Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20240622 :

CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings June 22, 2024

To disrupt the flow of funds to Illicit Networks around the world, and this is one of those things thats going to stay in place. And all of those entities, iranian or otherwise, that were designated for their support of any terrorist organization are going to stay sanctioned. That includes banks designated for those reasons, one an iranian bank that was related to hezbollah financing. Theyre going to stay sanctioned. Now, the real powerful aspect of this is part of these sanctions that were imposed under the comprehensive iran sanctions accountability and divestment act, the bill passed by congress in 2010, that bill said if you are a foreign bank and you do business one of these people on our list, if you help them transit money to, from iran to lebanon or any other place or even from iran to london for completely peaceful activity, doesnt matter, it can get cut off the from the United States financial system. That is stay anything place, and that is well understood by the iranians. So to the extent that any sorts of things are taking place, theyll remain subject to sanctions. Most importantly, another question we get is, well, can you continue to enforce those, impose sanctions for those reasons, and the question is, yes. We have every intention of enforcing those, so if a new bank decides to start funding hezbollah, that bank even if they were relieved from sanction ises under this nuclear deal can get sanctioned again, and that is not grounds for iran to walk out of this deal. Now, a lot of people will say, oh, well, iran will argue that thats reimp decision of sanctions imp decision of imposition of sanctions. The reality is that there are no commitments in there such as that, and theyre well understood. And so is we have an absolute commitment to use both sanctions and any other authorities that we have to continue iran, to continue to counter irans support for terrorism. Well, and one, one data point is, you know, were in a very tense political moment both here and in iran as it relates to support for this deal, and yet two weeks ago the Treasury Department moved forward with additional regulations as it relates to hezbollahs activities in syria, for example. So this is part of the walking and chewing gum at the same time that i argued earlier. Ladies and gentlemen, colins been kind enough to agree to stay on until about 3 15 which gives us time for a few more questions. I have one in the far back there. And then there was a gentleman over there in the row toward the back. Thank you. Steven yelverton, im a member of the public. Does this Nuclear Arms Deal prevent iran from acquiring already readymade nuke hard weapons Nuclear Weapons from north korea or any rogue sources . So the terms of the agreement are quite clear, iran will not in any way seek to aqierks possess, develop can, hold, look at longingly [laughter] Nuclear Weapons. And so is not only would that be in violation of the deal, but its something that we have already been very watchful for in terms of north korean behavior on its own, made very clear that any transfer of Nuclear Materials or technology from north korea is a problem for us and our relationship with north korea and the region. But that it would be something that would be prohibited under the terms of this agreement and is walled off, sanctionable and for which the United States, i think, would be prepared to take very, very strong action. The one point, maybe to Say Something about the procurement channels or something, but one point beforehanding it to chris is before handing it to chris is theres all sorts of scenarios we could spin out about how iran could illicitly acquire materials to build a weapon on their own. That is a challenge we had before the deal. It is something we will have to be vigilant about after the deal. Before the deal it was a violation of their commitment to the npt, under the deal its a violation of their commitment to the npt and additional commitments they made to the deal itself. But the one difference is that we will have such greater visibility into their Nuclear Infrastructure across the board and, also, a dedicated procurement channel that well have much higher probability of detecting activities that weve actually had a pretty good track record of detecting already from an intelligence perspective, but a much higher probability of detecting it in the world of a deal than a world without. The only thing i was going to add is exactly on this concept of the procurement channel which is a really core concept of this entire deal. We took the prohibitions that were under the u. N. Security Council Resolutions that said all states in the world are prohibited from selling, transferring to iran nuclearsensitive technologies, those controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers group. Those prohibitions are going to remain in place. And what we layered on top of them is, essentially, a mechanism by which if iran want toss procure a sensitive nuclear technology, lets say for the transformation of the rock reactor, that will require technologies. They will have to get approval by this mechanism which is an approval by the joint commission made up of all the members of jpca. The short answer is we, the United States, has a veto over every single procurement request of a sensitive nuclear technology. So even if theyre not buying an entire weapon, if they want to buy components that are controlled for nuclearsensitive reasons, we have a unilateral veto on any one of those requests, and if they dont go through that channel, we have the ability to then respond with a snapback of sanctions and other things that we might do in response. There is a gentleman in yes. Thanks. Great program. Youre very slick. Im not sure