Transcripts For CSPAN3 U.S. Special Rep. For Iran At Senate

Deal, one of the reasons it was bad is because it expires. And i think you know that is false. There are provisions in the agreement that expired. Thats correct. So the agreement has a set of agreements dealing with centrifuges and inspections. So say to me, to our committee, to the American Public, that the deal was bad because it expires is just wrong. First paragraph of the deal, free face, i said first sentence. First paragraph of the deal. Iran reaffirms under no circumstances will iran ever seek develop or acquire any Nuclear Weapons. Thats permanent. Ever. Under no circumstances. Any. That is a permanent provision they have assigned to that never expires unless someone like the United States decides to blow up the deal. Second page of the deal, preamble and general provisions. I guess they felt that was important enough that they wanted to repeat it twice. Iran reaffirms under no circumstances will iran ever seek, develop or acquire any weapons. Thats not the only permanent part of the deal. Theres a provision that i believe that year 30, excess, extra investigation examination of their Nuclear Arsenal provisions expire but at year 30, iran agree to permanently abide by the Additional Protocol set up bit iaea in the aftermath of north korea being caught cheating. I wouldnt dwell on it except other administration witnesses have come here and looked us in the eye and said the same thing. I get it that you guys want to say the deal was bad. But by lying about it and suggesting that the deal was bad because it expires, you tremendously weaken your credibility. I believe that the administration backing out of the jcpoa was incredibly foolish. Who cares what i think. Im a democrat. I dont think the administration cares one wit what i think. How about secretary mattis . How about secretary tillerson . How about the head chiefs of staff, joe dunford . They appeared when the president was trying to decide what to do about the deal and said staying in the deal was in the United States interest. All right. Forget about them. Maybe they dont know anything. Our european allies begged us to stay in the deal. Who cares about allies. Maybe we dont. The National Atomic Energy Agency said iran was complying with the deal. President trump felt otherwise, just like president bush trashed the iaea when it said iraq didnt have had a program of weapons of mass destruction. So, this is a deal that had some provisions that did, in fact, expire, provisions that expired but it was a permanent deal where iran suggested they would never seek, mrch, acquire, develop Nuclear Weapons. That promise was enforceable by sanctions. That promise could potentially have given legal justification for military action against iran. If they had violated the provision. The Additional Protocol that was permanent gives the United States not only intel but intel plus inspection date that that if we ever needed to take military action, we could target it in a more sophisticated way. When i see the administration coming and telling the American Public, we dont like the deal because it expires, it just infuriates me. We should have done what senator cardin said. The administration should have stayed in the jcpoa and done exactly what you were trying to do. Sanction iran for all the other bad activities youve testified to here today. And many of us on both sides of the aisle had supported sanctions against iran for missiles, human rights violations, their aggression in the region. We should have kept the permanent promise and Additional Protocol being permanent in our pocket and worked with our european allies to get sanctions against iran for those activities, which you could have done by your own testimony today, except you were asking for additional negotiations of the jcpoa itself. The withdrawal has made the region less safe and the withdrawal has made it much more difficult for you to do what you want to do, which is to get another deal because if the deal is being complied with and we backed out of it, why would a country do another deal with us . They would think we would back out of it. Backing out of the deal has made it much harder to get a deal with north korea. I applaud the president s efforts in trying. When k north korea sees the u. S. Backing out of a deal that the iaea said iran was complying it, it makes it much more difficult, much more difficult for them to get on board. I just wanted to put on the record, thats why i was agitated. You can be against the deal. You can be against the expiration of the provisions of the deal. But to tell the American Public the deal was bad because it expires is just a lie. Thank you. Would you like to response . Yes, id like to respond to sna. Im sure senator kaine will give you the rest of his time. The deal does expire. Its not a material distinction to say waf ul the substance of the deal expires, the