Was interrupting wants earlier. I should not have interrupted you. Mr. Hook, reason i interrupted is, i just dont, i dont like being lied to, and said something that you repeated twice, thats been said committee before that i think is completely wrong, that jcpoa, iran deal, one of the reasons it was bad is because it you know d i think that thats false. There are provisions in the agreement that expire, thats correct. O the agreement has a set of provisions, centrifuges and inspections, youre correct, expire the inspections 2030 but to 025, or public o the american the deal is bad because it, spice is just wrong the first paragraph of the deal, preface, i said first sentence, first paragraph, i wrong, fir deal, iran f the reaffirms that under no iran ever es will seek develop or acquire any Nuclear Weapons. Thats permanent. Ever. Under no circumstances. Any. Hats a permanent provision that they have signed to that never expires, unless somebody decides United States to blow up the deal. Second page of the deal, provisions,general, i guess they felt that was important enough that they wanted to repeat it twice. Reaffirms that under no circumstances will iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any Nuclear Weapons. Thats not the only permanent deal. F the well, there are some provisions that expire and free to like or not like those provisions, there that i a provision excess, extra 0, investigation, examination, of provisionsar arsenal expire, but year 30, iran agrees o permanently abide by the Additional Protocol set up by the jcpoa for inspections in the of north korea being caught cheating. I wouldnt dwell on it except administration witnesses have come here and looked us in the eye and said the same thing. To t it that you guys want say the deal was bad. Ut by lying about it, and suggesting that the deal was bad because it expires, you weaken your credibility. I believe that the of nistration backing out the jcpoa was incredibly foolish. Who cares what i think. Im a democrat. The administration cares one wit what i think. Mattis . T secretary how about secretary tillerson . Of about the joint chiefs staff . Im on the Armed Services committee and they appeared when was trying to decide what to do about the deal and they said staying in the states in the united interest. All right. Forget about them. Maybe they dont know anything. European allies begged us to stay in the deal. Who cares about allies, maybe we dont. International Atomic Agency said iran was complying with the deal. Otherwise. Rump felt just like president bush trashed had cpoa when it said iraq a program of weapons of mass destruction. Had some a deal that provisions that did, in fact, expire, provision that is expire ut it was a permanent deal where iran suggested they would never seek ever seek, purchase, acquire, or develop Nuclear Weapons that. Promise was enforceable by anctions, that promise could potentially have given legal justification for military hadon against iran, if they violated the provision, the dditional protocol that was permanent gives the United States not only intel, but intel we everpection data, if needed to take military action we could target it in a more when i cated way, and see the administration coming and telling the American Public e dont like the deal because it expires, it just infuriates me. We should have done what senator said. The administration should have stayed in the jcpoa and then done exactly what you were do. Ing to sanction iran for all the other bad activities that youve to here today. And many of us on both sides of he aisle had supported sanctions against iran for human rights violations, their we ession in the region, should have kept the permanent promise and the additional rotocol being permanent in our pocket, and worked with our european allies to get sanctions gainst iran for those activities, which could you have done by your own testimony except you were asking of additional negotiations the jcpoa itself. The withdrawal has made the region less safe and the much more has made it difficult for you to do what you to get do which is another deal. Because if the deal is being complied with and we backed out do t, why would a country another deal with us . They would think we would back out of it. Backing out of the deal has made much harder to get a deal with north korea. I applaud the president s trying, when north korea sees the u. S. Backing out of a deal that the jcpoa said complying with, it makes it much more difficult. Much more difficult for them to get onboard. So i just wanted to put on the record thats why i was agitated. You can be against the deal, you against the expiration and provisions of the deal but to tell the American Public the because it expires, its just a lie. Thanks, mr. Chair. You. Hank would you like to respond . I would like to respond to that. Aaine will give k rest of his time. It is true that the deal will expire. A material k its distinction to say after all the substance of the deal expires that the deal doesnt expire makes a commitment to never get a Nuclear Weapon. I think thats a misreading and account of the Iran Nuclear Deal. In 2031 misquoted what i just read . Im happy to go through everything that you raised. You ou saying that i think its a misreading . Id i incorrectly state those provisions in the preface and to the deal . Because iran reaffirmed under iran ever ances will develop or acquire Nuclear Weapons that that means this deal never expires. Provisions of the deal expire. Thats a provision of the deal. Its not a provision. E preamble. Its