The middle east. First of all and foremost, i want to submit for the record the statement by chairman mccain who is not here today. Were joined this morning by a group we all know well. You have all been before this committee. As i mentioned to you a minute ago, and i think most of the members of this committee have seen you in action in the field, and ambassador crocker, you have been a diplomat in residence, woodrow wilson, school of public and International Affairs at princeton university. He has been all over the map, and in the last couple of decades. Ambassador eric edelman, counsellors center for strategic and budgetary assessment. By my account this is your ninth appearance before this committee. Does it sound right to you . Yeah. And ambassador jeffrey, the philip solange distinguished fellow, University Washington institute for near east policy. I remember being with you in turkey and other places, and, of course, ambassador stuart jones, Vice President of the colin group. Your presence was visited i think by every member here in both jordan and iraq. It is great to have you all here. Much of our nations attention over the last two decades has gone towards the middle east in terms of military operations and thats appropriately so. Weve faced very real and dangerous threats originated from the middle east and weve seen that the problems there are extremely complex. For example, weve formed and led and International Coalition to defeat isis, and with our local partners on the ground in iraq and syria weve largely done that. Just last saturday Prime Minister abadi announced the defeat of isis in iraq. So it is long past time for us to turn our attention to the broader strategy and the National Objectives in that region as our competitors have are already doing, thats iran and russia. Im very encouraged that under the leadership of President Trump america is beginning to reclaim some of its worldwide leadership that has waned over the past eight years. In october the administration released an outline detailing its strategy to counter iranian aligned influence. The president also declined to certify the sanctions relief as a part of the iran nuclear deal. It was something a lot of people didnt realize that the president has to on a periodic basis release to keep those keep that alive, and so weve started the process now that and i think it was the right decision. The president also was encouraged by the the recent activity thats taken place by the way, some of us were with netanyahu you with when that decision was made and ive never seen a happier guy, and at the same time, of course, he was very encouraged by the recent decision to move the u. S. Embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem, in concert with current law and broad bipartisan support. This is something that we decided to do 20 years ago, and finally finally were doing it. So thats thats good news. We have great witnesses and look forward to the testimony. Senator reed. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I want to commend senator mccain for scheduling this hearing and thank chairman inhofe for leading it today. It is very important. Also let me thank the witnesses. Ive had the privilege and pleasure of working with you. You have made extraordinary contributions to the National Security of the United States in so many different capacities. When chairman inhofe mentioned that ambassador edelman had been nine times here, i think you are all recidivists in a very positive way, so thank you very much. We are indeed fortunate to have you here today. Im very confident that youre going to provide valuable insights for a very challenging area of the world, the middle east. Working with our progress excuse me. Working with our partners on the ground we have made great progress on our efforts to dismantle the isis caliphate. According to u. S. Central command, in the last three years the coalition liberated more than 4. 5 Million People and 52,000 square kilometers of territory from isis control. This is a significant achievement for the coalition and our iraqi and syrian partners. It is also important to recognize that isis, al qaeda and other violent extremists are not yet defeated and remain intent on attacking the United States and our interests while taking advantage of opportunities afforded by destabilization in the middle east. Despite our Operational Success against isis, we have not achieved similar success in addressing the political and social challenges in the middle east that gave rise to isis in the first place. Our efforts to deal with isis, al qaeda and others to deal them a lasting defeat must not rest with the department of defense alone. Sustainable solutions will require significant contributions of the state department, u. S. Aid and others. Unfortunately, our ability to achieve such an approach is hampered by massive proposed cuts to the state departments budget and the fact that our current diplomats are leaving at an alarming rate. Each of you have tools for the National Power and i hope you will provide the committee on how such tools could be effectively leveraged. Violent extremism is not the only challenge facing us in the middle east. Despite our success in putting a halt to the greatest threat facing the United States, namely a Nuclear Armed iran, the forces continue to campaign and malign to destable across the region. Coupled with an increasingly assertive Foreign Policy exhibited by saudi arabia it is hard to imagine the geopolitical landscape in the middle east more complicated than it is today. If we are to successfully navigate these challenges we need to be clear in communicating our values and objectives. The president has repeatedly made it more difficult for our National Security and diplomatic professionals to do jobs. The richk sk of failure in the policy in the middle east is significant and we cant afford unforced errors. I want to thank the witnesses for being here today and for the significant contribution to the country, for decades of work in the Foreign Service. I look forward to your testimony. Thank you very much. Thank you, senator reed. Well start with you, ambassador crocker, and all of you know that we try to keep our comments down to about five minutes and give our wellattended meeting here time to ask questions. Ambassador crocker. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ranking member reed, members of the committee, it is a privilege to be here today. The timing i think is fortuitous. We are at, in my view, a strategic Inflection Point with the military defeat of Islamic State to try to answer the nowwhat question. As you both said, the military defeat is necessary but i would suggest not sufficient. I think it is helpful to remember what happened when i was in iraq, that was 0709 through the surge. We pounded the Islamic States predecessor, al qaeda in iraq. We could never quite eliminate them. They could find little crevices in mosul and up the Euphrates River valley. Why did they find them . Important to remember then, as now, that al qaeda in iraq and Islamic State are not in and of themselves the problem. They are the symptom of the problem. The problem has been and this goes throughout the region the failure to establish good governance. The failure to establish rule of law and institutions where all citizens in iraq or now in syria feel safe. That has not happened, and to take, again, the kind of the 30,000foot view, if one looks at the modern middle east which is roughly 100 years old, it grew out of world war i and the versailles treaty of 1919. If theres one single consistent point of failure it is governance. We have seen isms come and go. Imperialism and colonialism under the british and the french, monarchism in some of the central countries like egypt and iraq, arab nationalism, undiluted military authoritarianism, again in iraq, arab socialism in iraq and syria, communism in south yemen. Now we deal with islamism. The good news is that it too is failing. The bad news is that the underlying issues of governance which led to the failure of every other ism are still untreated. And if we are unable to help our friends in the area get to a better place on these issues, youre going to see a successor to Islamic State. I dont know who. I do know that it will not be good news for us. There is a second Inflection Point that i hopefully would have a chance to address today. The United States designed and led the postworld war Ii International order. That leadership changed or that attitude to leadership changed over the last eight years. President obama spoke of not being able to do everything certainly true. Too often i think it became an excuse for not doing much of anything. Sadly, i think were seeing some continuity between the administrations from president obama to President Trump on this issue. Are we going to lead . If not, who will . If not, what might the consequences be . So i would urge before we back out of that international order, postworld war ii that we established and led, we need to think about the consequences. I would say, finally, it is hard to do any of this if you dont have the people to do it. The budget cuts suggested by the administration will do Severe Damage to both our diplomacy and our development. These things count. I would applaud the congress that has reacted to these proposed cuts. I think it is very important that they not go forward or youre going the see a weakened Foreign Service far into the future with some very significant consequences. Lastly, truth in advertising here, i stood on the board of mercy corps international. We are heavily engaged on a number of issues. The one i would like to highlight would be Syrian Refugees. Mercy corps doesnt do resettlement. We focus on keeping refugees as close to their home country as we can. So were extremely active in jordan and in lebanon in particular. Why . That could be the longterm ultimate danger of this syrian problem. We saw what happened with Palestinian Refugees where a spirit of hopelessness in refugee camps bred an entire generation of terrorism. We are working out there to try to get the resources and the programs that will give young Syrian Refugees a sense that they do have a future. If that funding is cut, as has been proposed, humanitarian aid by 40 , esf by almost 45 , we may be fuelling the next wave years down the line of terror. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, ambassador crocker. Ambassador edelman. Thank you, chairman inhofe and senator reed and members of the committee. It is a privilege to be here. While i dont normally want to speak for my Foreign Service colleagues on this panel, i think i do speak for all of us saying that i think all of us are thinking about senator mccain today and wishing him very well in his recovery. I agree with my colleague ryan crocker that we are at an important Inflection Point in the middle east, and i think for that reason it is particularly important that the committee has scheduled this hearing. I cannot tell you how proud i am to sit here in this company because i have enormous respect for my colleagues on this panel. What i thought i would do is just talk about three things really, why i think the region remains strategically important to the United States. The two i think large strategic challenges i think the United States faces in the region and maybe some thoughts about what we might do about those. First, i think there is a disposition in washington that people talk about the middle east today, after a decade and a half of difficult and seemingly inconclusive Counter Insurgency operations in the region and growing u. S. Energy, if not independence, at least selfsufficiency to want to look at the region as something we ought to disengage from and try to limit our liability in the region. But i would argue that picking up a theme that ambassador crocker touched on, that as tempting as disengagement might be i think it is important to bear in mind that it would reverse a strong bipartisan consensus over the past 60 years that the maintenance of a stable regional balance of power in the middle east and the prevention of any external or Regional Power from dominating this area of the world is vital to the nations security. It is i think it is the case because, first of all, the Energy Resources of the region remain important to our allies in europe and asia, but also because Global Energy prices can affect our own economy. So even with our own selfsufficiency where large segments of middle eastern oil to go off line because of a crisis in the region, the Economic Impact on the United States would be considerable. Moreover, i think the problem is that what as ken pollock at aei says, what happens in the middle east does not stay in the middle east. This region is a caldron of poor governance and disaffection, and as a result a petri dish for extremism that frequently manifests itself in terrorist attacks against our allies in the region, our allies in europe, and ultimately the homeland here in the United States itself. Since 2009 i think the United States has largely pursued a policy of retrenchment and limited liability, which i think has had the unfortunate consequence of raising concerns about the u. S. Role as the security guarantor in the region. I think thats been exacerbated by some of the consequences of the joint comprehensive plan of action which has freed up resources for tehran to use for its own purposes, both to procure weaponry for itself but also to support its proxies in the region pursuing an agenda of malign activity. I agree with my colleague that theres been more continuity than at least i would like in the policies of the Trump Administration, which are couched in very different rhetoric but have broadly continued the previous administrations policies, perhaps reflecting the views that President Trump expressed during the campaign that the whole region, as he put it, was one big fat quagmire. But i do think it is something that requires some renewed attention and a new strategy. I mentioned the twin challenges, and those i think were touched on by my colleague and it wont come as any surprise that two challenges are irans quest for regional hegemony and very much intertwined with that the threat of persistent threat of Sunni Islamic extremism, even after the demise of the Islamic States physical caliphate. These two threats i would stress drive the regions many crisis, and they also drive one another. So iranian expansionism and activity and support for shia militias and proxies in syria also fuel sunni extremism and vice versa. I think the most urgent thing the United States needs to do is to develop a strategy and a plan and a policy that reflect the new realities on the ground in syria, where iran is currently at its most vulnerable and potentially overextended and where the potential for renewed sunni extremism is perhaps highest. Isis has lost itselfdeclared caliphate, as senator reed noted, but the presence of russian forces, Iranian Forces, iraniansponsored shia militias, hezbollah, et cetera, allowed tehran and moscow to emerge as the ash ters of postwar syria and allowed iran to consolidate the at least the perception that they have a land bridge that links tehran directly to lebanon and to right on the israeli and jordanian borders. Although there are few really appealing options at this point in syria, i think we can and should exploit iranian overextension there. I welcome secretary madisons statement that u. S. Troops will remain to prevent the reemergence of isis, i think it is a necessary step. But i think it only will be possible if we can help our syrian allies, the Syrian Democratic forces, hold strategic territory thats been liberated from isis control. I think that will help provide leverage for the United States in determining syrias postwar fate and also pose some obstacles and impose some costs on iran. I think in general we need to develop more leverage with iran so we can impose costs more effectively, and i would make a few suggestions about what we might do in that regard. First, i think we ought to have public discussion about dusting off and updating our contingency plans for neutralizing Irans Nuclear facilities should iran materially breach or withdraw from the jcpoa, in response either to sanctions that this body chooses to impose or because of u. S. Enforcement of the more vigorous u. S. Enforcement of the agreement itself. Just as it appears to be doing with north korea, i think the pentagon ought to be putting in place the capabilities to potentially shoot down future iranian Ballistic Missile tests. Iran is developing a very large, very varigated Ballistic Missile capability. No