Departments u. S. Special representative for iran, brian hook at this Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing. This hearing will come to order. Welcome, everyone. The subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the Trump Administrations iran policy. I thank the witness for appearing today. I now recognize myself for the purpose of making an Opening Statement. I will then turn it over to the Ranking Member mr. Wilson. All members will have five days to submit questions and extraneous materials for the record. Mr. Hook, thank you very much for testifying today. This committee has many questions related to u. S. Policy toward iran. We welcome the opportunity to hear directly from the administration. In recent weeks, relations between the United States and iran have grown increasingly tense. This committee is fully aware of the many challenges posed by tehran. Iran plays a destabilizing role in the region by propping up Bashar Al Assad in syria and supporting terrorist groups. Iran also continues to unjustly american citizens. Including now the longest held american hostage. To this day iranian leaders refuse to acknowledge their responsibility for bobs disappearance and have not fulfilled promises of assistance in locating bob and returning him to his family. Congress stands in solidarity with americans and others detained in iran. The iranian governments behavior is appalling and we condemn its actions. This Committee Also has reservations about the administrations policy. I have four primary worries about the administrations policy and i question its coherence, its impact on international leadership, its effectiveness and at times its recklessness. Today i understand you will say the Administration Seeks new negotiations with tehran based on four pillars, the nuclear program, Ballistic Missile capabilities, its detention of u. S. Citizens. On multiple occasions Senior Administration officials have expressed aims that are incompatible and sometimes work at cross purposes with these goals. National security advisor john bolton is a long time proponent of regime change in tehran. He frequently indicates that the Iranian Regime will not be in power in the coming years. President trump regularly including on a recent visit to japan said he is opposed to regime change. He has offered to negotiate with iran without preconditions and claims that he seeks a deal solely to end Irans Nuclear program. But in a may 2018 speech, the secretary of state mike pompeo outlined 12 conditions that tehran must fulfill, many of which are unrelated to the Nuclear Issue. Therefore, there is serious confusion about the intentions of iran policy and whether mr. Bolton, President Trump and secretary pompeo are working at cross purposes or even to achieve the same objectives. Second the Trump Administrations impulsive actions are isolating the United States from our allies which makes it harder to counter Irans Nuclear and nonnuclear behavior. President trumps withdrawal from the deal undercut American Leadership and divided us from their allies. The agreement formalized International Dialogue to address any iranian violations or flaws in the accord. And by withdrawing, the Trump Administration forfeited these mechanisms and frustrated global efforts to contain the Iranian Nuclear threat. We instead face the challenge now with a fractured International Community. Those divisions also make it harder to rally allies to address irans nonnuclear activities like its Ballistic Missile program and destabilizing regional activities. The fact became apparent in recent days. It is highly likely that iran twice attacked civilian ships in the gulf, but congress would like to see that evidence before stating it as a fact. But these attacks are unacceptable and should unite the International Community. However, as the administration sought to build a Broad Coalition to respond, close allies like germany and japan responded with skepticism while russia and china stated their support for iran and stated they would continue to develop ties with iran rather than despite the administrations claims, maximum pressure policy is ineffective. Deterring tehran and countering Nuclear Development are the standards and weve not seen success. The approach appeared based on this assumption, that faced with massive sanctions tehran would change its policies and the assessment of the head of Israel Military intelligence. Furt, it appears there is no process in place to reassess the assumptions underlying the administrations policy, consider alternatives and change course. If the current trend continues, the Trump Administration is likely to find a binary choice, back down in the face of irans aggressive behavior or engage in military action. The administrations policy is increasing the chances of mill calculation, which then would bring the United States and iran closer to a military conflict. Even more troubling, the administration seems to be suggesting that military action is covered by the 2001 aumf, which i remind the administration there is broad bipartisan agreement that thats not the case. To reiterate, congress has not authorized war with iran. Mr. Hook, i hope you will clarify the administrations view on this issue. I would close by pointing out that the challenges posed by iran are too grave and the lives of our Service Members too sacred for congress to abdicate its oversight responsibility and endorse a policy that we dont understand, that confuses our allies and that risk National Security. Thank you. Im grateful that we will be joined later today by the republican leader mike mccall. His presence underscores how important the hearing is today. Thank you to our distinguished witness mr. Brian hook, the u. S. Special representative for iran for your testimony before this subcommittee today. Iran has been a persistent threat to the United States since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The Iranian Regime is inherently hostile to the United States and when they chant death to america, death to israel, they mean what they say and they publish on bill boards in english across the country the same chant of death to america, death to israel. The Iranian Regimes hostility to the United States, our interests and allies around the world has continued unabated since 1979. Its most recent iteration came in the form of irans attack on oil tankers in the gulf of oman this past weekend. This latest attack, like all other iranian attacks, was not the result of anyone policy or another. The United States policy did not cause iran to become the worlds number one state sponsor of terrorism. Iran has been engaged in this kind of behavior since the current regime in tehran came to power. This kind of behavior is not an aberration or escalation. It is a hallmark of the iran regimes state craft. The notion that the Iranian Regime somehow would moderate to a point which it would no longer support such malign activity has proven false. When iran finally felt the economic benefits of sanctions relief under the terms of the flawed Nuclear Agreement, did it cut back its support to the malign activity around the world . No. Instead, iran doubled down on support of terrorist groups and continued racing ahead and developing the Ballistic Missile program. It exploited the breathing room paid for by the International Community to prop up the assad regime in syria and increase its influence in places like yemen and iraq. Thats part of the reason that the Trump Administration withdrew from the Nuclear Agreement and reimposed sanctions on the Iranian Regime. Initially the iranians believed they could wait out the administrations maximum Pressure Campaign by appealing to the europeans to try to find a way around u. S. Sanctions. But they have not succeeded. Irans economy is spiraling, contracting at a rate of 6 so far this year after contracting nearly 4 in 2018. Feeling the squeeze, the Iranian Regime has decided to revert to its tried and tested terrorist behavior with the latest attack in the gulf and its announcement this week of its intentions to breach the nuclear deal. These are both tactics of desperation designed to give wind to arguments that the u. S. Policy precipitated the iranian bad behavior. The sanctions against iran are working. We have already seen some dividends that the administrations maximum Pressure Campaign. Reports indicate that iran has had to slash payments to the fighters in syria by a third due to the pain of american sanctions. Even employees of hezbollah have missed paychecks and lost perks. Irans cyber unit has also lost substantial funding and the irgcs budget has been reportedly cut by 17 . At the same time, the United States must prioritize bringing our friends and partners into the fight with us. We cannot and should not do this alone. After all, it was the International Sanctions regime against iran that finally brought the regime to the negotiating table and we must bridge the divide with our european allies to be fully effective. We must restore deterrents against iran. And that requires the cooperation of our friends and allies in the region and beyond. Thank you again for being here today. We look forward to your service and understand that youve really got a job ahead of you, but your background indicates that you can achieve. