Voting, we have to weigh those risks. Absolutely. And at least the agreement in front of me limits the risk. It is a completely unlimited risk. You may be right. They wont do that. What if youre wrong. What if in fact they will. There is a hard line as you pointed out in teheran. They are licking their chops to see this agreements falling apart. I think from all of the elements in iran they want this agreement because it is so good for them economically and it strengthens their position in the middle east. Doesnt do anything to stop them from supporting and in fact it helps them support their proxies throughout the region more than now. I want to agree with you that i cant predict whatll happen. I cant predict with certainty anymore than anybody can whatll happen if Congress Rejects the agreement. I can just say from what i have seen this morning and based on what i saw come out of lozan in april, this disagreement has more risk for the u. S. And more reward for iran than i hoped it would. One final point. By the way, i would just note for the record, actually there were hard line elements protesting these negotiations in iran. I do not agree with you that there is unanimity of opinion for iran. But you also in your statement earlier said this will strengthen the hard line in iran freeing up resources that they can use for bad things. Would you at least concede that again, there is an alternative scenario that that is not what treal happens. It reinforces the element that engagement with the west produces good economic things for us and we should do more of it. Isnt it at least worth conceding that also could be true . It is possible. It is. Burr i think the much more likely is that the billions of additional dollars that the iranian government and economy will get will be used by the which is as i said early, the ayatollah are the powers in iran. They will be the ultimate beneficiaries of this additional money. Not the moderates. I wish the moderates were but i dont believe they will be. Can i just comment on one thing . Yes certainly. On the issue of what happens if Congress Rejects this deal . I went to college in the 1980s and it was possible at that time to major in something called arms control. Youre such a young man. I have to say for a while did. It happens all the time. They were repeatedly renerkted salt 1 and salt 2. Senator liebermans idea that they have to go back and renegotiate is actually the way that arms control happened with the big, bad soviet union. Lets say the United States disapproved of this agreement overrides the president s veto and the entire International Community blames the United States and iran begins to develop its capacities and rushes toward a bomb. Surely the International Community will not that. They may think americans were irresponsible and unwise for destroying the deal but if they are seeing iran edge towards a weapons threshold, surely they would rejoin the United States in imposing some sort of a measure to prevent that. I would imagine. My time is up. Thank you senator lieberman. During your time as a senator you were afforded the opportunity to vote on a few treaties, i suspect. Why do you think that the administration pursued this as more of a political agreement than a treaty . What was the rational for that . I have heard several times today that this is probably the most important decision that congress has weighed in on. Some have said in the last 3040 years. Some in the last 50 years. With that important of a decision, why would it be pursued as a political agreement rather than a treaty . So oh, you mean letterly . Literally. I dont think the administration if they were here would say it is a political agreement. They would say it is a diplomatic negotiation and not a treaty. I will tell you myself and this is a closed issue. That what is on the line as a result of this agreement which in the p5 1 in iran is much more consequent rble than any treaty i was asked to vote for or against this my 24 years in the senate. If it is considered a treaty then it would require 2 3 to pass, not the other way around. The president under the constitution and Court Decision has the clear right to make the decision he did. This is not a treaty but it is an International Agreement and it has to meet different standards in congress. I think that many of the cynics believe that the reason is because the president could have never succeeded in crossing that 2 3 threshold in the senate and given the fact, as you said, you voted on treaties that have far less consequence than this document. General hayden you stated that the inspections have become a political, not a technical issue. And so one of my questions is that whether you believe the baurgs Obama Administration and its p5 1 partners would make ultimately make the political decision to call out any violations, of the agreement, i mean, whether they are technical in nature or small in nature or large in nature, do you think that the administration who is staking its whole reputation on this agreement would have the political will to call out any infractions and make them public going the political ramifications could be quite stark . You bring up a great part, congressman. It seems maybe a little counterintuitive because were all concerned about iranian cheating. The burp burden of proof, let me go back to my previous life. Walk into the oval officer and say mr. President , that treaty that was so important to both you and the country . I think those guys are violating it. The time i would need and the body of evidence that would be required to turn that into Political Action is a dynamic we used to call in the business the dynamic of the unpleasant fact. It takes always more evidence and more time to generate action. Beyond that, congressman that is just inside the american bubble. Look at it from the p5 1 and how many other sfrolings a real vested interest folks have a real vested interest in admitting that the violations have taken place. Im really concerned about the access to the regime because it will be at the political not the technical level. The snap back, so to speak, whether it