians nuclear program. we have everything else. malign activities force. the whole thing. it is a very important intelligence effort. >> it was indicated that he is confident of the ability to detect any significant violation of the treaties with or without direct contact of iaea. >> yes.
they all made statements. it was said that we would have far greater insight in the iranian program with the agreement. it will persist essentially forever. >> your military assessment -- what is more effective putting a stop to the iranian nuclear program? the military strike question mark or the p5+1 agreement? >> military options remain. i think a negotiated settlement requires a more durable and reduces near-term risk. it buys time to work with regional partners to just the other malign activities. you invited me to talk about the military implications.
the first is it does reduce the risk of a near-term conflict with iran over their nuclear program. second second, they hat -- second, they have to be preserved for the future. third, they had revenue for malign purposes. fourth, this will require us to strengthen our relationships and our collaborations in that part of the world. we should maintain and will maintain our forward presence. those are the military implications. >> in terms of the military expenditures -- it has a capacity to go higher given their revenue.3 is that a fair assessment? >> it doubles average countries
for more than that. >> one of the factors who have to work with is making sure those resources are focused and can deter any aggression by the iranians. i think that is the whole point of the collaborations if i'm not mistaken? >> we have a series of initiatives to better position ourselves to address those other malign activities. >> and have a situation where resources are available. we are trying to reorganize in collaboration with original partners so they are much more effective to respond. we're not ignoring iranians on the ground. we are in a sense and thing up our activities. >> my responsibility is to
articulate risk and to provide options and mitigate. this does cause us to increase our military. >> thank you very much. >> we are in the middle of one of the largest bills. i read this morning to see what happened yesterday. this was in "the washington post." president of, promise the nuclear deal with iran would not be based on trust, but verification. it turns out the vision is based on trust after all. trust into secret side agreements between iran and international agency. apparently no one, including obama's administration, has
seen. the only two parties, the iaea and iran, get to see it. further in the u.s. news and world report, by law, that mr. shih-tzu >> to provide congress with -- they are required to provide congress with -- secretary kerry, do you agree with that analysis of the law and with the requirement is? >> let me just say -- let me clarify. congress will be fully briefed on this agreement in the classified session. indeed one of our key negotiators was briefed on it. we are where and what the basics are.
it is standard procedure in the countries that have an agreement with iaea. >> are we entitled to all of the materials? >> yes. no country has access to the confidential agreements directly of the iaea. >> i don't mean to interrupt you, but my time is limited to i cannot imagine this would not be a part -- that we would all be briefed. yesterday there was a deal and she is -- she has seen the deal and would share with congress. would be part to the time that secretary rice saw it? >> national security advisor
rice as not seen it. >> she said she had seen it pretty >> no, she said -- >> she said you had seen it. >> no, she had been briefed on it. >> i will give you her quote. she said she did see it. she did evaluated. she said six days ago, that is 10 days ago now. she said she had seen it and reviewed it and that congress will get to see it in a classified -- >> you are quoting another senator. her quote says that she has been briefed. she has not seen that. >> i have not seen that. that was specific on something that happened 60's before. -- six days before. the hill magazine -- it s
seven days ago today that we had a classified briefing, right? i was there. you were there. in a classified session, you cannot say what was said. was that addressed at all? >> it was. of course congress will be briefed with respect to contents. you need to be briefed. everyone needs to be briefed. >> my point is that it was a classified session where we were in a position to be briefed at that time and we were not. >> i don't think we have the full material too brief. i didn't have it anyway. but we are prepared. what we did provide and can provide is the actual roadmap that the iaea put out. they have issued a full roadmap
of -- >> i understand that. >> it is a confidential agreement. it is a confidential agreement. a standard procedure of the iaea . we have relied on the iaea for years and years. historically the iaea creates what is called a comprehensive safeguards agreement which they negotiate with a country. we don't get that. it is not shared with the world could the reason is it is confidential is it has to do with what you can get out of the country. we do get briefed on it. we are aware of it. there are some recommendations made to the iaea. they tighten it up a bit. there is certainly confidence in it. >> my time has expired.
we didn't have full access to that. i think the people would agree with that. i time has expired. >> -- my time has expired. >> thank you for the public service. i want to go down a different road. we have heard different commentaries. the german speaking of 50 or 60. -- chairman is speaking of 50 or 60. basically sanctions relief of what has been withheld is about 100 billion. in that 100 billion, there are some contracts role --
contractual obligations of iran to pay some 50 billion. therefore the net that would approximately come to iran would be about $50 billion. not -- 50 billion. is that somewhere in the ballpark? >> that is roughly correct. >> i'm trying to get concepts here. >> one thing i would add is that money is not sitting -- >> that is where i wanted to go. that money is sitting in foreign banks, is it not? >> it is sitting around the world. china. india. >> china. india. japan. even taiwan and uae. those things? >> correct.
-- those banks. >> correct. >> if we denied the lifting of economic sanctions, that money is in the hands of foreign banks . but in your professional opinion is the likelihood that the money would be released? to iran? >> it is iran's money that is tight up because of sanctions. these moneys have gone into foreign accounts and it is sitting there. this deal were rejected -- what do those other banks do? i don't think they would feel bound to hold that money the way they have held it in escrow away from iran. without a nuclear agreement, some of that would start going back to iran. >> if the agreement is rejected. >> to recapitulate, if we were to reject it, the money is likely to flow because it is in
the hands of foreign banks that would not be compelled to adhere to the u.s. wishes at that point. is that correct? >> correct. we will have sanctions that we could impose in other ways. this money is not sitting in u.s. banks. we cannot lock it up directly. just add one more detail, i think the notion a check it's written is wrong. they can spend all this money. this is the foreign reserve they need. they are using -- doing transactions in some countries that have -- they still need to buy things overseas. they can't just spend all of this money. as i said before, and have hundreds of billions of dollars
competing domestically. i cannot say not a penny will go to malign purposes. i think the magnitude is highly exaggerated by the notion of thinking that there is some $50 billion transfer. >> can you explain to the committee that insight that the u.s. government will have as a result of this agreement on their iranian centrifuge program? there have to be modifications and/or dismantlement of the plutonium reactor? >> yes, senator. they will have daily access and the use of advanced technologies to make sure that all of the
idle ones are locked up. they had confirmed that they are broke in. -- that they have broken. it is as general clapper said we had tremendously enhanced insight into the program. on plutonium, they will be required to take out the core part of the reactor and fill it with concrete. and with international collaboration -- we will make sure that the replacement reactor is the one that reduces plutonium production by a factor of 10. it is below the amount needed for a weapon. secondly, they have also agreed that to spen