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. I thank the Ranking Member. Ill now introduce our witness mr. Brian hook, special representative for iran and senior policy advisor to the secretary of state. He preensly held multiple senior roles in the Bush Administration including assistant secretary of state for international organizations. Mr. Hook managed an International Strategic Consulting Firm from 2009 to 2017 and practiced law from 1999 to 2003. We thank you for being here today, mr. Hook. Id ask you to please summarize your testimony in five minutes and without objection your prepared written statement will be made part of the hearing record. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ranking member wilson and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I appreciate you inviting me today to testify before the committee and for devoting a hearing to discuss americas Foreign Policy to iran. In my role as the United States special representative for iran, ive made it a priority to stay coordinated with this committee. This administration has implemented an unprecedented Pressure Campaign with two primary objectives. First, to deprive the Iranian Regime of the money it needs to support its destabilizing activities. Second, to bring iran back to the negotiating table to conclude a comprehensive and enduring deal as outlined by secretary pompeo in may of 2018 shortly after the president heft the ir left the iran deal. President trump and secretary pompeo have expressed very clearly our willingness to negotiate with iran when the time is right. No one should be uncertain about our desire for peace or our readiness to normalize relations should we reach a comprehensive deal. We have put the possibility of a much Brighter Future on the table for the iranian people and we mean it. The comprehensive deal we seek with the Iranian Regime should address four key areas, its nuclear program, its Ballistic Missile development and proliferation, its lethal support and Financial Support to terrorist groups and proxies and its arbitrary detention of u. S. Citizens include iing bob levin who was your constituent as well as others. Over a year ago, secretary pompeo laid out 12 demands describing the negotiated outcomes that we seek. We did not invent this list. In fact, the requirements that the secretary laid out simply reflect the wide extent of irans malign behavior as well as the global consensus that is reflected in multiple u. N. Security Council Resolutions passed from 2006 up until around 2011. Before we reimposed our sanctions and axxeccelerated ou pressure, iran was increasing the scope of its malign activity. It was emboldened by the resources and legitimacy that the nuclear deal granted. This includes engaging in expansive missile testing and proliferation, activities that i can confirm did not diminish after implementation of the nuclear deal in 2016. And iran also continued after the deal to detain innocent american citizens. Iran also deepened its engagement in regional conflicts, intensifying, prolonging and deepening the conflicts. In yemen, for example, iran helped to fuel a humanitarian catastrophe by providing funding, weapons and training to the houthis. Its support has only prolonged the suffering of the yemeni people. Looking at syria, iran supported assads war machine as the Syrian Regime kills hundreds of thousands and displaced millions, creating the worst refugee crisis since world war ii. Under the cover of the syrian civil war, iran is now trying to plant deep military roots in syria and to establish syria as a Forward Deployed missile base to threaten syrias neighbors, especially israel. In lebanon, iran uses hezbollah for many decades to provoke conflict with lebanons neighbors, threaten the safety of the lebanese people and imperil prospects for stability. Our pressure is aimed at reversing these trends. Today by nearly every metric the regime and its proxies are weaker than when our pressure began. Shia militant groups in syria have stated that iran no longer has enough money to pay them as much as they have in the past. Hezbollah and hamas have enacted unprecedented austerity plans due to a lack of funding from iran. In march hezbollahs leader went on tv and made a Public Appeal for donations. Hezbollah has placed piggy banks in Grocery Stores and in retail outlets seeking the spare change of people. We are also making it harder for iran to expand its own military capabilities. Beginning in 2014 twwhen the de was near completion, irans military budget increased every year through 2017. When we put our pressure into effect starting in 2017 and 2018, in the first year we saw a reduction in irans military spending by 10 . And in march, their most recent budget has a 28 cut in defense spending. That includes a 17 cut for irgc funding. The irgc Cyber Command is now low on funding. And the irgc has told iraqs shia militia groups that they need to start looking for new sources of revenue. Our Pressure Campaign is working. It is making irans violent and expansionist Foreign Policy cost prohibitive. I would say that our policy at its core is an economic and diplomatic one. But iran has not responded to this in a diplomatic fashion. It has responded to it with violence. We very much belief that iran should meet diplomacy with diplomacy, not with terror, bloodshed and extortion. Our diplomacy, our economic pressure and diplomatic isolation do not entitle iran to undertake violence against any nation or to threaten h en mari security. Happy to wrap it up there. I want to be respectful of the time limit. Thank you, mr. Hook. We appreciate your yielding back and appreciate your testimony. Ill start the questions. Mr. Hook, the iraq war was not that long ago. I wasnt in congress when the Bush Administration was making claims about weapons of mass destruction. Many of us werent here then. But john bolton was. Bolton made misleading or false statements about biological weapons in cuba, weapons in syria and of course about iraqs stockpile of wmds. Before entering the white house he advocated for preemptive strikes against north korea and iran. Th when we read articles about officials shoe horning intelligence to fit state policy. He has bluestablished quite a tk record of cherry picking intelligence information that serves whatever case hes going to make. I know mr. Bolton is not the only one driving policy, but im trying to layo out exactly why there are legitimate concerns about taking the administration at its word. I appreciate in your testimony that the policy is to avoid conflict, but there are a lot of people who fear that the policy is to provoke iran so the u. S. Has no choice but to respond. Our job here in congress is to make sure that we do not put u. S. Men and women in harms way without a darn Good National security reason. So when secretary pompeo lists recent attacks, quote, instigated by iran and its surrogates against american and allied interests and includes a bombing in kabul that the taliban had already taken responsibility for and nearly expert is surprised by the claim. We as elected representatives of the American People deserve to know whats behind the claim. Secretary pompeo told the Senate Foreign relationships committee, quote, there is no doubt there is a connection between the Islamic Republic of iran and al qaeda, period, full stop. They have hosted al qaeda, they have permitted al qaeda to transit their country, close quote. I would refer you to the 2001 authorization for the use of military force in which it says the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorize authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that oc r occurred on 9 11 or harbored persons in order to prevent future acts of terrorism by the United States. Mr. Hook, is the administration preparing to Tell Congress that it has the authority to launch military action against iran because one of osama bin ladens sons has been living in iran . May i first start with the intelligence that you mentioned . I think last weekend the House Intelligence Committee chairman said that the evidence of irans responsibility for the attacks is, quote, very strong and compelling. There is no cherry picking. I understand. But id ask the question again. The concern obviously is that some of the statements that ive read suggest that the administration is prepared to say that it has the authority to launch military action against iran because under the 2001 aumf, because one of osama bin ladens sons has been living there. How about because there are former al qaeda members living or transiting through iran . Is that enough to justify reliance on the 2001 aumf to take military action against iran . Im happy to answer the question. I want to underline were not seeking military action. Im grateful for that. Im talking about the concerns we have based on the statements that have been made. Is the administration preparing to Tell Congress it has the authority to launch military action against iran because there is direct evidence of iran having operational control over al qaeda . If the use of military force is necessary to defend u. S. National security interests, we will do everything that we are required to do with respect to congressional war powers and we will comply with the law. I understand and i appreciate that. I would just ask again is there based on what ive laid out and the statements made by the secretary and the National Security advisor, is it do you believe that the administration could launch an attack against iran under the 2001 aumf. This is something which the office of the Legal Advisor can give you an opinion on the youd like to submit it. We will submit that. Ill remind you, mr. Hook, article i section 8 grants congress the power to declare war. Id ask that you remind the president and the secretary of state of that. In my remaining seconds i appreciate you raising bob levinson in your testimony. What exactly is the administration doing to help bring bob levinson home . When we were in the Iran Nuclear Deal, the last meeting of the joint commission, which is the members plus the eu, i was in vienna and i requested a meeting with irans Deputy Foreign minister and i raised the cases of all of the american citizens who are being unjustly and arbitrarily detained in iran, i demanded their release, i asked for an update for each of them. We have our special enjoy ambassador Robert Obrien who is working his entire professional life is devoted to this, trying to bring americans home. We are completely committed to this. What we have demanded is that iran release these citizens. They are innocent and they need to be released. They know that. Conversations with the foreign ministry, which is often in the dark on these matters, not always very fruitful but we are pursuing every avenue possible. Thank you, mr. Hook. Mr. Wilson. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Hook, irans Ballistic Missile Program Continues to advance because of the assistance of chinese proliferators. While the state department has taken steps to curb this proliferation, most recently sanctioning these individuals on may 22nd, they have shown a defenda deftness at circumventing restrictions and continuing to support irans missile arsenal. Beyond the most recent sanctions can you elaborate on the efforts undertaken by the administration to counter chinese weapons proliferation to iran . We have made it very clear to the chinese both publicly and privately that we will sanction any sanctionable activity. I think nations around the world know that we have undertaken this campaign of diplomatic isolation and economic pressure with great seriousness of purpose. I think as a consequence we are seeing historic levels of compliance with american sanctions, especially the oil sanctions. So we have now zeroed out irans exports of Iranian Crude Oil and we are confident that nations are going to comply with that. Whether its an arms embargo, iran is still under an arms embargo, i will remind the committee that that embargo expires in seven months. It also lifts the travel ban on the general. So we need to be looking ahead. I went up to the u. N. Security council and briefed the entire council in early may to talk about the concerns we have about provisions that are going to start expiring. The worlds leading state sponsor of terrorism should not have an arms embargo lifted, but that is the path that we are on. In october of 2020, the arms embargo expires and so do some of the travel bans. We think thats one of the reasons why we thought it was prudent to leave the deal, puts us in a much better position to sanction arms embargo violations and we are committed to doing that. On june 12th Iranianbacked Houthi rebels launched a Cruise Missile at an airport in saudi arabia wounding 26 civilians. How will the United States hold tehran accountable for the Houthi Rebels increased aggression against civilian targets . Weve been certainly trying to improve the competencies of those on the front line of iranian aggression so that if they are attacked and the saudi eastwest pipeline was attacked, that investigation for some of those countries is still ongoing. We very much support these countries and their right to defend when attacked, especially by Houthi Rebels. The Islamic Republic of iran has spent hundreds of millions of dollars organizing, training and equipping the houthis to fight at a level beyond which makes any normal sense. It has prolonged and intensified the conflict. We certainly would like to see a political solution to that we can bring the fighting to an end and end the humanitarian ka tas toe catastrophe in yemen. They would very much like to do in yemen what theyve been able to do in lebanon and to use the houthis in the same model theyve used hezbollah in lebanon. So were looking very closely at that and we have now had half a dozen attacks. Many ra weve had half a dozen attacks in roughly about the last month and a half. This is why we decided to enhance our force posture in the region so we can reestablish deterrence. And with the half dozen attacks and now recently this week the United Kingdom and saudi arabia have identified that the United States assessment of irans responsibility is clear and additionally german chancellor Angela Merkel has said theres strong evidence iran is to be blamed for the attacks. Is there any more you can share with us about identification . Youre right and its important to highlight that. I mentioned earlier the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee identifying iran. Youve also had merkel and the kingdom of saudi arabia confirming that. Our intelligence confirms that iranian vessels operating in and around the strait of hormuz approached before each vessel suffered explosions. This is consistent with the iranian operation to attach limpet mines to the vessels. Were going to keep doing what we can to declassify intelligence without compromising sources and methods, but those who have been able to see the intelligence all come away without any question that iran is behind these attacks. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Were joined by the chairman and Ranking Member of the Foreign Affairs committee. Ill recognize mr. Engel for five minutes. I have been among the biggest critics of the tehran regime in congress. I dont vote regime in congress. I felt it didnt prevent iran from having Nuclear Weapons, only postponed it. Iran is the worlds most prolific state sponsor of terrorism. Its support for the assad regime, imprisonment of americans and all the harmful behavior has isolated them and made them a threat to our security and that of our allies and partners. These dangerous behaviors must end. And frankly irans recent attacks on tankers is setting the region on a course to a war. We obviously need to deescalate the situation. However, the administrations most recent steps seem to be pushing us more toward confrontation than negotiation. Rushing through the arms sale and we did a lot of work on that in in committthis committee las coming up with a phony emergency to sir countcircumvent congress the missiles to saudi arabia, putting more boots on the ground for supposedly defensive reasons, all framed by increasingly belligerent rhetor rhetoric, it does bother me because we should be trying to prevent confrontation. So i want to tell you what i see, mr. Hook. I see a growing risk of m miscalculation. I see more and more scenarios that could spark a ckoconflict, that could lead to the United States stumbling into war. And what i would like to hear from the administration is the clearest possible administration that the United States is not looking for a war with iran and how we can get iran back to the negotiating table. And if we cant hear that, i want to make it clear that military action with iran without military congress is not an option. Congress has coequal powers under the constitution. And we went through 20 years of going along with wars because we were told certain things were in fact when in fact they werent. So i think that the congress has to play a major role. 2001 has no rely vantsz to teva situation today and i will resist the Administration Using that as an excuse to go to war. If the administration sees a threat that requires military force against iran, the first step is right here on capitol hill. There is no aging 240rgs frauth from the conflict that could apply to war against iran. The administration would need prior authorization from congress before going to war. So i want to just make my position very clear and say that my opinions of the Iranian Regime have not changed. They are dangerous. The most dangerous regime in the middle east. And