is our sanction or International Sanctions has immense financial implications to many of these countries involved and so the likelihood that they would speak out of a violation, im worried those violation also just be swept under the rug and that they will never even see the light of day. As described, i cannot and i will not support this deal. Iran has proven time and time again it cannot be trusted to meet International Obligations and agreement. I believe the administration is naive to suggest that the hundreds of billions of dollars that iran will access through this agreement will not be used to continue the proliferation of terrorism across the globe. On the contrary the terrorism efforts will only get better funded and furthermore despite the president s bold statement, this agreement will ensure that the islamic rep of iran will not develop a Nuclear Weapon, in reality it puts them on a path toward legitimately developing and possessing a a nuclear bomb in 10 years. Im wondering if this administration has a penchant for doing things that only has a shelf life during his administration with no how about the of consequences to the hereafter toward our children or grandchildren. I think this is a frightening deal and it didnt it also didnt address the americans that remain hostages in iran. In fact, im really disgusted that they were not even really front and center in any of the negotiations. They were sideline comments at best, for all the reasons stated above i cannot support this deal at all. I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. We proceed with Brian Higgins of new york. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I too want to thank the panel. You have been very professional. You have a body of knowledge individually and collectively that is invaluable to our deliberations on this issue. A lot has been talked about. The nuke frur, centrifuges proliferation of them, this deal cuts them by 2 3 which i think so is very, very significant. Also the material that is used, the nuke material, you have under this agreement, as i understand it, less than 4 of enrichment. Of that material, which is a far distance from bomb grade material and then you the inspections process which i think is important. I dont think enough has been focused on the iranian people. And the politics of iran which i think are very significant here. The military historian david chris wrote a book the twilight war. He said since the 1979 ref revolution there have been seven attempts by either side to improve relations and they all failed. This anticipated nuclear deal, when he was writing at the time was unchartered territory. And i think when you look at what is going on in iran today, you know, the last five years the currency has lost half of its value. There has been 50 inflation meaning what whatever you had in the bank prior to all of that is worth half and whatever you were buying cost you twice as much. Rouhani won an election as a reformist within that context. It is not the american projection of what we would view as a reformist. He was pretty vocal about how bad the iranian economy was not only during the election but after he won. The difference in large part from 1979 to currently iranian officials are turning on each ear. I think that reflects in each other. I think that refleshts in this nation of 80 Million People you have probably 65 Million People who are very, very young and want normalizeation with the rest of the world. And then you the hardliners made up of the revolutionary guard and forces, it has been said here and many panels previously what a Destructive Force he is relative to stability in the region, with his work in being on the ground in iraq, directing the shia militias. And their support of hebs. But because of the Economic Situation in iran, the occurreds forces benefit. Kurd forces benefit. Why . Im just here to say that i think this 10year period is very, very important because really nobody knows with certainty whatll happen. But what in fact could happen . A normalizeation with the rest of the world the promotion of a more diversified lenlt mat economy n in iran could in fact undermine the current regime and produce the kind of changes the vast majority the vast majority of young iranians want. And i just kind of want your thoughts on that. I think some of your diagnosis is correct in terms of the notion of population estranged from the reform. The effect of this particular agreement on the regime. I think whatever the life span of the islamic rep may be, and i do think there is a termination dates, has actually been extended by an agreement that leads to infusion of economic resources. You can make a case and frankly quite a good one that the kim dynasty in north korea has something to do with his possession of Nuclear Weapons. They love their isolation. They dont want anything to do with the rest of the world. The Iranian Regime at this point, at the level of institutional arrangements. I think what is going on here, the day cotmy within the politics of dichotomy within the politics of iran, there is a serious population that wants normalized relations with the rest of the world and wants to see the economy unleash its potential. I dont think thept to leave in this kingdom. I would just say that you cant compare north korea and iran. There is a very strong reform movement. The young people they are a trading culture. They want to be connected with the rest of the world. If youre looking for change and you want to build a case, that is the case that you would make. I agree very much with your comments. I think it is quite plausible. I dont think it is likely but it is quite plausible. Clearly the ayatollah has decided that this agreement will not facilitate regime change. Otherwise he would not have signed it. I agree. Plausible, optimistic scenario. I wish trp so. I think not likely because i think this agreement strengthens the current government of iran, which is the ayatollah and the republican guard, but the hope here, but we have never really as america supported it is that clearly whatever the numbers are, there is a very significant