deal doesnt expire because iran makes a commitment to never get a Nuclear Weapon. I think thats a misreading and a misleading account of the Iran Nuclear Deal. In 2031 do you think i misquoted what i just read . Are you accuse im happy to go with everything you just said. Did i incorrectly state those provisions in the preface and preamble to the deal . As i understood what you said is because iran ee affirms under no circumstances will iran ever develop or acquire Nuclear Weapons, that that means this deal never expires. The provisions of the deal expire. Thats a provision of the deal. Its not a provision. It is in the preamble its preamble its a provision. Its a preamble. In 2031 all restrictions lift on the Iran Nuclear Deal. Except that provision and the agreement to follow the Additional Protocol in perpetuity. If iran has no intent to acquire a Nuclear Weapon, what were they doing with that iconic in tehran . Look, if you want to talk about what iran is doing, thats fine. Im saying no, thats fine. You just i did not misrepresent it. I stated clearly the iran deal will expire. We will mr. Chair, the wording stands as it is and im perfectly comfortable to let the people look at the first paragraph of the deal and preamble and compare it against this witnesss statement. Im perfectly comfortable thats fair, senator kain. The language cannot be argued with. Its black and white. The opinion as to whether thats an expiring provision is subject to debate. Some of us feel one way, some feel the other. Thats a fair statement. I hope that that sdpaish i understand how it agitates anybody if you come in and try to tell somebody facts are different than what they are. But i think theres 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 situation we have in front of us without agreeing on whether a provision that isnt or an agreement that is no longer in effect had a provision that said this or that. And, again, i get the same frustration you do when people try to tell me its something i believe differently. But in any event, i think it would be productive if we did go forward with other parts. And theres nobody going to argue with you that the language of the agreement isnt exactly what it is. So, thank you. Lets go to i had next up senator cruz. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And let me start by saying i know my friend from virginia is speaking in good faith when he spl expresses his support for this deal, but i think the Obama Iran Nuclear deal was flawed in virtually every respect. In my judgment, the threat of a nuclear iran is the single greatest threat facing the United States. And the Obama Iran Nuclear deal was the most catastrophic International Agreement since Neville Chamberlain led the united king domg. On one front it gave 150 billion to the ayatollah khomeini, to 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 in chanting, death to america. And history teaches us, when someone tells you, they want to kill you, we should believe them. The deal on its face would have led to a nuclear iran. It was designed to be utterly unenforceable. On the face of the deal, numerous sites were deemed exempt from inspections. Military sites were deemed exempt from inspections, 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. Indeed, in some circumstances, the agreement provided that iran would inspect itself a provision so laughably weak, the only consequence of the iran deal that would have occurred 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 disastrous Obama Iran Nuclear deal is the single most Important National security decision 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 a weakened iran with billions of dollars 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 deals like arms embargo and Ballistic Missile test expiring and i agree thats highly troubling. There is an obvious remedy to that. Which is under the terms of resolution 2231. You have the snapback sanctions. And we now have a situation where irans conduct has gotten even worse. Even our european allies acknowledge that iran 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 . And, senator, thank you for your question. I read your letter from july 2nd. I believe to secretary pompeo that raises this question. And its something which senator rubio and i discussed earlier about whether we can and whether we should reimpose use the 2231 to trigger the snapback of the sanctions. Ive raised this with our Legal Advisers office. I know its been in discussion with the nsc legal adviser. Its a question of its a procedural question and interpretation of 2231 that turns definition of what some of the various terms are like participant and other things. I think that yours is a very plausible reading. What we have done since leaving the deal is to allow the other countries to decide whether to stay in the deal. Obviously, i think that even as the French Foreign