The United States and president obama have said we will use any weapon at our disposal to accomplish that. The route taken doesnt start there. The Bush Administration sought negotiations. That led to sanctions. The Obama Administration pushed stronger sanctions that really made a difference on the iranians. The Obama Administration came back with a negotiated agreement. This is among the most complex agreements any of us can hope to judge. It is filled with painful tradeoffs. There are risks to acting and risks to not acting. I agree that this will be one of the most consequential votes any of us will take. For diplomatic history you may have to go back to the league of nations in 1920 four when Congress Played such a role in whether we go forward or whether we dont go forward. I worked on iran policy for three years. I helped to sanction iran. I believe we have to contain the threat in the middle east, but i also believe president obamas policy is worth your support. Im going to support it because i think it is the best alternative. If i could design the perfect alternative, it is not available to the United States. Whether we oppose it or support it we have got to make it about what the alternatives have been. Here is what president obama and senator kerry have done. It will deny a Nuclear Weapon because it wont have the fissile material. It closes out the route towards fissile material. Irans plutoniaum reactor will be put off line. They wont be able to develop a Nuclear Weapon. The Enrichment Program will be closed quickly. They will still have centrifuges, but at a lower power than the advanced centrifuges. The uranium will be 300 kilograms. Right now the Obama Administration has said iran may be two or three months away from a Nuclear Weapon. With this deal for the next 10 years as the program is frozen, iran will be a year away from a Nuclear Weapon. I think the administration can make a case that the program is going to be frozen and that i think is an important attribute to the deal. Iran will be subject did to sanctions it has never been subjected to before. Third, should iran sheet . Cheat i assume they will. Given that they have lied in the past. We have the ability to reimpose sanctions. The United States would have the opportunity to form a coalition to sanction them. This does give the United States a chance to resolve this problem diplomatically peacefully through a toughminded negotiation, and i dont say that lightly because i am someone who believes we should keep the threat of force on the table and any american president would be justified using it if we felt iran was close to a Nuclear Weapon, but we are not at that point. No one is contesting the iranians are close to a Nuclear Weapon. The use of force is not pertinent. If we had a chance to avoid a third major conflict in the middle east since 9 11, and if we can stop iran, that is a good course for the United States. I dont think its a perfect deal. I have had trouble trying to weigh the risks on both sides to weigh the pros and cons. If i were a member, i would want to focus on some of the questions already focused on. I would want to look at the fact the program will be frozen in effect and mothballed for 10 years. When the 10 years is over, the superstructure of the program will be intact. Iran will have the theoretical right to build back up the weapon. That is a tradeoff. This is a real world negotiation. That program is not being entirely dismantled. I think it is important the iaea will have insight into the program, but will they have a clear line of sight . What does managed access to a Nuclear Plant mean . I think it means iran is going to write some of the rules about how the plan is inspected. Third, would we actually be able to reimpose sanctions should iran change or violate the agreement . None of us know. It would require a toughminded american president. It would require us to assemble a coalition that took 10 years to build. I think the europeans will be with us. I wonder if the chinese will. These are real tradeoffs. We have to compromise. I say this. I think the only way to look at this is what is the ideal solution. The ideal solution is not available to us. I can think of other alternatives. One is should we just walk away. Should we have left negotiations . Should we have withdrawn support . We could have done that. I think i know what would have happened. Our coalition, which contains every country. I know what would have happened to the sanctions regime, and that is our leverage. It would have dissipated over time. The chinese would want to go for energy contracts. The Indian Government would want to go for more oil in iran. Our allies would want to go to a trading relationship. The United States can sanction all they want, but what got iran to the table were global sanctions. It was japan and south korea and india not buying as much oil and gas. It was european financial sanctions. If you walked away and the coalition dissolved, there goes the leverage. If i have to weigh that option versus president obamas option i favor president obamas option. We could have gone to the use of military force. General hayden would be a far Greater Authority than i would on the issue. I believe the United States has the power to destroy Irans Nuclear facilities. That might buy three or four years. You cannot bomb the scientific knowledge their engineers and scientists have. They know how to mine uranium. They know how to convert it. They know how to assemble a nuclear warhead. The military option is a tactical option. It buys you