Nikki Haley More Sanctions Wont Necessarily Work Against North Korea CSPAN September 5, 2017 11:13am-11:55am EDT
sessions confirming news the trump administration will bring program ande daca president trump said he will be calling on congress to work on legislation to protect those immigrants. if you missed anything of what attorney general had to say, you can see it on line at www.c-span.org. we will continue with live coverage as we take it to nikki haley discussing policy toward iran in washington. it started a couple moments ago. haley: in violation of international law, they held 52 american marines and diplomats hostage for 444 days. for the 38 years since, the iranian regime has existed outside the nations. henry kissinger famously said
iran cannot decide if it is a nation or cause. since 1979, the regime has behaved like a cause, the cause of spreading revolutionary shiite islam by force. its main enemy and rallying point has been and continues to be what it calls the great satan , the united states of america. the regime's main weapon in pursuit of its revolutionary aims has been the islamic revolutionary irgc. soon after the revolution, the irgc was created to protect the revolution from its foreign and domestic enemies. they reported not to elected government that to the supreme leader alone. soon after its own creation, the irgc found a way to spread iran's influence abroad.
came the bombing of the u.s. embassy in beirut in 1983. 63 americans killed. then came the bombing of the marine barracks, 241 americans killed. then the kidnapping and murder williamtation chief buckley. in 1985, a twa airplane was hijacked. the body of a u.s. navy diver was dumped on the runway at the beirut airport. in 1988, u.s. marine colonel higgins, a u.n. peacekeeper in south lebanon, was kidnapped and executed. under the irgc's direction, hezbollah expanded its legal reach to europe, africa, asia and the americas. in search of victims to kill. jewish community center in windows i raise was wased -- and buenos aires
bombed. in1996, towers were bombed saudi arabia, 19 u.s. airmen killed. the number one killer of u.s. troops was iud's . , theeadly -- ied's deadliest of which are surprised the irgc.ere from in 2005, lebanese prime minister was assassinated. in 2011, the u.s. disrupted a plot to bomb an american restaurant less than two miles from here. the target was a saudi ambassador. today, hezbollah is doing the iranian regime's dirty work, supporting the war crimes of syria's assad and is building an arsenal of weapons and fighters for war. this is the nature of the regime
and its quest to overturn the international order. it's power and influence has grown over time, even as it remains unaccountable to the iranian people. it is hard to find a conflict for people in the middle east that the iranian regime, irc g or proxies do not touch. in parallel with the support for terrorism and proxy wars, iran's military has long pursued nuclear weapons, all while attempting to hide its intentions. for decades, the iranian military conducted a covert nuclear weapons program. undeclared and hidden them international inspectors. in 2002, iranian dissidents reviewed -- revealed the existence of uranium enrichment plant, violations of iran's state agreement with the iaea.
regime went on to break multiple promises to abide by international inspections and limits. it hid its nuclear weapons development and lied about it until it got caught. in 2000 nine, american, british and french intelligence revealed the existence of a secret uranium enrichment plant deep inside a mountain, and deep inside an ircg base. the british prime minister summed up iran's behavior well, calling it "the serial deception of many years." it was soon after this that president obama began negotiating a deal with iran. the deal he struck was not supposed to be just about nuclear weapons. it was meant to be an opening with iran, a welcoming back into the community of nations. president obama believed that after decades of hostility to the u.s., the iranian regime was
willing to negotiate an end to its nuclear program. much has been written about the jcpoa. i will not repeat it all here. let's just say that the agreement falls short of what was promised. we were promised an end to the iranian nuclear program. what emerged was not an end but a pause. under the deal, iran will continue to enrich uranium and develop advanced centrifuges. we were promised any time, anywhere inspections of sites in iran. the final agreement to deliver it much less. the promise of 24/7 inspections apply only to iran's declared nuclear sites. for any undeclared but suspected sites, the regime can deny access for up to 24 days. then there is the deal expiration dates. after 10 years, the limits on
uranium advanced centrifuges and other nuclear restrictions begin to evaporate. in less than 10 years, they have the opportunity to upgrade the capabilities in various ways. oa is therefore a very flawed and limited agreements. even so, iran has been caught in multiple violations of the past 1.5 years. 11 after the0 16, agreement was implemented, the iaea discovered iran had exceeded its allowable limit of heavy water. nine months later, iran exceeded the limit again. both times the obama administration health iran get aiken to compliance and refused to declare the violation. if that is not enough, the biggest concern is that iranian leaders, the same one in the