minister said recently on the attacks of obcak it is a seminel event and something we should watch. You have my full authority to invoke the snapback sanction, and i think that we should with this recent attack from saudi arabia to invoke the snapback sanction, and that is a natural response. Second question, you and i have had multiple questions about the civilian Nuclear Waivers and as you know another round of waivers is coming up in next couple of weeks. We have waivers right now allowing them to continue construction at the undergrounded foro Nuclear Bunker which is a bunker built into the side of the mountain to build Nuclear Weapons and waiver to allow iran to continue to work on the iraq plutonium reactor which secretary pompeo says rightly needs to be shut down anyway, and isnt it time to end these waivers and shut down the fordo Nuclear Bunker and the plutonium facility in iran. Yes, five restrictions currently in place. Secretary pompeo released those and they are going to expire very, very soon on october 29th. What we have done, and what we have over the course of the couple of years now, tightened the restrictions on Irans Nuclear program. We did sanction the Atomic Energy organization in iran of november 2018, and in march of this year, we have imposed new sanctions on the Nuclear Sciences that are linked to the iran wmd which is linked to the sensitivities, and secretary pompeo is going to issue those around the Teheran Research Reactor and so he is going to have a decision to make coming up. You have been a thought lead ore leader on this subject, and we will make sure that it is all before the secretary before he makes this decision. Well, i would strongly urge that you do not extend the waivers given irans spectacularly bad conduct. Thank you, senator cruz. Senator markey. Thank you, mr. Chairman, very much. And so, now on july 23rd interview, secretary pompeo said that iran before the Trump Administration came into office violated the nuclear deal, quote, and continued to work on the nuclear program. Mr. Hook, in your opinion, was iran working on the 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 materiels to build a Nuclear Weapon. Were they out of compliance with the jcpoa in your opinion . I think that if iran is housing an atomic archive and keeping it from the interNational Atomic Energy Association that they are not incomplia incompliant. And so you agree with secretary mattis and tillerson that they were not incomplete with the jcpoa. I believe that the president had to certify on a regular basis whether iran was or was not in compliance of the deal. The discovery of the atomic archive happened a couple of months before the president left the deal, and i believe it was a factor. So you disagree with secretary tillerson and secretary mattis that they were you believe that they were out of compliance, is that what you are saying . No, what i am saying is that i would have to look at the dates that both secretary til r tillerson and mattis said that, because it was a month or do you believe that the inspectors have not found that iran is out of compliance and definitely was not out of compliance before Donald Trump Took Office . I believe that in the reports that the aia does not certify that iran is in compliance, and that is something that the Member States do. But i believe that the Iran Nuclear Deal set such a low bar for compliance. That is separate of whether they are in compliance. And so i believe is secretary pompeo correct that they were not in compliance . Id have to see exactly what he said and when he said it. Well, let me say that secretary pompeos statements have consequences because the crown prince of saudi arabia is a stated in march of 2018 that without a doubt if iran developed a nuclear bomb, we would follow suit, and that gets into the terms of the agreement of the United States agreeing that saudi arabia would not have to in fact comply with the Gold Standard for securing uranium and plutonium on the saudi territory which is going to call into question whether they, the saudis would in fact act in a way that would be reacting to an iranian active Nuclear Weapons program. Could i speak to that, senator . So from my perspective, the goal has to be that the Trump Administration is saying that there is not a active program that is certified by the iaea. And i want to raise another question of not whether or not we differ on the Iranian Nuclear deal, but we know that turkey has undermined irans sanctions throughout the region . I can only say that they are in compliance of the you believe they are in compliance . On the key factor of oil, they are not you dont believe that turkey is out of compliance which is important for me to understand. But the problem is that right now, that turkey is endangering the u. S. Troops after another rash decision by President Trump, but that is happening near the Syrian Border where we reportedly