not an operative paragraph. Oratory in. 2031 all restrictions lift on the Iran Nuclear Deal. Except that provision and the agreement to follow the Additional Protocol in perpetuity. To f iran has no intent acquire Nuclear Weapon what were they doing with that that to liberate . Look, if you want to talk about what iran is doing, thats just saying im asking you, why did di not misrepresent it. Deal will expire. It is. Wording stands as im perfectly comfortable to let the people look at the first deal and of the preamble and compare it against this witness statement. Comfortable. Y thats fair, senator kaine and the language of the argued with. t be the opinion as to whether or not provision, ixpiring think, is subject to debate. Some of us feel one way. Another. S feel thats a fair statement. And i t that agitates how it anybody if you try to tell somebody facts are different han what they are but i think there are a lot more important issues here over whether or not that provision was expiring. I think we can go forward with what we have to do about the ituation that we have in front of us, without agreeing on an a provision that agreement thats no longer in effect had a provision that said or that. And again, i get the same when people ou do try to tell me something that i believe differently. Think it event, i would be productive if we did go orward with other parts, and there is no one that can argue with you that the language of the agreement isnt exactly what it is. Senator cruz thank you, mr. Chairman, and let me start by saying that i know my friend from virginia is speaking in good faith when he expresses his support for this deal, but i think the obamaran flawed in every respect, in my opinion. The threat of a nuclear iran is the greatest Security Threat facing the United States, and the Obama Iran Nuclear deal was the most catastrophic agreement since Neville Chamberlain led the united kingdom. It was flawed on multiple fronts. Gave 150ont, it billion dollars to the ayatollah , the worlds leading state sponsor of terrorism. It did so while the ayatollah was chanting death to america and death to israel, literally, as we negotiated the deal. The ayatollah would lead mobs chanting, death to america. History teaches us, when somebody tells you they want to kill you, you should believe them. The deal on its face would have led inexorably to a nuclear iran. It was designed to be unenforceable. On the face of the deal, numerous sites were deemed exempt from inspections. Military sites were deemed exempt from expections, which, of course, means thats naturally where the Iranian Regime would engage in Additional Nuclear research. It also required 21 days advance notice to the regime before any inspection a provision certain , to encourage cheating. And, indeed, in some circumstances, the agreement provided that iran would inspect provision so laughable that the only consequence of the deal is that iran would acquire Nuclear Weapons. We now know thanks to israels heroic work, seizing iranian records, that iran has cheated from day one and continues to cheat, and the only question is, is iran better off with 150 billion or without 150 billion . And i believe pulling out of the obamaIran Nuclear Deal is the single most important decision that the Trump Administration has made, and the maximum Pressure Campaign is exactly the right approach. Listen, iran remains profoundly dangerous but i would much rather it be a weakened iran with billions of dollars of less resources to use to pay terrorists to kill americans and to fund Nuclear Research than an iran flush with cash racing to catch up with north korea and use Nuclear Weapons and icbms to threaten the lives of millions of americans. Now, mr. Hook, you talked about major provisions of the iran deal expiring, major provisions such as the arms embargo and the ballistic test ban expiring and i agree that thats highly troubling. There is an obvious remedy to that, which is under the terms of resolution 2231. You have the snap back now sanctions, and we now have a , situation where irans conduct outline, ran has gotten even on worse. Now even our european allies acknowledge committed a serious act of war in bombing saudi arabia and taking out about half of their Oil Production capability. That act of war merits a real response. Two questions. Does state believe the United States is able to trigger the snapback mechanism, and number two, should we trigger the snapback mechanism . Senator, thank you for your question. I read your letter from july to. I believe secretary pompeo raised this question, and it is something which senator rubio and i discussed earlier, about whether we can and whether we should reimpose use of the 2231 to trigger the snapback of the sanctions. I have raised this with our Legal Advisers office. I know its been in discussion with the nfc legal adviser. Its a procedural question, an interpretation of 2231, that turns around what the definition of some of the various terms, like participant and other things. I think yours is a very plausible reading. Have done since leaving the deal is allow other countries to decide whether to stay in the deal. Theously, i think even French Foreign minister said recently after the attacks on september 14, it is a seminal event, a game changer. I cannot remember exactly how he described it, but it is something we should take another look at, and i appreciate you raising it to our attention. Senator cruz i would certainly encourage you on my reading that we have full authority to vote for the snapback sanctions, and