past caught operating a covert nuclear program at military site, have stated publicly that they will refuse to allow iaea inspections of their military sites. how can we know iran is complying with the deal is inspectors are not allowed to look everywhere they should look? jcpoar major flaw in the is its penalty provisions. whether an iranian violation is big or small, the material or nonmaterial, video provides only -- the yield provides for only one penalty. visit --ty of brief real position of sanctions -- three in position of sanctions. think about that. there is an absurdly circular logic to the enforcement of this deal. penalizing its violations do not make it stronger, they blow it
up. iran's leaders know this. they are counting on the world brushing up relatively mild infractions were relatively major ones. they are counting on the united states and other parties to the agreement being so invested in its success that they overlook iranian cheating. that is exactly what our previous administration did. it is this unwillingness to challenge iranian behavior for fear of damaging than the year agreement that gets to the heart of the threat the deal imposes to our national security. the iranian new year deal was designed to be too big to fail. the deal to an artificial line between the iranian regime's nuclear development and the rest of its lawless behavior. it said we have made this deal on the nuclear side so none of the regime's other bad behavior is important enough to threaten
the nuclear payment. the result is that for advocates of the deal, everything in our relationship with the iranian regime must now be subordinated to the preservation of the agreement. the iranians understand this dynamic. last month, when the united states imposed new sanctions in response to iranian missile launch is, iran's leaders threatened once again to leave the jcpoa and return to a nuclear program more dance than the one they had before the agreement. this arrogant threat tells us one thing. iran leaders want to use the nuclear deal to hold the world hostage to its bad behavior. this thread is a perfect example -- this threat is a perfect example of the plan strictly in compliance with the jcpoa is dangerous and shortsighted. more importantly, it a point.
why did we need to prevent the iranian regime from a client nuclear weapons -- from acquiring nuclear weapons in the first place? the answer has to do with the there of the regime and threats. pillarse the other two that come into play. the second pillar involves the united nations. was the nuclear agreement signed, the obama administration --k iran's non-new rea non-nuclear administration and rolled it up into you and security council -- u.n. security council resolutions. the irc cheese development -- their development of nonnuclear technology. you can call it nonnuclear but
missile technology cannot be separated from the pursuit of a nuclear weapon. north korea is showing the world that now. andy six months, the you secretary -- u.n. secretary general reports with this so-called nonnuclear reports. it is filled with reports of violations. proving arm smuggling, bans,ions of travel stoking the regional conflicts, the secretary general report includes ample evidence of ballistic missile technology and launches. the regime has engaged in such launches repeatedly, including of july of this year, when it launched a rocket into space that intelligence experts say can be used to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile. they are clearly acting in
defiance of u.n. resolution 2231 by developing technology capable of the point of clearwire heads. ofortunate -- capable deploying nuclear warheads. unfortunately, many member states choose to ignore the u.n. resolutions. in this way, we see how dangerously these two pillars of iran policy work together. the international community has incentive to go out of its way to insert the iranian regime is in compliance on the nuclear side. meanwhile, the u.n. is to elected to address -- is to reluctant to address the nonnuclear resolutions. the result is iran continues its march to deliver a nuclear warhead in the world becomes a more dangerous place. that is where the third color of
our iran nuclear policy -- third part of our iran nuclear policy comes in. president obama refused to submit the iran deal into congress. he knew they would reject it. majorities in both houses of congress voted against the deal. among the no votes were leading democrats like senators chuck schumer, ben cardin and bob menendez. despite president obama's constitutional risk, the legislative body did attempt to exercise some of it authority with the passage of the court a law thataw -- of requires the president to make a certification to congress every 90 days. importantly, the law asks the president to certify several things, not just one. the first is that iran has not reached the jcpoa, the one everyone for us is on, but the
new law requires something else, and that is often overlooked. the president to certify this is suspensionthe against iran is proportionate to iran's nuclear measures and that it is vital to the national security interest of the united states. regardless of whether one considers iran's violations of a material and regardless of whether one considers iran's flouting on its technology toile be nonnuclear, u.s. law requires the president to look at whether the iran deal is appropriate, proportionate to our national security interests. it asks us to put together the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle.