saw 50 u. S. Nuclear weapons at the Incirlik Air Force base in turkey, and so the question is will we as a country remove those American Public<\/a>, that the deal was bad because it expires is just wrong. First paragraph of the deal, free face, i said first sentence. First paragraph of the deal. Iran reaffirms under no circumstances will iran ever seek develop or acquire any Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. Thats permanent. Ever. Under no circumstances. Any. That is a permanent provision they have assigned to that never expires unless someone like the United States<\/a> decides to blow up the deal. Second page of the deal, preamble and general provisions. I guess they felt that was important enough that they wanted to repeat it twice. Iran reaffirms under no circumstances will iran ever seek, develop or acquire any weapons. Thats not the only permanent part of the deal. Theres a provision that i believe that year 30, excess, extra investigation examination of their Nuclear Arsenal<\/a> provisions expire but at year 30, iran agree to permanently abide by the Additional Protocol<\/a> set up bit iaea in the aftermath of north korea being caught cheating. I wouldnt dwell on it except other administration witnesses have come here and looked us in the eye and said the same thing. I get it that you guys want to say the deal was bad. But by lying about it and suggesting that the deal was bad because it expires, you tremendously weaken your credibility. I believe that the administration backing out of the jcpoa was incredibly foolish. Who cares what i think. Im a democrat. I dont think the administration cares one wit what i think. How about secretary mattis . How about secretary tillerson . How about the head chiefs of staff, joe dunford . They appeared when the president was trying to decide what to do about the deal and said staying in the deal was in the United States<\/a> interest. All right. Forget about them. Maybe they dont know anything. Our european allies begged us to stay in the deal. Who cares about allies. Maybe we dont. The National Atomic<\/a> Energy Agency<\/a> said iran was complying with the deal. President trump felt otherwise, just like president bush trashed the iaea when it said iraq didnt have had a program of weapons of mass destruction. So, this is a deal that had some provisions that did, in fact, expire, provisions that expired but it was a permanent deal where iran suggested they would never seek, mrch, acquire, develop Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. That promise was enforceable by sanctions. That promise could potentially have given legal justification for military action against iran. If they had violated the provision. The Additional Protocol<\/a> that was permanent gives the United States<\/a> not only intel but intel plus inspection date that that if we ever needed to take military action, we could target it in a more sophisticated way. When i see the administration coming and telling the American Public<\/a>, we dont like the deal because it expires, it just infuriates me. We should have done what senator cardin said. The administration should have stayed in the jcpoa and done exactly what you were trying to do. Sanction iran for all the other bad activities youve testified to here today. And many of us on both sides of the aisle had supported sanctions against iran for missiles, human rights violations, their aggression in the region. We should have kept the permanent promise and Additional Protocol<\/a> being permanent in our pocket and worked with our european allies to get sanctions against iran for those activities, which you could have done by your own testimony today, except you were asking for additional negotiations of the jcpoa itself. The withdrawal has made the region less safe and the withdrawal has made it much more difficult for you to do what you want to do, which is to get another deal because if the deal is being complied with and we backed out of it, why would a country do another deal with us . They would think we would back out of it. Backing out of the deal has made it much harder to get a deal with north korea. I applaud the president s efforts in trying. When k north korea sees the u. S. Backing out of a deal that the iaea said iran was complying it, it makes it much more difficult, much more difficult for them to get on board. I just wanted to put on the record, thats why i was agitated. You can be against the deal. You can be against the expiration of the provisions of the deal. But to tell the American Public<\/a> the deal was bad because it expires is just a lie. Thank you. Would you like to response . Yes, id like to respond to sna. Im sure senator kaine will give you the rest of his time. The deal does expire. Its not a material distinction to say waf ul the substance of the deal expires, the deal doesnt expire because iran makes a commitment to never get a Nuclear