time. President obamas option buys us 10 years where we can be assured their program is frozen. I dont think these other options work for the United States in the real world of International Politics and diplomacy. That is why i think president obama is worthy of your support and i am going to support him. At the same time the Obama Administration will pursue this difficult agreement with iran, i think we are going to have to push back against the iranians in the middle east. They are the most influential country in iraq. They are running arms to hezbollah and instigating the revolt of the tribes in yemen that have torn the country apart. They are making a big play for power in the sunni world. I think we are in the position of supporting a nuclear deal and believing president obama needs to push back for a strong coalition, and i would hope president obama and the Obama Administration would make up with israel, would end the war of words, would reinforce our military relationship with israel so we can contain iranian power in the middle east. I think that is important. As someone who served in democratic and republican administrations, i would hope we could have a bipartisan debate. There are obvious differences between the bush and Obama Administrations. Both wanted to have a negotiated outcome. That is what we were aiming for. When iran denied us we turned to sanctions. We are going to need bipartisan unity and support for our president if we are going to ultimately defeat this threat. Thank you chairman, Ranking Member, for inviting me back to this forum. I will stay in my allotted time. The judge would cut me off, but he is not here right now. Since the advent of the Iranian Nuclear conference in 2002, two principles have guided the position. Those were what kind of program iran is an title to and practical needs for enrichment. It should be allowed a Symbolic Program. That would allow the leadership to save face while there would be assurances a Symbolic Program would not be used for military purposes. The second position that guided the policy was that iran can rejoin the community once it establishes the trust of the International Community. These were embraced and persuaded the countries to accept. The notion of tactical needs has been replaced by the oneyear break out period. And the notion of trust and confidence in the International Community has been replaced whereby an arbitrary time clock will determine when iran can proceed. It is not different from japan. Japan can be trusted. Iran should not. This deal and implications have to be articulated in the context of the changing nature of the foreign policy. It is important to know the Supreme Leader stands as the most important in iran. He never had commanding influence of syria. Lebanese politics only did him. The Islamic Republic has a commanding position in iraq. It is the most significant external power in syria. They have a leading proxy and of course in the gulf. There is a debate. What would the Islamic Republic spend its money on . Imperialism has its costs. I do believe some of the money will be spent on domestic needs. The wing of iranian politics have been concerned with the chinese model. In that sense you could make a case the administration has been one of the most repressive. They would require some relief. The idea is by granting a measure of economic rewards you can purchase the mystic consent. It is the case because the Islamic Republic continues to be haunted by the green revolution. They need an arms commitment. In the end the deal may not rest upon trust, but it does rest on hope the hope that a decade from now the Islamic Republic will be a different regime. The power that is no longer animated by antiamericanism and antizionism. After watching the Islamic Republic for two decades, it is a hope i have difficulty sharing. I would like to just go to the question of the arms embargo. This was a lastminute addendum to this agreement. A demand the u. N. Lift the arms embargo not just to conventional weapons, that iran could better arm with. It also goes to the issue of irans capability to get access to International Technical assistance it sees to improve its program. Last week the secretary of defense sounded the alarm about what this would mean if they get this capability to have an icbm reach the United States. Russia stepped in. Russia wants to transfer this Technical Assistance to iran. This is the most recent issue that caught us by surprise. The other element of surprise was the discovery iran committed to transferring to hamas not just funding to build the tunnels but also a new generation of rockets and weapons and the additional announcement iran was going to transfer guidance systems to the rockets and missiles hezbollah has at its disposal but not quite as effective because of the iron dome as they could be if the head if they had these systems. The fact iran is willing to do this and to demand upfront payment of the signing bonus is something that really drove the attention of a number of members of congress is the information was surfacing. I would like comments on this. You might have insights as well. Nick can talk about the u. N. As i understand, the embargoes had to do with regional behavior and nothing to do with the regional dispute that was ongoing. Iran has developed a defense industry, so there is always going to be a problem of iranian transference of Missile Technology and other forms. Once it retires they have access to technology. Not only will they be able to export the technology they have developed more easily to their