under its structure, we must consider not just the iranian regime's technical violations of the jcpoa but also a resolution 2231 and its long history of aggression. we must consider the regime's repeated demonstrated hostility towards united states. we must consider its history of deception about its nuclear program, its ongoing development of ballistic missile technology, and we must consider the day when the terms of the sunset,some -- jcpoa the day iran's military may very well already have technology to send a nuclear warhead to the united states, it knowledge is that north korea only recently developed. in short, we must consider the whole picture, not simply whether iran has exceeded the jcpoa limit on uranium
enrichment. we must consider the whole jigsaw puzzle, not just one. that is the judgment president trump will have to make in october if the president does not certify iranian compliance, the law tells us what happens next. what happens next is significantly in congress' hands. this is critically important and almost completely overlook. if the president chooses not to iraniani iranian -- compliance, that does not mean the united states is withdrawing from the jcpoa. withdrawal is governed by the terms of the jcpoa. the corker law goes between the president and congress. if the president signs he cannot certify iranian compliance, it would signal one or more of the messages to congress, either the administration believes iran is in violation of the deal or the
lifting of sanctions against iran is not appropriate and proportional to the regime's behavior, or the listing of sanctions is not in the u.s. national security interests. under the law, congress then has 60 days to consider whether to reimpose sanctions on iran. during that time, congress could take the opportunity to debate iran's support for terrorism, past nuclear activities and human rights violations. commerce to debate whether the new year deal is in fact too big to fail. we should a debate on whether is jcpoa is in -- the jcpoa in the national interest. they set up a deal that deny this and has serious debate. if the president finds he cannot certify iranian compliance, he
would have a process beyond narrow technicalities and look at the big picture. at issue is our national security interests. it is time we have an iran nuclear policy that it knowledge is that. thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much. you have given us an enormous amount to talk about and hour use the microphone to ask a couple questions. to a security council called in the way of the potential hydrogen bomb test in north korea. you are talking about iran, a different challenge but in many ways the same kind of a challenge.
do you see the possibility that iran and said in a north korea situation is more is not done? haley: i know if we continue to not look at iranian activity and we continue to say, we will deal with that later, we will be dealing with the next north korea because we are allowing them to develop advanced technology in front of us. we are allowing them to have behavior in violation of the resolution in front of us, we are allowing them to tell the iaea they are not going to let them inspect military sites where we know the have had covert nuclear operations in the past. would i want the country to understand is to wake up. we need to understand this is not something that went away. it is still there, hiding behind an agreement that has everyone
so scared to touch it without realizing is going on now. >> you spend a lot of time with our allies and others up in new york. one of the things you hear from iran and their friends and supporters is it united states chooses to walk away on the jcpoa, the europeans and asians and russians are not going to be with them. you will be walking away on your own and we would not put sanctions back in place. concern, asut your you talk to people new york, where do you see our allies standing on this? ambassador haley: i think our allies are frustrated and concerned. the ac what we see, they see the violations of the u.n. resolutions, that the iranian regime will not let us look at nuclear sites. the are concerned. everyone hoped this would make
the iranian government did people but no one looked at the history of iran. no one looked at all the past aggressions they have shown. what we are saying is this deal does not change all that and it does not change what is happening now, so our allies know we should be concerned. no, they do not want us to get out of the deal, but are we going to take care of our allies and make sure they're comfortable or look out for our u.s. security interests? nationalbout u.s. security, not european security, not anyone else. this is about the precedent making a decision on is this in our national security interest to continue down this path? >> one of the things that got the iranians to the table where the sanctions you mentioned that took a bite out of the iranian economy. the challenge for us visit the assessment is that they are not
complying, that this is no longer in the u.s. national interest, how do we constrain them? this is one of the conversations a lot of people had in washington. deal but carefully constructed, what happens next? have you started thinking about what his next? ambassador haley: i think we have to understand cannot put lipstick on a pig. we cannot make this deal but better than it is. we have to look at the reality it is flawed. blindallow ourselves to a deal or do we say, what else can we do? is there something else we should be doing now to prevent it will happen 10 years from now? because that is a realistic thing we need to look at. that is important for our children, grandchildren and everything going forward. we have to make sure we are