Weapon<\/a>. I think thats a misreading and a misleading account of the Iran Nuclear Deal<\/a>. In 2031 do you think i misquoted what i just read . Are you accuse im happy to go with everything you just said. Did i incorrectly state those provisions in the preface and preamble to the deal . As i understood what you said is because iran ee affirms under no circumstances will iran ever develop or acquire Nuclear Weapons<\/a>, that that means this deal never expires. The provisions of the deal expire. Thats a provision of the deal. Its not a provision. It is in the preamble its preamble its a provision. Its a preamble. In 2031 all restrictions lift on the Iran Nuclear Deal<\/a>. Except that provision and the agreement to follow the Additional Protocol<\/a> in perpetuity. If iran has no intent to acquire a Nuclear Weapon<\/a>, what were they doing with that iconic in tehran . Look, if you want to talk about what iran is doing, thats fine. Im saying no, thats fine. You just i did not misrepresent it. I stated clearly the iran deal will expire. We will mr. Chair, the wording stands as it is and im perfectly comfortable to let the people look at the first paragraph of the deal and preamble and compare it against this witnesss statement. Im perfectly comfortable thats fair, senator kain. The language cannot be argued with. Its black and white. The opinion as to whether thats an expiring provision is subject to debate. Some of us feel one way, some feel the other. Thats a fair statement. I hope that that sdpaish i understand how it agitates anybody if you come in and try to tell somebody facts are different than what they are. But i think theres 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 situation we have in front of us without agreeing on whether a provision that isnt or an agreement that is no longer in effect had a provision that said this or that. And, again, i get the same frustration you do when people try to tell me its something i believe differently. But in any event, i think it would be productive if we did go forward with other parts. And theres nobody going to argue with you that the language of the agreement isnt exactly what it is. So, thank you. Lets go to i had next up senator cruz. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And let me start by saying i know my friend from virginia is speaking in good faith when he spl expresses his support for this deal, but i think the Obama Iran Nuclear<\/a> deal was flawed in virtually every respect. In my judgment, the threat of a nuclear iran is the single greatest threat facing the United States<\/a>. And the Obama Iran Nuclear<\/a> deal was the most catastrophic International Agreement<\/a> since Neville Chamberlain<\/a> led the united king domg. On one front it gave 150 billion to the ayatollah khomeini, to 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 in chanting, death to america. And history teaches us, when someone tells you, they want to kill you, we should believe them. The deal on its face would have led to a nuclear iran. It was designed to be utterly unenforceable. On the face of the deal, numerous sites were deemed exempt from inspections. Military sites were deemed exempt from inspections, which, of course, means thats naturally where the Iranian Regime<\/a> would engage in Additional Nuclear<\/a> research. It also required 21 days advance notice to the regime before any inspection. A provision certain to encourage cheating. Indeed, in some circumstances, the agreement provided that iran would inspect itself a provision so laughably weak, the only consequence of the iran deal that would have occurred is that iran would acquire Nuclear Weapons<\/a>. 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 disastrous Obama Iran Nuclear<\/a> deal is the single most Important National<\/a> security decision the Trump Administration<\/a> has made. And the maximum Pressure Campaign<\/a> is exactly the right approach. Listen, iran remains profoundly dangerous but i would much rather a weakened iran with billions of dollars less resources to use to pay terrorists to kill americans and to fund Nuclear Research<\/a> than an iran flush with cash, racing to catch up with north korea and use Nuclear Weapons<\/a> and icbms to threaten the lives of millions of americans. Now, mr. Hook, you talked about major provisions of the iran deal expiring. Major deals like arms embargo and Ballistic Missile<\/a> test expiring and i agree thats highly troubling. There is an obvious remedy to that. Which is under the terms of resolution 2231. You have the snapback sanctions. And we now have a situation where irans conduct has gotten even worse. Even our european allies acknowledge that iran committed a serious act of war in bombing saudi arabia and taking out about half of their Oil Production<\/a> capability. That act of war merits a real response. Two questions. Does state believe the United States<\/a> is