they are the number one state sponsor of terrorism. But that is not an excuse for the United States with to plunge into another war without congressional approval. Let me ask you this, mr. Hook. Secretary pompeo said that iran was conducting these attacks in the gulf to convince the United States to lift its, and i quote him, successful maximum Pressure Campaign, unquote. While sanctions and other forms of pressure have undoubtedly hampered irans economy, there is little indication that they have changed the behavior of the iranian government or reduce d tehrans regional influence. So who you would you define success in terms of a maximum Pressure Campaign . In my Opening Statement i presented a number of things that we are seeing in the region in a suggest that irans proxies do not have the financial means that they used to under the iran deal because our sanctions are denying the regime historic levels of revenue. Iran provides hezbollah as im sure you know 70 of its operating budget, that is 700 million a year. The leader of hezbollah in march had to make a Public Appeal for donations. First time in their history. You have shia proxies in serial sayi s syria saying the golden days are gone and they are never coming back, iran does not have the monday that it used to. I mentioned there has been a 28 cut to irans military budget in march. During the Iran Nuclear Deal, irans military spending reached record levels. So our sanctions are working. And they are denying the regime the revenue that it otherwise would spend with a mass omade m houthis, underground groups. So that is a very good thing. It is also the case that rancir has never i dont mean to cut you off, but in reference to what you are saying now, is our ultimate or the administrations ultimate goal to com pill irpel iran to negotiate . It does. Thank you, i think my time is up you. Thank you. Ranking member mccaul, are you recognized. Thank you. I have a very brief statement. I have a couple questions. Just last week, norwegian and japanese oil tankers lawfully traversed gulf of oman attacked by iran. We have all seen the evidence for ourselves. This was irans Second Attack on International Shipping in weeks. Moreover, iran attempted to shoot down a u. S. Surveillance drone in the area. These attacks were no coincidence. Within days of the administrations announcement, there were no longer grant waivers for iranian oil. Tehran responded with threats to protect and defend irans waterway as a retaliatory measure. Iran displayed propaganda on a billboard in downtown tehran showing United States and israeli ships being sunk in a battle. The bill board read that we drown them all. Total propaganda temperature noa rocket at our embassy. They continue to enable Network Proxies to wreak havoc. The top general called for prepare for war to the proxies. Of particular concern are the houthi attacks. The threat iran poses to the United States goes back to 1979 and the storming of the u. S. Embassy in tehran and has continued with the deaths of 600 service men from 2003 and 2011 which iran bears responsible for. And mathe threat judged so significant that many of our diplomats were evacuated. A few days later as i mentioned earlier, a rocket landed near the u. S. Embassy in baghdad. Irans announcement that it will begin enriching or rain yuraniu concern everyone on the planet. All these actions reveal desperation on the part of iran. In my view the sanctions are working. It is crippling iran. And hezbollah is becking for ca begging for cash. To me they are cries for attention or a call for action for the United States and our allies. I believe our Pressure Campaign is working. I believe all of us, republicans and democrats on the hill, agree that peace is preferable to war. But rest assured the United States will be prepared to respond to the kurt in tsecurit region. My question is about our military as sets and what is the purpose for their purpose. Sets purpose for their purpose. Knathank you for your statem. Yesterday secretary pompeo and i traveled to tampa and met with the commanding generals of centcom. We had good discussions. We want to make sure that we are deeply coordinated with the Defense Department across a broad range of issues. As you pointed out, we have sent about 1,000 additional troops to the region. The decision to deplore to expedites passage of the uss Abraham Lincoln strike group was made may 3. We started to receive very disturbing intelligence threats streams that iran was plotting attacks against american interests in multiple theoaters. And the president , his National Security cabinet were this agreement that we needed to enhance our force posture in the region which weve done. We think that that has helped to decrease the risk of m miscalculation. A lot of what we were concerned about has not come to bass for t pass for the time being. We have not relaxed ourville lance. For pass for the time being. We have not relaxed ourville lance. I think we have put in place the right kind of policy to deter the attacks. What weve seen have not been on the scale that we have expected, but that does not mean that iran is not capable of doing those things. But weve made it clear that there will be severe consequences if iran does go down that road. I appreciate your message of deterrence and quending o indef allies and commerce. It is vitally important to energy throughout the world. And our accident of defense approach bill that we will be voting on, there is a repealof approach bill that we will be voting on, there is a repeal if god forbid we do go to war with iran, which i dont think will happen. I think that as churchill talked about, weakness invite aggressi aggression. Peace through strength. You are showing strength. But in the d. O. D. Reproach bill, it appeals without a replacement. So that would mean that all global Counterterrorism Operations worldwide would be unauthorized by congress. I think that is a very dangerous move. I think we should reconsider that bill that will be voted ts week. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Secretary, for your service. Like my colleague, im concerned about what looks like deliberative attempts by the u. S. To be on a warfooting with iran. Im not convinced that it is an effective way to bring iran to the negotiating table about that is what President Trump wants. But im also interested in what is our end game. Roughly 40 million of the 80 million folks in iran that are on the young side, 25 to 54. They will be here a long time. And many of those folks have very pro american attitudes. How do we seek to work with those younger folks but still hold a tough line with the regime while letting the others know that were open . Thinks long term 5, 10, 20 years down the road would be a better move than just thinking short term. What are your insights . That is a very good question. Longest suffering victims are the young people of iran. And whenevhave been major prote the regime mass responded with brutality. It has been very hoard for an organized opposition to emerge in iran in the way that solidarity emerged in poland. So in fact much of the energy that you see in iran today is through the womens movement. Protesting the mandatory compulsory wearing of the hijab. As you sort of look at our new Foreign Policy to iran, it certainly has the diplomatic piece. And porn piece important piece with the iranian people. I recently taped a video message to the iranian people akon be trased how t contrasted how the state department has taken care and maintained this embassy. The Iranian Regime has turned our embassy with death to america. Iranian people do not believe in death to america. Questi we believe that they are pro american. And this regime has divided i think the iranian people and the American People. In ways that obviously for 40 years have been tragic i think for the iranian people. Much of what were demanding are the same demands that the iranian people are making. They dont want to see this regime spend billions to fund assad who uses chemical weapons while they are struggling at home. We have seen them gravely mismanage their natural resources. I released a support september of last year, to my knowledge the first report from the federal government documenting the environmental destruction of this regime. When they came to pow, there were six ancient d modern dam and seven ancient. Today there are 600. So the elite get richer and the are poorer suffer. So we call these things out. So the drought is compounded by this regimes mismanagement. It is a corrupt religious mafia. Quickly, lets turn our attention to egypt. The tankers that bring the krud oil from iran to ear i cansyria the you suez and in march egyptian authorities blocked at least one tanker. Through the yo march egyptian authorities blocked at least one tanker. Syr in march egyptian authorities blocked at least one tanker. Thr march egyptian authorities blocked at least one tanker. Syr in march egyptian authorities blocked at least one