id buy a used car from you, however. I have one question. We are this countrys led by three senators, and yet there was no congressional Observer Group or senate or yall senatorial Observer Group as existed in all, all Important International agreement negotiations since 1919 and the failure of the league. Why . I will defer to others on the history of all. I will say that this is not a treaty. Its an executive agreement [inaudible] lets please. Its not a treaty in the sense that it is not a legallybinding agreement of the nature of a treaty that requires the twothirds consent of the senate. Its an executive agreement. It is a political agreement that hinges on, you know, the continued mutual interest of the parties to implement it. So it is different. The second thing i would point out is its hard to argue that congress has been in the dark. I, i mean, if Wendy Sherman were up here, my god, the number of briefings, hearings, i dont know a single other issue in the National Security space where we spend more time talking to congress. And its not just now as were trying to make the case that this deal is a good one and should be supported, but through the entire process folks from chris team have been hauled up in front and have volunteered to go up on many occasions to meet with any congress, member of congress, senior staff. I think, you know, if you talked on an average day to, you know, staff for senator menendez, for example, on the Senate Foreign relations committee, they often times had better insight into what was going on in the negotiations than some of us in the white house did. So i dont know that there was a sense that congress was somehow locked out of the details. Its just some members of congress dont like the details which is theyre right. And its also our right to make the case that the facts support the deal. Let me just make one more point here as well which is under International Arms control treaties which im more familiar with, there are things that the United States has to do like eliminating missiles or bomber aircraft or forgo the development of certain weapon systems, and there are things that the russians or the soviet union had to do as well. And there were mutual constraints. The only thing that is happening here is that the president is going to use his Waiver Authority to waive sanctions that the congress authorized with a president ial waiver in them. Had the congress not authorized the president ial waiver, i have good reason to believe that the white house would have threatened to veto that legislation just on principle. Republican democratic administrations alike have resisted the imposition of sakss for which the of sanctions for which the president didnt have a waiver. So there are no restrictions being placed on the United States. If there were, you would have a stronger argument perhaps there should have been a slightly different conversation. There are certain obligations for activities we will pursue in the future, but i think thats a significant difference between what i think youre referring to in terms of arms control agreements and political arrangement. There is no way i can get to all the people with hands, but this yes isman in the back there gentleman in the back there was fairly early in the process. Tom cochran, im retired. Colin n your opening remarks, you said that the administration define canned breakout in terms of the time required to obtain a bombs worth of material. I believe the administrations definition is in terms of sq, strategic significant quantity. Quantity. And so my question is, if it was discovered that iran had, lets say, 60 of an sq, say 16 kilograms of heu, 93 enriched, would the administration say they didnt have a bombs worth . Or stated another way, would you agree that if iran could make a weapon with an sq amount, they could make a weapon of same reliability but lower yield with, say, 60 of an sq . So im going to let john take on some of that, but a couple of just factual predicates to lay. Under this agreement for the next 15 years, theyre not allowed to have any enriched uranium above the 3. 67 level, and theyre only allowed a stockpile of 300 kilograms of that, period. They currently in different forms, gas and other forms, have about 12,000 kilograms of enriched uranium below the 5 level, thats enough for ten Nuclear Weapons for the weapons that youre talking about. 300 kilograms is about a forty of a fourth of what you might need, so thats a substantial constraint. And beyond 15 years iran never has the right to produce weaponsgrade uranium. [inaudible] im sorry, we cant that wasnt my question. So if i understood your question, its like if we discovered they had 16 kilograms of weaponsgrade uranium, what would we do about that, and the answer is it would be a violation of the agreement, and it would be a violation of the npt. My question, my question, you defined breakout you say breakout is longer than a year, and you im sorry, but we simply cant yeah. Breakout is less than i have to all i should say is the way we define breakout in that sense is one weapons worth and how we quantify that is kind of the Industry Standard and is actually not terribly controversial, and i know that there are some analysts out there who suggest you could make a crude device with uranium enriched to a lower level or with lower quantities, but the breakout calculations that we use are not controversial. Yes, they are. I think that we, there is going to be controversy, perhaps, 25 years after a successful agreement as well as an unsuccessful one, so at least that we can predict for the future. Ladies and gentlemen, i think we have reached the point where im going to have to bring an end to this. There probably are going to be many other opportunities, but let me, a, thank you for coming and, b, ask you to thank the panel in the usual manner. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the iowa state fair begins today in des moines, and well hear from several president ial candidates at the des moines registers candidate soapbox. Its a longstanding tradition where each president ial hopeful gets 20 minutes on stage. Coming up at 5 p. M. Eastern, democratic candidate martin omalley. His speech is live on our companion network, cspan, followed by your phone calls, tweets and facebook comments. Booktv of is every weekend here on cspan2, and with the senate in recess this august, booktv is in prime time each weeknight. Tonight we focus on the white house. At 8 p. M. Eastern, nbc political director chuck todd on his book, the stranger barack obama in the white house. At 9 p. M. , american urban radio correspondent april ryan, author of the presidency in black and white my upclose view of three president s and race in america. And then at ten, former president ial candidate ralph nader on his book about the unanswered letters he wrote to president s george w. Bush and barack obama. Booktv in prime time starts tonight at eight eastern here on cspan2. With the senate in its august break, well feature booktv programming weeknights in prime time on cspan2. Starting at 8 p. M. Eastern. And for the weekends, here are a few booktv special programmings. Saturday, august 32nd 22nd, were life from jackson, mississippi, for the inaugural mississippi book festival beginning at 11 30 a. M. Eastern with discussions on harper lee, civil rights and the civil war. Son on saturday, september 5th, were live from our Nations Capital for the 15th annual National Book festival followed on sunday by our in Depth Program with former second lady lynne cheney. Booktv on cspan2, television for serious readers. [applause] the Aspen Institute last month held its sixth annual Security Forum in partnership with cnn and the New York Times. One discussion from the gathering featured former pentagon officials talking about the role of special operations and intelligence in fighting alqaeda and isis. Was stymied by the airlines and only got as far as denver last night so couldnt join us today. We also have with us dr. Mike vickers, former undersecretary of defense for intelligence, and also former head of special operations within the pentagon. And Kathleen Hicks who has held many senior roles inside the pentagon and is now at the center for strategic and international studies. So i want to open with a question that has touched on all of your careers. Youve all spent time fighting extremist militants in your different roles. With that experience, looking at the Islamic State group and alqaeda, is isis or isil the threat that the National Security community is making it out to be to the u. S. Public . And is alqaeda on the back foot for good, or is it just prepping for the next battle . You may begin. [laughter] oh, and since youre in private, in the private sector now, feel free to share anything with us at all. [laughter] i think ill take a pass on that one. [laughter] so, you know, the threat of a terrorist attack whether from isil or alqaeda remains our number one National Security threat as a clear and present danger along with cyber attack. We have other longerterm strategic challenges, but they occupy policymakers minds every day. Isil in a way is a bigger threat because of its ability to inspire socalled lone wolf or radicalization attacks across the world. But alqaeda is more sophisticated. So if an airliner blew up over the United States, it would far more likely be alqaeda today than isil. And that remains a significant danger. Alqaeda has suffered a lot of losses, but it is still very much in the game, and as it has in its history, it can come back in various ways. I do think that the isil threat has been appropriately described. I dont think its overblown. I think its a significant threat, and as discussed in some of the previous panels, i think particularly with jeh johnson, in part its because of the fact that its been theres an area, territorial region that its been able to occupy and operate from. And, of course, then theres the social Network Piece that allows it to operate worldwide. Alqaeda, i think, is not permanently on its heels, but we can try to keep it there. To the extent that alqaedas been significantly degraded is because of a lot of u. S. And worldwide attention and investment to making it so not least of all the two gentlemen to my left and right. And i think thats what it takes going forward, whether its isil, alqaeda, alshabaab, alnusra, you name it. It takes a concerted, longterm effort to Counter Terrorism with all the tools that we have in tools that we have in coalition. Admiral olson, with your former time heading special Operations Command, did you expect wed still as a nation in the thick of the fight now, all these years later . First, let me say its great to be back in this forum, i thank walter and clark for making this possible, and i appreciate for not being mike lump kin, but it is good to get this band back together, and im very pleased to be on this stage with my two former colleagues. Ill also say that i spent most of my time in uniform avoiding kim dozier [laughter] but it wasnt for lack of respect for her tenacity or the quality of her work. But its good to be with you today, kim. Thank you. So i didnt hear i left military service now almost four years ago. Isil wasnt on our scope. It is a new phenomenon, and so i cant, i cant talk about isil from my Historical Perspective as a commander of special Operations Command. But i do agree with mike and kathleen that isil is a real threat, its a real regional threat. The persecution and the violence are threatening and scary to many. And it is a real threat to us. But i think that we when we speak of isil as kind of the next generation of alqaeda, we undercredit them as an army. Alqaeda, cle

© 2025 Vimarsana