able to trigger the snapback mechanism . And, number two, should we trigger the snapback mechanism . And, senator, thank you for your question. I read your letter from july 2nd. I believe to secretary pompeo that raises this question. And its something which senator rubio and i discussed earlier about whether we can and whether we should reimpose use the 2231 to trigger the snapback of the sanctions. Ive raised this with our Legal Advisers<\/a> office. I know its been in discussion with the nsc legal adviser. Its a question of its a procedural question and interpretation of 2231 that turns definition of what some of the various terms are like participant and other things. I think that yours is a very plausible reading. What we have done since leaving the deal is to allow the other countries to decide whether to stay in the deal. Obviously, i think that even as the French Foreign<\/a> minister said recently on the attacks of obcak it is a seminel event and something we should watch. You have my full authority to invoke the snapback sanction, and i think that we should with this recent attack from saudi arabia to invoke the snapback sanction, and that is a natural response. Second question, you and i have had multiple questions about the civilian Nuclear Waivers<\/a> and as you know another round of waivers is coming up in next couple of weeks. We have waivers right now allowing them to continue construction at the undergrounded foro Nuclear Bunker<\/a> which is a bunker built into the side of the mountain to build Nuclear Weapons<\/a> and waiver to allow iran to continue to work on the iraq plutonium reactor which secretary pompeo says rightly needs to be shut down anyway, and isnt it time to end these waivers and shut down the fordo Nuclear Bunker<\/a> and the plutonium facility in iran. Yes, five restrictions currently in place. Secretary pompeo released those and they are going to expire very, very soon on october 29th. What we have done, and what we have over the course of the couple of years now, tightened the restrictions on Irans Nuclear<\/a> program. We did sanction the Atomic Energy<\/a> organization in iran of november 2018, and in march of this year, we have imposed new sanctions on the Nuclear Sciences<\/a> that are linked to the iran wmd which is linked to the sensitivities, and secretary pompeo is going to issue those around the Teheran Research Reactor<\/a> and so he is going to have a decision to make coming up. You have been a thought lead ore leader on this subject, and we will make sure that it is all before the secretary before he makes this decision. Well, i would strongly urge that you do not extend the waivers given irans spectacularly bad conduct. Thank you, senator cruz. Senator markey. Thank you, mr. Chairman, very much. And so, now on july 23rd interview, secretary pompeo said that iran before the Trump Administration<\/a> came into office violated the nuclear deal, quote, and continued to work on the nuclear program. Mr. Hook, in your opinion, was iran working on the Nuclear Weapons<\/a> 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 materiels to build a Nuclear Weapon<\/a>. Were they out of compliance with the jcpoa in your opinion . I think that if iran is housing an atomic archive and keeping it from the interNational Atomic<\/a> Energy Association<\/a> that they are not incomplia incompliant. And so you agree with secretary mattis and tillerson that they were not incomplete with the jcpoa. I believe that the president had to certify on a regular basis whether iran was or was not in compliance of the deal. The discovery of the atomic archive happened a couple of months before the president left the deal, and i believe it was a factor. So you disagree with secretary tillerson and secretary mattis that they were you believe that they were out of compliance, is that what you are saying . No, what i am saying is that i would have to look at the dates that both secretary til r tillerson and mattis said that, because it was a month or do you believe that the inspectors have not found that iran is out of compliance and definitely was not out of compliance before Donald Trump Took Office<\/a> . I believe that in the reports that the aia does not certify that iran is in compliance, and that is something that the Member States<\/a> do. But i believe that the Iran Nuclear Deal<\/a> set such a low bar for compliance. That is separate of whether they are in compliance. And so i believe is secretary pompeo correct that they were not in compliance . Id have to see exactly what he said and when he said it. Well, let me say that secretary pompeos statements have consequences because the crown prince of saudi arabia is a stated in march of 2018 that without a doubt if iran developed a nuclear bomb, we would follow suit, and that gets into the terms of the agreement of the United States<\/a> agreeing that saudi arabia would not have to in fact comply