looking out for us. if you look at north korea now, the reasons we are pushing for so many sanctions -- to rethink more will work on north korea? not necessarily, what does it do? to cut soft revenue that allows them to build -- it cuts off the revenue that allows them to build missiles. we cut off the revenue in iran so they could not do bad things willingly as much as they wanted . instead, we gave them this influx of money that allowed them to do whatever they wanted if we areys notice going to inspect the site. there is a problem there and i think we need to be honest with ourselves that when the jcpoa was passed, when the worker c law was -- corker law was passed, that does not change the
belief of the iranian government. they are still who they were prior to the deal. arrays of other deals, not just the missile technology, but the transfer of weaponry. you mentioned hezbollah, or you think there is support out there to put pressure on the iranians who are now in yemen, lebanon, syria, and we could go on? do you think there is a growing consensus we need to do othering about iran' activities or is this standing alone? ambassador haley: you can look at any place in the middle east where there are problems. and the iranian tentacles are there. it is the reality of the situation. if you know that, if you know there is supported terrorism and
armed smuggling -- arms in violation of multiple things from that resolution, why isn't anyone standing up? they are not standing up by the fear the iran regime will pull out of the jcpoa. how smart is that? we are going to ignore all of these things they are doing throughout the middle east in the name of protecting a flawed deal? that is not smart. that is not been careful. that is not being in front of the situation. what we are looking that is we are not keeping iranian ship doing bad things, we are empowering them and gave them attend the money to do it. we cannot expect different behavior and they will do what they do when i went to the iaea, they were threatened to pull out of the jcpoa. they will threaten the entire world because the entire world --nks the jcpoa is uncut
untouchable, but it is not. we have to be realistic about that. >> i want to open things up for questions. i'm sure pretty much everybody is familiar with the role. please put your important statements and foremost question. raise your hands, i will call on you, and if you would be nice enough to identify yourself and wait for the microphone. >> thank you very much. the question i have is did the embolden thege and formalist and iran? are we caught up in the game of good cop-bad cop when it comes to iranian policy? ambassador haley:ambassador haley: great question but i do know that i had the. what if you have the answers to is the historic nature of the
iranian regime. they have always threatened the united states, done bad activity, been involved in terrorism. they will not change their stripes because of a deal. we gave them a deal, what do iranians typically do? they sidetrack the deal. case they find other ways -- they find other ways. this is the same scenario. doing a great job looking at the cleared sites. there are hundreds of undeclared sites that have suspicious activity that they have not looked at. are we going to cut it and andect this -- covet protect this deal when they very well could be cheating like before? that is why think the united states needs to have a conversation of are we being smart to ourselves? >> there is a bigger question.
butalk a lot about iran, there is a treaty that stands in the balance, as well. we have north korea, all these other countries that have nuclear weapons. if the iaea is a toothless tiger, you have to ask what purpose is this serving? ambassador haley: i do not think it is a toothless tiger. i think they do very good work. this was a lot to give them, a lot. you have the fact that there are hundreds of sites. the experts can only look at so many and they have said of the sites they have seen, those are in compliance. knowing is talking about the sites they have not seen. is talking about the sites they have not seen. it is easy to say they are in
compliance. that is like asking my son, did you finish your homework? i finished the first page. that is not all of the homework. that is what we are talking about when we are dealing with this. >> hi, i'm with cnn. nice to see you again. i would like to put this in the context of north korea. , you said north korea wasbegg -- you said north korea .as begging for war even though you talk about the president taking his own decisions, you made out a strong argument for decertifying and re-examining the deal. korea toy to get north abandon its nuclear ambitions,
whether there is a concern that the u.s. is not counted on to make good on the deals it does reach with other countries, and that north korea will see no incentive to make a deal with the united states if it is going to pull out of its deal, and just as you laid out, you said the president will make the decision, are you recommending he decertify? you certainly seem to lay out a persuasive argument for decertifying and triggering this nationwide debate? thank you. ambassador haley: there are a couple of things there, not making the case for decertifying. i am saying should he decide to decertify, he has grounds to stand on. i wanted to put out the facts because it is easy to talk about compliance and the jcpoa but there is so much more to the story we need to look at and there is more that the president
has to be looking at. what i am doing is trying to lay out the offense of what is out bere, what we need to looking at, and knowing that the end result has be the national security of the united states. it is protecting americans so they are not in danger to that. you talk about north korea and whether others would think we do not stay in a deal, what is more important is we let others know we will state in a deal as bonds it protects the security of the united states. we should not people holding to any agreement and second by the security of the united states to stay in the agreement. we should let every country know, whether north korea, iran or anyone else, that we will look out for our interest, security and make sure it is working for us, not for everyone else. that is very important. >> the other thing people forget is it president obama had