particularly given this recent attack against saudi arabia, i think we should invoke the snapback sanctions. I think that is a natural response. Second question. You and i have had multiple conversations about the civilian nuclear waivers. As you know, another round of waivers is coming up in the next couple of weeks. We have waivers right now, allowing them to continue construction at the underground Nuclear Bunker, that is built into the side of a mountain to build Nuclear Weapons, we also have a waiver allowing iran to continue working on the rat plutonium producing arrector secretary pompeo has rightly said needs to be shut down anyway. Isnt it time to end these waivers and shut down the Nuclear Bunker and the iraq plutonium producing facility . You are correct, that the current there are five restrictions that are currently in place. Secretary pompeo extended those restrictions on june 30. Youre correct. Those are going to expire very soon, on october 29. What we have done over the course of a couple of years, we have tightened the restrictions on Irans Nuclear program. We did sanction the Atomic Energy organization of iran in november 2018. In march of this year, we imposed new sanctions on Nuclear Scientists who were linked to irans wmd proliferation sensitive activities. Secretary pompeo on july 30 extended those five restrictions around a rack, the Tehran Research reactor, and so he will have a decision to make coming up. You have been a thought leader on this subject, and we will make sure that that is all before the secretary before he makes his decision. Cruz i would strongly advise that you do not extend the waivers, particularly given irans spectacular bad conduct. Thank you, senator cruz. Senator markey. On july 23, secretary pompeii the trumpsaid, before administration came into office, violated the nuclear deal, continue to work on their Nuclear Program. Mr. Hook, in your opinion, was iran working on a Nuclear Weapons program during a period of compliance with the jcpoa . It is the case that iran was hiding under armed guard in a warehouse in the heart of teheran half a ton of materials. Were they out of compliance with the jcpoa, in your opinion . I think if iran is housing an keeping itive and from the international Atomic Energy association that they are not in compliance. So you disagree with secretary mattis, secretary tillerson, and general the generals and the joint chiefs of staff that they were not out of compliance with the jcpoa . Case,depends on, in this under, i think, a statute passed by congress, the president had to certify on a fairly regular basis whether i basis whether iran was or wasnt in compliance with the deal. The discovery of the atomic archive happened just a couple of months before the president left the deal. I think that was a factor. With you disagree secretary tillerson and secretary mattis . You believe they were out of compliance. Is that what you are saying . I would have to look at the dates at both secretary tillerson and secretary mattis said that. That is relevant to this, because the atomic archive was discovered on the monday before you think that the inspectors have not found that iran is out compliance and definitely was not out of compliance before Donald Trump Took Office . The iaea does not certify that iran is in compliance. That is something that the Member States do, but i think that the Iran Nuclear Deal set such a load deal for compliance lets separate that from whether or not they are in compliance. Is secretary pompeo correct that they were not in compliance . I would have to see exactly what he said and when he said it. Let me just say this. Secretary pompeos suggestions have consequences because the crown prince of saudi arabia stated in march of 2018 that without a doubt, if iran developed a nuclear bomb well follow suit. That gets into the question of the 123 agreement with saudi arabia, in terms of the United States agreeing that saudi arabia would not have to, in fact, comply with the Gold Standard for securing iranian uranium and tony him on saudi territory, so that we just call into question whether or not the in fact, add in a way that would be reacting to and ran active Nuclear Weapons program. An to an iran active Nuclear Weapons program. Could i speak to that . From my perspective, the goal has to be that the Trump Administration is not saying that there is an active program, that has been certified by the ae ae by the iaea. If thats not the case, it triggers a reaction in saudi arabia thats very, very dangerous. I want to read you one other question, and that is the issue, not whether or not we might differ on the Radio Nuclear deal, but we know that turkey has undermined iran sanctions across administrations. Do you agree with that . I can only speak to the iran file. Turkey has been in compliance with the iran sanctions. You think they are in compliance in . Terms of the key factor on oil, turkey is not importing iranian crude oil. You dont think turkey has been out of compliance which is important for me to understand. The problem right now is that turkey is endangering u. S. Troops after another rash decision by President Trump, but that is happening near the syrian border, where we reportedly store 50 u. S. Nuclear weapons at the insular airbase inside of turkey, so the , will we, as as country, remove those Nuclear Weapons from turkey . Endangeringght now, u. S. Assets inside of syria. Are at the border. We have Nuclear Weapons, reportedly 50 Nuclear Weapons, on the airbase, and erdogan has become a less and less reliable part