with the Gold Standard<\/a> for securing uranium and plutonium on the saudi territory which is going to call into question whether they, the saudis would in fact act in a way that would be reacting to an iranian active Nuclear Weapons<\/a> program. Could i speak to that, senator . So from my perspective, the goal has to be that the Trump Administration<\/a> is saying that there is not a active program that is certified by the iaea. And i want to raise another question of not whether or not we differ on the Iranian Nuclear<\/a> deal, but we know that turkey has undermined irans sanctions throughout the region . I can only say that they are in compliance of the you believe they are in compliance . On the key factor of oil, they are not you dont believe that turkey is out of compliance which is important for me to understand. But the problem is that right now, that turkey is endangering the u. S. Troops after another rash decision by President Trump<\/a>, but that is happening near the Syrian Border<\/a> where we reportedly saw 50 u. S. Nuclear weapons at the Incirlik Air Force<\/a> base in turkey, and so the question is will we as a country remove those Nuclear Weapons<\/a> from turkey . They are right now endangering the u. S. Assets inside of syria, and they are at the border, and we have Nuclear Weapons<\/a> and reportedly 50 Nuclear Weapons<\/a> on the incirlik air base, and erdogan has become a less and less reliable partner. So, the president just moments ago said that he is confident that the weapons are secure because they are at a quote large powerful air base. Well, that large powerful air base is inside of turkey with erdogan right now undermining American Securities<\/a> in a way that is almost impossible to fully understand the magnitude right now, and the Ripple Effect<\/a> and the law of unintending consequences that is happening and happening and happening and turkey has actually previously restricted our access to that base during a crisis. So, from my perspective, instead of irresponsibly pulling our troops back from the turkish border, the president should be pulling our Nuclear Weapons<\/a> out of turkey instead, and that is the right signal to send, and the accurate reliability of the Erdogan Administration<\/a> in terms of american security. So this whole dynamic in the Trump Administration<\/a> has tremendous Ripple Effect<\/a>s, pulling out of the iranian deal, playing footsie with the saudis in a 1, 2, 3 agreement which is less than the Nuclear Agreement<\/a> and having them with plutonium and uranium, and our administration saying they are which is going to create a Ripple Effect<\/a>, and then turning a blind eye to the turkish aggressive military action along our borders that endangers our interests and potentially if things really go awry could potentially endanger the security of the Nuclear Weapons<\/a> inside of turkey that are made in the usa. So all of this is something that basically points to the figure and the result from my perspective is that the Nuclear Weapons<\/a> of the United States<\/a> in turkey is a relic of the cold war. They are not necessary. They should not be there. And it is highly unclear that the turks would ever allows us to be using the weapons in a retaliatory strike against russia with whom at least ostensibly right now they are partnering in this effort in syria. It is absolutely a crazy policy, and we have to get the nukes out of turkey and do so immediately. Did you want to comment . Yes. Could i say on the first part of the question about saudi. Prior to the Iran Nuclear Deal<\/a> and senator markey and i have had many conversations about nonproliferation. Prior to the Iran Nuclear Deal<\/a>, the Security Council<\/a> passed resolution 737 and under the article 39 it prohibited iran from enriching. And the Iran Nuclear Deal<\/a>, and by the way, that is the right standard and there should be no enrichment for the worlds lead state sponsor of terrorism and i know that you like the 1, 2, 3 agreement that was negotiated in the Bush Administration<\/a> with the uae, but that agreement allows the uae to have a Peaceful Nuclear<\/a> program, but they cant enrich. Unfortunately the Iran Nuclear Deal<\/a> lifted the prohibition in 1737, and then conceded the point that iran can enrich. Once you do that, you are not going to be able to sign up anybody for the 1, 2, 3 agreement, because you have breached the standard of no enrichment, and we were able to get the 1, 2, 3 agreement, because we had a standard of no enrichment and so the Iran Nuclear Deal<\/a> has caused all of the countries around the middle east to see iran enriching and saying why cant i enrich, and much better to restore, and if you are looking at the secretary pompeos group of 12, the top is to restore the standard of no enrichment, and that standard was voted unanimously by china, russia, p3 and all 10 elected members of the council repeatedly. It was