submitted this as a treaty to the congress, then we would be much more constrained in our ability to walk a way. he chose not to do that understanding he would probably not get ratification, but if there is anyone to blame that donald trump can make this decision is the previous administration. they are called. >> it would be interesting to see the debate in congress when they have to look at everything, all aspects and do they still agree with the agreement? that would be an interesting debate. >> have you encouraged the members of congress and others to hold these kinds of hearings in the run-up to this decision? have not hadley: i conversations with congressional members. this was something because we discuss it at the united nations quite a bit and because by instinct, i tried to get in front of situations before they get that and look at things that
happened before they might have been and provide as much information to the president on the issue i could, asking the right questions to the iaea. they are independent. i did not want that to happen. ask, how many sites? how many did you look at? as a declared, undeclared? what about the military sites, are you checking those? all these questions needed to be answered and i think it goes back to what direct your general -- to what the director general said in the beginning, this is a jigsaw puzzle. you cannot look at a few of the pieces and think you know the answer because that is not the case. wait for the microphone. >> hello. ask if the president
decides to do certify the agreement -- two decertify the agreement and congress has the debate, with european allies supported if they understand what is happening? would you expect resistance from them moving forward? ambassador haley: i think because the european allies understand the concerns we have in iran, if they saw the president decertify, they would, yes, realize this is going to congress and i think they would watch that closely. no one wants to get out of the deal, the poor do not hope the iranians will do the right thing. hope the iranians with the right in, but what it there not doing the right thing? what is they did whatever they wanted to do to prepare for when that 10 year time hit and they start war? i think our european allies at
very much understand the debate and have their views on whether we should stay in or not. i think it much would understand our willingness or one to have a debate on if this is the right thing. >> surely after the refugee crisis they understand the cost of allowing iran to meddle in the region with the weekend -- with a free hand. i think we will have time or one more question in the corner. wait onesecond -- second. >> from the new york times, this administration has now thrown the dreamer and daca to congress. it is not a debate congress once. it sounds if you want to throw whichan deal to congress, i can tell you now, even your allies on the republicans will tell you is not a debate they want to have right now on capitol hill with all the things going on. this administration has the
power to decide to state in the deal or out of the deal. why this middle path where you decertified and then force congress to make this hard decision for you instead of making it yourself? when i taught to european allies, -- talk to european allies, they say clearly they want this deal to continue. to you think you will be able to sway them if you get out of the deal to create another sanctions regime when their message during the debate was uniformly that they would not do so? ambassador haley: thank you for the question. the middle ofst the road situation, that is u.s. law. what it says is the president is obligated to make the decision on whether this is still in the u.s. national interest. what the law says is the
president has to relook at this every 90 days, so that is not us trying to sidestep, that is u.s. law and law the president has to follow and in good conscience, for all americans, we should want the president to honestly reevaluate every 90 days to make sure that if things have changed , we are moving accordingly, and it a have not, we are not. i get that congress does not want this. this is not an easy situation for anyone, the president, the security council, for congress . our lives are not about being easy, they are about being right . we have to make sure every decision we make this right. i agree with you, the european allies want us to stay in the deal, but how many attacks did i just described in history has the iranian regime gone against americans, our soldiers, our
diplomats? the europeans cannot say that. there are now having to deal with.. again -- deal with that. again, our job is not to make sure europeans are happy with this. our job is to keep the american public safe. that is a heavy price to pay. i am not saying they should go to congress. get outying we should of the deal, i am not saying anything in terms of what should or should not happen. what i am saying is we owe it to ourselves to look at every aspect of this deal and understand that this was a laud has -- flawed deal and it negative consequences, as well. >> ambassador, you have a tight schedule, so thank you on behalf of our audience. [applause] >> if everybody would be nice
before her remarks, we rely with attorney general jeff sessions. president trump appointed him to address the results of the program daca, been rescinded. his remarks are about 10 minutes. attorney general sessions: good morning. i'm here today to announce the program known as daca that was effectuated under the obama administration is been rescinded. it was implemented in 2012 and essentially provided a legal status for recipients for renewable two-year term, worker authorization and other benefits, including participation in social security