allies but they are also going to be able to import the technology they need. Ambassador burns . There is no question the iranians were trying to split the p5 with this proposal. There is no way we could have accepted this. If we can maintain these weapons embargoes for import and export, that is good for the United States. In 10 years they are going to have the capability under this agreement. Why would we want to agree for five years and then eight years for that capability . Why would the United States sign off on such an agreement . I am just a private citizen. This is a painful tradeoffs. I would hope we could complete it. How would we work once these embargoes are lifted . We will have to use the power to prevent the sale to iran. Let me just ask general hayden. I find it incoherent. We have a lot of complaints about iranian behavior. We have dismissed the Ballistic Missile part to focus on the nuclear. We have taken a bunch of things off the table we can conclude. Now we get to the agreement. The iranians are walking up the ladder and including things they refuse to discuss with us. I dont understand why the sanctions are even in an agreement on the Nuclear Program. The administration was once on the same page as congress on this issue of anywhere, anytime inspections, but the iranians pushed back very hard, boasting they would not even be permitted to inspect the most normal military site. Now we are signing up for managed access. A report says inspectors will get access to the sites only after consultation with the iranians, with the russians, with china, and other world powers in this negotiation. We wanted to get this within 24 hours. That was the original idea. This agreement would give inspectors access in 24 days after all the steps. That is predicated on the idea we have cooperation in backing the access. My question here, we never believed the iranians would ever make its way into a weapon. We always believed that work would be done somewhere else in secret. How confident are you in a managed access process that includes iran on the committee that determines whether or not we have access . I have several issues. I already mentioned one, but this is the one i am most concerned about. We eliminated the margin of error. I would never come to you and tell you American National technical means will be sufficient for verifying this agreement. Without a regime i would not tell you it is ok. That really puts the weight of effort on the ability to go anywhere at any time. We have taken that from the technical level. It needs to resolve. We have put it at a political level. That is a point for chaos ambiguity, and doubt. We are not going to be able to tell you for sure where the iranians are. Thanks, mr. Chairman. This question really highlights the greatest specific weakness of the agreement announced today. We are dealing with a country that has proven they will not play by international rules. They have delayed inspectors from the United Nations. Now we are taking a risk of making this trade where we and sanctions in return for temporarily freezing the Nuclear Program if they do what they say they will do, and the one hope we could have is the anytime anywhere inspections. The agreement that came out is the greatest disappointment, because basically excessive bureaucratic process that goes 21 days during which iran can remove anything in violation of the agreement that they want to. I urge members of this congress to focus on the section of this agreement on access. This is one iran won hands down. Consequences are devastating. Thank you. First, i want to thank the witnesses for a thoughtful presentation and the establishment of the tone about this crucial vote. I raised earlier my concern about access. You gave an excellent presentation on the tradeoffs they needed to make and the skepticism you have what i am trying to grapple with is what that looks like over time. Initially, you said it was really important that as we move forward, that would push back against the iranians in the middle east. You detail the many ways in which they have exerted their influence throughout the region. I would ask, getting back to the issue of resources, when they satisfy the terms of their Nuclear Related conditions, and have access to their frozen assets. Whether it is 1 billion or 50 billion if we acknowledge that they will invest in their own economy, some portion will be used to support what the end doing in the region. If the goal is peace shortterm is it likely the infusion of additional money will lead to less piece and more violence through their terror proxies . Thank you, very much. I would syay the goal here has been to deny them a Nuclear Weapon. If not, we resort to military means. Yes, it is a peaceful solution, but is one that is in our interest. It is worth doing that is how i understand the logic here. That is why i support it. You ask a good question were dealing with two different iranian governments. I think theyre generally reformist and their context that is the veneer, the government we have been dealing with. But there was another government the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary guard corps. That is an aggressive, violent organization. I assume that some of the money from sanction relief will go to economic improvements. Their terrible problems at home they have to rebuild the structure of that country. And to supporting terrorist groups. At the same time, and my input in our interests, it is definitely in our interests to strengthen our coalition with israel and the arab countries a