tanker. Thr march egyptian authorities blocked at least one tanker. Oil the you suez and in march egyptian authorities blocked at least one tanker. In respect has egypt become less cooperative and do they have an obligation to prevent the Oil Shipments passing through the canal . That is a very good question. I have made trips to egypt, secretary pompeo has, on to discuss the very issues you raise the. Egypt has to secure the convention as operator of the suez came navnacanal. Weve had many discussions with them about that. Now that we have zeroed out imports of Iranian Crude Oil, any oil that is moving on the waters, unless it is going into floating storage or Something Like that, but if it is leaving iran and not going and it is going to a country, it is illicit. And we have sanctioned some illicit oil and we will continue to do that. We have made ship prafrship proe world to understand that this is irgc oil. Now that we have used congressional authorities to designate the irgc as a foreign terrorist organization, that allows us to prosecute and old people criminally liable as a felony the Material Support to the irgc and quds force. We will use it vigorously. We do not believe any ship operator should take on the liability of working with iranian tankers. Thank you. Sir, thank you for being here and for your service. I think it is important that we note that when we talk about iran, were talking about the government and not the people. Two very different things. I remember prior to this Administration Still having concerns. So not something that bombed up with the election of President Trump. Specifically there was worries about what would happen to the reenergized shia mailitias in iraq. First off, 9 11 was not an inside job. About yo vaccine saved lives and iran did the attack in the golf. And that is the biggest thing to understand. You continue to see the conspiracy theorists that try to cast blame. And usually we relegate those to the very extreme of political discussion. But sometimes we see it in the more mainstream now because frankly some have let politics get in the way of good Foreign Policy. Reality is this has been a battle against the United States and our allies for a very long timing. I want to ask you a for a questions though. Thinking of lebanon, is hezbollah better off with the deal in place or without the deal in place . And ill ask a series of quick ones. When we were inside the Iran Nuclear Deal, we were not able to use any of our energy or financial sanctions. The energy thinks as come to about 50 billion in revenue and that is the amount of revenue that policy of zero imports of Iranian Crude Oil can achieve. So i was in lebanon and what im hearing is hezbollah is not better off. It is not. Iran has less money to spend today on its proxies than it did when this administration took office. And how much you uyou hugmann aid has iran sent to the houthi population . Im not aware of any. How many have died in the syrian general war . I believe it is around half a million. And do you think assad could have survived without the help of iran . I think that it is a very open question. Certainly wran derecruited 10,0 fighterses. So they gave assad 4. 6 billion in lichbs credit. Fighters. So they gave assad 4. 6 billion in lichbs credit. D and ill mention that was during the existence of the Iran Nuclear Deal. Approximately i dont need the number, but generally do you know how Many Americans died in iraq as a result of iran . 603 americans were killed by iran, that is 17 of the total casualties during the iraq were. And do you know in the last say 20 years how many u. S. Military open strikes have we done in iran . Zero. Do you see strong nations that are confident in their future sabotaging oil tankers, is that typical kind of thing . It is not a pattern of behavior weve detected. Has the u. S. Ever sabotaged oil tankers . No. And i want to ask about the Iran Nuclear Deal. It was signed in to law 2015. It has been four years. And as we know time flies by. So if you think about that fact, it is pretty incredible. So i want to advance basically four years, so that amount of time ahead today. In 2020 the ban will lift. Wan assuring assuming congressional approval, Nuclear Sanctions will lift. And in that time again in 2025, snapback provisions will expire. In 2026, the cap on send ter fub centrifuge you development will end. And i make that point, sir, for those that think that this is some amazing deal that will last into the future that were already halfway to the beginning of this deal starting to expire. And we saw only worse be schaffer from ira hoviro. And yield back. When if i was iraq, i did see an explosive device take the lives of american sold american. So this is not to excuse their activities. But i want to look at your testimony and ask a couple questions. Number one, when you are talking about the nonnuclear activities of iran, yes or no the u. S. Still had the option for sanctions and other actions even if we continued with the jcpoa . So we did have options an sebbs leaving the jcpoa . Bad options. Yes or no. Bad options. We had options. Later on youre saying that the decision to perhaps move forward with enrichment is a result of the fatal flaw of the agreement. Wasnt it that iran was conforming to the agreement . Ive heard no country say that they werent conforming to the Nuclear Agreement, abiding by it. And it was only after we tore up that agreement and moved away from a Nuclear Agreement that provided clear protection from the Nuclear Threat of iran that it was the tearing up of that that was the causal effect, not a fatal flaw that was resulting in that. I think that ill leave that as a statement because youre not likely to agree with it. But i believe it is true. In other hearings weve had, wire looki were looking for policies and consistencies and resolve. Conclusions of even minority witnesses, we have no russia policy, we have no china policy, we have no north korean policy, we have no syria policy. So i want to point out that you said wriran supported assad rege who killed thousands and displaced millions. Couldnt you say the same thing of russias activities . Ill leave that we have a special no, just as a layman, couldnt you say it . I want to stay out of jim elaine. I dont want lanes here. Because that is precisely the point. . I. Im happy to answer. We i the president made his number one priority the defeat of isis. He and secretary mattis put into a policy that achieved that objective. So we are very pleased with what weve been able to come to the end the caliphate that existed in iraq and syria. But you said that they killed hundreds of thousand. I could make the argument that russia was more pivotal in any country in turning the tied and more responsible than any country other than assad himself. So why arent we dealing with that issue with russia . In my statement i did not say that iran had eclipsed russia in cul culpability. Im trying to make clear what iran is coming in syria. This is the frustration. Everyone has their lanes. Everyone wont speak you cant deal with lanes when youre dealing with policy. And there is no overarching policy and it is moving closer to conflict in this instance. Were reaching a very serious stage. What is that thread from the initial authorization to use military information that exists now that they have been use something explain to me how thad in this iranian situation and the current conflict were in now. To me the thread doesnt exist. So explain where that thread is. And what do you mean by the thread . The thread that pulls together the authorization to use military force that we are using against terrorists and extremists currently. How does that apply to iran . I dont see a connection. We have not used military force against iran. We have enforced our secretary said two months ago that that is on the table, that could be used absent action from congress. So how youre here. In your lane. Representing the secretary who said that that is something that they could do. So since you are here and not the secretary, i want to ask you, where is the connection . I see none. I think you have to go to congress to act on any kind of kinetic actions with iran absent our instant selfdefense. I answered it earlier and im many to repeat. We will do everything we are required to do with respect to no, that is not the question. Where is the connection, where is the thread . Not the same question. Im happy to explain it as best i can. We received credible threat reporting in late april and early may that iran was plotting imminent attacks. Enhanced our defensive mode so we could protect ourselves if attacked. That is it. That is as far as weve taken it and no further. So in threat in the future that ive heard from you. I yield back. Thank you. Id like to let the members know that votes could be called as early as 1 15. The witness has to appear in the senate at 2 00. So we wont come back after votes. If you cloo doz use leyou choos 3 5 minute, we can get everybody