number of iranian people who would like to be freed of this fan at cal regime. Unfortunately this regime will not let go of power in the vent of an upraise rising is likely to respond in the proxy which is to turn their weapons on the people. Thank you very much. Thank you mr. Chairman. Senator lieberman does that mean that youre pessimistic about peace in our time when it comes to iran . Yeah, i must say if my wife were here she would say im an optimist by nature, and i am. But i am pessimistic about peace in our time with iran. Because i dont see any fundamental change in their radical ideology and their aggressive support of terrorism. I normally agree with a great deal of what you come up with from scratch yourself based on your experience but in this case im going to ask you questions more relates to the deal. Related to the deal. The distinguished senator, once he left office, he is by definition, extremely distinguished, would not be considered to be a dove. Lets view this as doves. If this is the chamberlainesque appeasement that is going to work, lets review the next 10 years. Under the agreement with the sunset clause. During the next 10 years, incrementally, iran is clearly going to have more money, more access to weapons and more freedom of movement than they would if we did nothing at all under the current sanctions. Isnt that true . Congressman, there are tradeoffs here. No, no, i dont want tradeoffs. I want answers. Isnt it true that there will be a gradual easing thatll give iran access over the next 10 years they will have access to more money, the ability to buy weapons and the ability to develop at least the nonweapons portion of their nuke ambition. The nuke program is going to be frozen for 10 years. They are going to be set back. I appreciate your talking points. I would like you to answer my question. Im trying to be very, very pro active here and positive. Clearly this agreement lets them have access to money. Large amounts of conventional weapons that they already have and have already been providing them to hamas and hezbollah. The real question is if they are going to have a fazeout, in 10 years from now, they clearly get to continue to work and use Nuclear Materials for purposes nonweapons related. They are going to continue to know more about nuclear during this 10 years, even if they dont cheat on the program. That is in the base of this. The question i have for you is very 1015 years from now under this agreement assuming that the sunny side snare dwrow that they break out in peace and love for peace and love for their neighbors, we will be safer, assuming it doesnt happen isnt it true that iran will be more able to build a Nuclear Weapon and wage war 10 years from now, from where they are today, 10 years from now, they will be able to do that with more money andless sanctions. I was asked to testify here and to give you my best perspective. I tried to convey a sense of how difficult this is. How complex it is. I wasnt brought here i came on my own volition. I appreciate that. My view is that we can stop them from becoming a Nuclear Weapons power 10 years from now if the president at that time is toughminded enough to do that. That brings up sort of the history of appeasement of the sove yets. Jimmy carter forgave them their debt. Gave them a week they put the hammer and sickle on and told people it was russian wheat. Reagan took a different tact. 10 years ago, you were in the administration, correct . Right. 10 years ago, is it true without disclosing any classified information, that iran was behind weapon enhancements in iraq that led to americans diagnose on the fields in iraq 10 years ago . I actually told National Security adviseor hadley that it was a policy of the american government. 20 years ago without disclosing any classified information, to your understanding is it true that iran played a critical part to the u. S. Airmen who were killed in saudi arabia . That is my understanding. 32 years the ago, is it true that iran through its precursor to hezbollah took an active and in the killing in beirut or had a participation . I think that is true but i dont have the personal knowledge to give you that answer with confidence. I chose those questions and i will summarize mr. Chairman. 30 years ago, iran clearly was promoting bad activities on the streets of beirut including kidnapping and so on. This is when they were a 5yearold government. 20 years ago americans died for sure in no small part because of irans hand. 10 years ago americans were dying. When we look at 10 years before they get an outright go under this and their ability to have the materials and the to suit their ambitions, my only question to aufl o you and general hayden if there is only time for one, it would be you. If they were doing this 30 years ago, including kidnapping on the streets of lebanon, 20 years ago they were killing americans in saudi arabia, 10 years ago americans were dying on the battlefield in iraq, why do we believe 10 years from now anything will be different based on your history and intelligence . Three years ago they prepared to explode an i. E. D. At a restaurant in georgetown to kill the saudi ambassador. I have hope, but i dont know that we can base policy on that expectation. Hope is not a strategy. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. We now proceed to grace ming of new york. Thank you. Thank you to aufl our esteemed panelists for being here today. Ill reserve final judgment on the deal until i am ready to read it through completely, im deeply concerned and disappointed by what appears to be in this terms. For the last couple of months i advocated that we provide the bunker buster bombs to israel and the planes to deliver them. Now we have a deal that neglect in any way to address irans providing arms and support to terrorists. Fuths more, we have a deal to our surprise that will allow for the lifting of the arms embargaino against iran. In lathe of a all of this in light of all of this do you support the administrations unwillingness to provide israel with the 30,000 pound bunker buster capability which is totally outside the