in. There was strong bipartisan opposition and why it was not being treatseen as a troereaty, secretary kerry said that they could not get it passed. There are flaws that many have acknowledged in a bipartisan fashion the sunset clauses that are fast approaching, the verification regime. We were told by president obama, secretary kerry that deal was built on verification. And they never rid the verification regime. Im a member of congress. None of us have read the verification regime that was enter fld to betwee entered into. So there are flaws but we dont know the full extent of everything that was agreed to. And third, all of the nonnuclear bad activities, by withdrawing from the nuclear deal much of the leverage is coming back to the table that brought the iranians to the table in the first place. Im not surprised at all to see iran acting out as they are feeling the prerssure from the sanctions. They feel pressure from hard liners within their own country. Some of it is represented to the domestic politics plus they are the Worlds Largest state sponsor of terror and they have other ambitions. Understanding the scope of the malign activities, nonnuclear activities include test firing intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Intercontinental was meant for us. The houthis overthrow government in yemen. The support for hezbollah. The activities that we have seen beyond just those of course as mr. Ken zinger often points out the killing of United States Service Members. Zinger often po the killing of United States Service Members. We had no leverage left. Iranians werent at the table. And the conditions may not yet be set to be able to negotiate something in the middle of june of 2019. But wi were getting there. I think it is important that you are here to clarify what the Trump Administrations policy is with regards to iran and i think it is responsibility as members of congress to give you that opportunity to clarify it and certainly not to muddy the waters. I believe that President Trump believes that iran is an adversary that does not respect weakness, only respects strength. We cant be silent not because we want war, but because we want to prevent it. We have many teepeople in our federal government, some might be plitd cal appointees, some might be career, who believe in the foreign instruments of National Power. By having the bladiplomacy on t table, military option is the last option. The president does not want to go to war with iran. But there is a belief in National Power that by having the option on the table it is the last possible option. And it helps make the other aspects of our instruments of National Power are more effective. I also wanted to point out something with regards to the iranian people. There are millions of iranians who are great freedom loving people who want a Better Future for their country and there is no one more motivated in the entire world to have a better direction for their country than those many millions of iranians who right now talking about young iranians and the impact that they are feeling, young iranians, talking about people under the age of 50, 55, people their entire lives and their kids have only known this brutal regime that represses its own people. With at brief time that we have left, have there been anyways prior to exiting the jcpoa that iran violated the letter of the jcpoa . Could you say it one more time . Before we with drew, any examples of the iran violating the letter of the jcpoa . For example Assembly Additional centrifu centrifuges. Or exceeding ir rchlr 6 allianc refusing access to military sites. Yes, i learn i was in vienna, i had raised some of these issues. There have been what i have called task ccall tack ctactical violations. Regim has recently threatened material breach of the Iran Nuclear Deal. So there have been violations that a lot of people may not be aware of. I yield back. Mr. Sherman, you are recognized. Thank you. It is a tragedy that the nation that gave us the first human rights document, a nation that has been at the forefront of world civilization for four any len i can milennia is ruled by this regime. We need democracy but it will not come from the American Military force. There is discussion, mr. Hook, of possible military action against iran. Is it the administrations position or understanding that they need to abide by the war powers act which minutes the power of the president to deploy our troops into hostilities . I think that we let me first say to echo your first point, lets be very clear, the future of iran will be decided by the iranian people. Cant say that enough times. And i would add that the United States has in the past sponsored democracy conferences, reached out through the state department, human rights and labor, and that america can provide some assistance to those working for democracy in iran. Id like us to take august tall the radio brafl brath broadcast them translated so that they can see what a public free debate is like. But back to the war powers act. As i said earlier, we are not looking for military action. We have kept Foreign Policy squarely in the guard rails of i understand that. And i will point out that if the economic pressure we were imposing was given if we gave the reason for that being irans wrongful actions in syria which have cost hundreds of thousands of lives, not to mention yemen, we would have stayed in the jcpoa. But instead we pulled out which as you point out iran may be in material breechb of and well cross that bridge when we get well, that is it is important that we focus on the legal parametersget well, that is important that we focus on the legal parametecross that bridge well, that is it is important that we focus on the legal parameters are. This is a discussion of the administrations legal right to do so without congress and it is quite possible that you will come to congress under which stream conditions and ask for that or that sporauthority. Bus based ut based on the autho that you have now, are they subject to the war mowers act . Im not a war powers act scholar. But everything that we would do would be lawful. Everything is defensive. There is no talk of offensive action. It is not the thinks of the administration that the 2001 we talked about it earlier that the 2001 trorgs authorization t military force would authorize a war against iran. Im not a scholar in that area. Did the Islamic Republic and one of the entities responsible for the deaths of 9 11 . No. Thank you. I would point out that we have had legal colorado al scholars the war powers act and those who claim it is unconstitutional have said, however, that the mower how power of the purse is critical. And decisive and binding. And i would point out that we will this week pass a defense appropriations bill that nobody is talking about. It says no monies can be spent in contravention of the war mowers act. So if we were to deploy military force, we would not be in violation of la law, wed that also the appropriate yapgs build. So i hope that we Work Together and bring democracy to iran. I yield back. Snank y thank you for being here. I sat with terrorists who plant the ieds and murderers. I saw firsthand the successes and failures of u. S. Foreign policy in the middle east. While our political military and technological advantages are unmatched, iran remains one of the greatest threats destabilizing the globe. As th worlhe World Largest stat sponsor of terror, iran continues to sow terror, continues to fund hezbollah, continues to prop up assad regime in syria. And chants death to america in tehran. Mr. Hook, can you explain thor Strategic Benefits in goals that the u. S. Saudi relationship and neglect difference ativlecative that relationship . I think you see our Foreign Policy emerging quite clearly in riyadh. The president s first trip overseas was to saudi arabia. They had wrought together i want to say 55 arab muslim nankstion. The president spoke, king salman spoke and we talked about the need to confront extremism and to counter extremism. And we also want to as part of burden sharing, america the experiences that you describe, there are so many people who can talk about that in our military. And we are doing everything that we can to expand burden sharing. And that requires improving the capabilities of our regional partners so that they can be a counterweight to iran. And that reduces the burden on us to employ tprovide the levele done historically. So whether saudi arabia or uae, jordan, israel, a number of countries in the region, we very much want to see them in a position of stren agth and sovereignty. We want to see iraq strong, stable and sovereign. We want a monopoly on military force. We dont want to see the pmf especially those that they train and equip to be stronger. We dont need two states within a state. We dont need two mill taers within a state. That is what we have in lebanon. This is ts is the foreign polic agenda of iran. To try to create two mill taers and two states within a state. And to dissolve national identities. When we talk about how Iran Destabilizing the middle east, this is what were talking about. Iran pours sort of this it adds this religious dimension to political conflicts which has increased blood shed and suffering. So to the extent that our policy is denying iran the revenue and a lot of of cape aabilities it , that improves the situation in the middle east. Thank you. I yield to my colleague from new york. Thank you. Mr. Hook, is it true that in february of 2016 in november 2016, that iran had acquired more heavy water than they were allowed to according to the iaea . I can give you the specific answer to that, but we had registered concerns that46 and i believe that is a yes or no. I think the answer is yes, that they had increased the stockpile of heavy water and i had raised that when we were in vienna a while ago. Isnt it true that iran had acquired more than the necessary amount of centrifuge assemblies touranium . Chris ford could answer that specifically. Were happy to give you that answer. If you can also speak to mr. Ford as well. And also iran isnt it true that they acquired more assembled more ir 6 scentrifuges that the were allowed to . I believe that is the case that i think it is important for you to have nice answers. Votes have been called. Well keep going as long as we can. Mr. Lee, you are recognized. Thank you, mr. Hook, for being here. I agree with you that iran is a malignant state actor. That is a totally different issue as to who is authorized to allow force to be used against another country. So under our constitution, does the president have the power to declare war . I think that is a discussion not a trick question. Under our constitution, does the president have the power to declare war . Just yes or no. Let me make it easy. Congress has the power to declare war, correct . Not a trick question, sir. Have you read the constitution . We will do everything that we are required do mr. Hook, have you read the constitution . I have read the constitution. Under the constitution, fr p framers Gave Congress the power to declare war, sglekt jucorrec . Just yes or no. My understanding is that we are here to talk about iran Foreign Policy which im prepared to do. On war power all right. Mr. Chair, im going to stop this line of questioning and submit the u. S. Constitution for the record. Without objection now lets ask about crafting iran policy. You would agree wouldnt you that in crafting iran policy or any poly is in the state department you want employees who have expertise in that subject area, isnt that right . We have many experts. And you have career employees that worked in employer administrations and they go through different administrations. It would not be appropriate for remove a career employee simply because they worked in an administration of a different party, correct . That is a personnel question that i would refer you to the personnel not a dritrick question. We dont remove career employees because they worked in a employer administration, isnt that right . Can you ask it one more time . You ha you have career employees. You dont remove them simply because of a change of administration, right . This is a personnel authorities question that i am not an expert in. So you think it is okay to actually i didnt say that. Im not be a hr im asking a simple question. But youre asking an hr question. I dont do human resources. Is it appropriate to remove career employee because of National Origin . I have to assume that that would be inappropriate, but im not we got your answer. Im going to have this committee give you an email and it is an email that was sent to you on tuesday march 14, 2017 from haller describing a career employee named narazaday. And in the email, she says that the employee is on detail on your office basically s. P. And that she is trying to get her suspended and she notes as background, she worked on the iran deal, specifically works on iran with an s. P. Can which is your office, was born in iran. Are any of those factors relevant in removing a career employee in detail, sir . This is an email from julia haller. I dont i didnt write this email, so im not sure what your question but you did respond saying this initial info is helpful. Is it helpful to know that career employee worked on the iran deal work in the your office and was born no, because if you look at this in real time now, it says that this official permanently belongs to nea as career conditional employee. I asked what does that mean. You said this info is helpful. Is will helpful to know her National Origin . As you know there is an Inspector General report on this very subject. Im looking forward to the release of that report. Tanld be improper for me to comment on this matter until that review has concluded. Thank you. So saudi arabia is viewed by this administrationthat review. Thank you. So saudi arabia is viewed by this administrationcomment on t that review has concluded. Thank you. So saudi arabia is viewed by this administration as a counter weight to wriran . Saudi arabia is regularly attack would by an iranian surrogate. The u. N. Today reported that the crown prince of saudi arabia should be investigated for murdering jamal khashoggi. Do you xwle with our own ceoia assessment that the crown prince order theed ted the murder of j khashoggi . Associate pompeo has practice it clear that we are determined to hold every Single Person who is materially responsible accountable. But more needs to be done. Thank i. I look forward to holding you accountable. Does the administration holded belihold ed the belief to hold yes, an important National Security and economic priority. Yes, an important National Security and economic priority. D the belief to hold yes, an important National Security and economic priority. The belief to hold yes, an important National Security and economic priority. Last week the president tweeted that it is too soon to think about making a deal. They are not ready. Neither are we. What do you believe it will take . We made it clear that we wanted a diplomatic solution to the broad range of threats that iran presents. The president has done it repeated repeatedly. Secretary pompeo said that he will sit down w. Without preconditions. President endorsed shinzo abe to make a visit to lead to talks. T 13r50e Supreme Leader of iran put out a few tweets that made it clear that he will not even listen to the president and he talked a japanese owned tanker. Iran continues to reject american overtures for diplomatic solution. And we have seen no relaxing of that. And we have made it also very clear that iran can either start behaving like a normal country or are it can watch its economy crumble. And we are committed to driving up the cost of irans violent Foreign Policy. Final question, mr. Hook. The regime in tehran is one of the worlds most human rights abusers. How does that weigh into the calculus of our dealings with tehran . In september, i put out a report that was released during the u. N. General assembly and i devoted an entire chapter to irans human rights try lagsvio. There was one canadian iranian who founded i think it was the persian wildlife foundation. He was arrested and then died in prison. You have iranians who protest because they want clean air and they want clean water. And they want to protect wildlife. And the regime responds by killing them. You have women around iran who are denied basic dignity. So we stand very strongly with the iranian people especially iranian women. Yes, we do. Thank you, mr. Hook. I recognize mr. Malinowski. Let me start by echoing the chairmans comments about our hostages. Including bob levinson whose family are constituents of mine. And i just really hope that we prioritize this dip lee llomati and not sub assusbsume in a sea demands. Ed president has said that the iranian attack oos the tankers in the gulf were minor. What did he mean . The intelligence that we were seeing suggested attacks on a very significant scale and that were also directed at american interests. He also said that iran is a much different country today than it was 2 1 2 years ago when, quote, i came to office. Were not hearing death to america anymore he said, he seemed and emphasized that his main interest is dealing with the Nuclear Issue. What does he mean by that . Iran is by almost every metric weaker today than when it was over two years ago when we came into office. We think that that is simply raw numbers. And i discussed some of those in my Opening Statement. So it is weaker. So the implication is that the policy had been successful. Im asking because there is a disconnect if i may between what we hear from different parts of the administration. When i listen to the president , it seems on most days that what he is primarily interested this is improving on the nuclear deal which was obviously flawed, perhaps extending the offer eliminating the sunset clause, et cetera. What i hear from you is very different. What i hear from you is that our policy is to bankrupt iran until they meet this set of 12 demands, until they become a normal country as secretary pompeo and you just said, demands that include the Nuclear Issue just one small part. So are we using the sanctions to improve the nuclear deal or to fundamentally change the nature of the Iranian Regime . Youve mentioned one quote. I think that you have to look at the quotes in their totality. We have quotes, but we also have speeches. And the president has also made a couple of addresses to the u. N. General assembly laying out in more detail some of the concerns that you talked about. Money is the sinews of war. If we didnt go after the money, iran is able to fund its proxies which then have direct consequences to american interests in the middle east. Our goal46 i never said we were trying to bankrupt the regime. I said were trying to make the Foreign Policy prohibitively expensive. It would be diplomatic malpractice to somehow encourage iran to have i understand. But you are reaffirming your point which is the purpose of the sanctions is to change their entire Foreign Policy, not just to deal with the Nuclear Issue you. Let me read and you quote from another speech from sesecretary who said that the people of iran will get to make a choice about their leadership. If they make the decision quickly, that would be wonderful. If they choose not to do so, we will stay hard at this until we achieve the outcomes. So basically were saying you have to change the entire Foreign Policy of your country or we are going to continue these what you refer to as cripplie ining sanctions. That seems rather inconsistent with where the president is and somewhat hard to achieve. The president has taken a comprehensive approach to the entire range of threat that the iran presents. The Nuclear Threat obviously has the biggest consequence. And so we prioritize that. That does not mean though that we will look the other way on the missile test, the space launch vehicles, the missile proliferation, regional aggression, human rights abuses. And i think one of the traps that the the International Community fell into was that as soon as you said iran is in compliance with the deal it ended the conversation. And it obscured all of the ways iran has used the Iran Nuclear Deal to destabilize the middle east. It made them stronger, gave them more money. It has a weak inspections regime. Its silent on icbms and expires. Rather than wait for all of these things to come to pass in ten years when iran is stronger we have pulled that forward. But i truly believe that everything we are seeing today is inevitable. So if we fix the deal the sanctions remain in place is what you are saying until Everything Else is fixed. No. What ive said is that our sanctions are have two purposes. And i said this my Opening Statement to deny the regime the revenue it needs to run of an expansionist Foreign Policy and to bring them back to the negotiating table. Thank you, mr. Hook. The votes have been called. Mr. Hook needs to get to the senate which leaves enough time for mr. Sis lynny. Im concerned the concerned that the actions taken by the administration over the past 18 months brought us closer to war. Since we abandon the acpo have tlnt been improvements in our dealings with iran. We are isolated from our allies on this point. There are people in the administration that see war with iran is not only desirable but inevitable. I want to associate piez with my colleagues remarks particularly the chairman about the absence of authorization to strike iran under any existing aumf or constitutional authorities. Im not asking for opinion. I think the text of the constitution is clear. And with respect to the notion that al qaeda is the basis, the testimony that the secretary pompeo made where he tried to make that argument it should be noted that in fact al qaeda and affiliates are sunni extremist who consider shyia like iron government tor her ticks a. Did he classified documents obtained during the raid on osamma bin laden said they view irans a hostileant entity. So that notion is nonexistent preponderate you said our strategy is working, based on what . Im happy to go over it again with you. Ill give you one kpafrp. Under the nuclear deal ish Iran Military spending reached record highs in the this administration it was down 10 and starting march down 29 . I guess the strategy is to achieve what objective . Maybe thats the question. Our strategy is to get to a new and better deal that we would submit to the senate as a treaty. Which is a mistake that the Prior Administration we think that the last deal should have been submitted to the senate. And they went around the congress. And they found the votes in the u. N. Security council. Thats sort of rich on the moment that iran is about to increase its capabilities to in fact develop a Nuclear Weapon as a result of us walking away from agreement. But you know, secretary pompeo in may of 2018 stipulated a list of 12 behavior changes by iran that would meet u. S. Conditions for normalization. And he said that i said at the time it looked like more of a wish list than any policy proposals or strategy to achieve them. As of today which of the 12 demands that were articulated by the secretary have been successfully met in the interveeng time period . I dont have the 12 in front of me. Have any of them been met . Let me make it easy for you. Well the regional aggression we have weakened their proxies. We have also denied revenues to the regime to fund the Missile Program and nuclear program. The regime is weaker today than it was. It doesnt have the money that it used to to spend on the areas that we are seeking change in. Thats the nuclear, missiles and regional aggression. But hasnt your argument been all day and the Administration Argument their behavior has gotten worse . Isnt that the point . No iran still even with very little revenue has an asymmetric capability that terrorists have. The costs of the 9 11 operation were quite inexpensive. That is the advantage that the terrorism has today. Its asymmetric advantage. And so it is the case that the regime has tens of billions of dollars of less revenue today than when it did before our sanctions took effect. That does not mean that we have eliminated their asymmetric threats. And mr. Hook, do you believe one of the issues that secretary pompeo included in his iran policy proposal related to human rights. Im curious, do you believe that the president s embrace of authoritiarian rulers such as north Koreas Kim Jong un or saudi Arabia Mohammad bin salman, enhances or undercuts the human rights demands that secretary pompeo included in his proposal is . I can speak to iran. And in the case of iran he has coupled economic pressure with an off ramp for diplomacy. The iranians have rejected that off ramp. Thats not my question. My question is is the administration and the president s in particular his embrace of authoritiarian rulers with a gross disregard for human rights does that make our demand for human rights concessions from the iranians more likely, less likely or no impact . It seems hard to reconcile the two . Im just wondering as the person in charge of this effort, does that does that have impact. I dont share the premise of your question when i look at the pressure that we have put in place on authoritiarian regimes. And the president , i think and i can only speak to iran has made very clear that while we do have very strong economic pressures in places encouraged iran to call so that we can begin talks. And our secretary of state said without precondition and we are highlighting the human rights abuses of this regime. My time is exfired. Thank you. Thank you mr. Hook for appearing before our committee today. We appreciate it thanks to the members who have come. Members will have five legislative days to submit questions or materials additional materials for the question. Without objection the subcommittee is adjourned. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Sunday night on after words, in her latest book, the targeter former cia Intelligence Analyst nad an bakos offers insight no the working of the agency and tracking terrorist. She is interviewed by House Intelligence Committee congressman around carsonen of indiana. Most people know osamma bin laden. There was another figure you had connection to with your service. Zachry. Initially as the analyst i was charged with looking at whether or not iraq had anything to do with 9 11 and al qaeda. As an analyst we had been writing products for policy makers and briefing them. Our bottom line was that iraq had nothing to do with 9 11 and al qaeda. There was not the connection there. After that, after the invasion, when i became a targeting officer zarkawi had joined al qaeda and created al qaeda in iraq, my job was to dismantle his network and organization and leadership. Watch after words sunday nine at 9 00 p. M. Easte
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.