the negotiation of the mr. Chairman, i have been patiently waiting and could you please put this in writing. I will say, mr. Chairman, a bad deal with iran should not be the justification for bad deal with the saudi arabians, and so to walk back a bad deal is not a precedent for another bad deal. And mr. Hook, is assad a friend of the United States<\/a> . No. Do you consider him a war criminal . Yes. Is he aligned with iran . Iran has been supporting assad. Without iran helping assad he would not be around because hezbollah came to his aid when nobody else would, do you agree with that . Yes. And russia and iran and keep assad functioning. You are a good man and a good choice for this. So my questions are really not about you, and your policies, but it is about this president s policies. I could not agree with more of what senator markey, this is the most screwed up decision i have seen since i have been in congress, and the president said today, the syria, and the invasion of turkey, and turkeys invasion of syria is of no consequence to us, and do you know why he would . He imposed sanctions friday. And i cheered them on. I dont know how pompeo and pence bring an end to the bloodshed before they leave, because if syria wants to fight for the land, that is up to turkey and syria, and i view the situation on the turkey border with syria to be with the United States<\/a> to be strategically brilliant. I dont see anything brilliant about this. Do you believe that the kurds are safer today than they were before turkeys invasion . That is a question for ambassador jeffrey. I understand that there is a briefing happening and i am a special representative for iran, and i can answer the iran questions on syria. Do you see iran moving in to take the oil fields in syria if we withdraw the oilfields . I dont see intelligence on that. Do you believe it is a logical move for iran if america abandoned syria . Irans interests in syria is mostly around supporting assad and creating a strategic. Well, if the oil fields are there for the taking, and leave, what is the likelihood that iran goes in and would it matter . That is not something that i am at ererty to speculate. Well, i will speculate. If we withdraw the forces and abandoned the oilfield, iran will go in and our friends in israel will be in a world of hurt. If iran is stronger in syria, it is the detriment to israel . Yes. Do you believe it is in our National Security<\/a> interests to make sure that we have a partnership in syria to contain irans ambitions . Yes, that is our strategy to reverse irans power projection and to deny them the do you agree that if isis comes roaring back, it is going to be difficult to contain the kurds will have a hard time fighting turkey and taking care of the isis prisoners and that is a bad spot for the kurds to be in, do you agree . In terms of the position the kurds are in is for jim jeffrey. Who is the biggest winner of the breakdown in syria . Would bit the iranians . If there is a vacuum created by an american withdrawal, do you see iran as a potential big winner . So i think that we need to, and this is obviously a fluid situation. We dont want anything done in syria to be to the detriment of our iran policy. Okay. Iran policy is to contain iran, and reduce their ability to project power and create upheaval, and do you agree with that . I did not hear that last part. Can you repeat . To create upheaval. Yes, we are trying to undermine irans ability to do that. Do you believe if they seize the oil fields in syria, they will be stronger and more resources and not less . I dont know the odds of iran taking the oil fields in syria. Well, if they do. So what we have tried to do is that if iran it is a s is a simple questi they seized the oil fields in syria, would it help the regime in terms of the capability . If they are able to get more revenue and that is a bad thing well, it is not a hard question. The answer is yes. So my view is that the biggest winner of this decision by the president , if he follows through to it, to abandon syria is going to be iran, isis and the biggest lose ser going r is going to beh allies and our friends who fought with us in israel. Do you see turkeys actions going into syria as undercutting the policies toward iran . Our diplomacy, and so i would say that our troops in the northeast are there to ensure the enduring defeat of isis, and the diplomats there are to work well, talk about the troops there to ensure the enduring defeat of isis by partnering with the kurds and the Syrian Democratic<\/a> forces . Beyond the isis mission and how it is we are not there in large enough numbers, and it is the thousands of the kurdish, and the syrian fighters there on the border that we are relying on . Do you agree with that . That is a question for the person who is i am the u. S. Representative for iran. I will end this, because i asked you a simple question. Does erdogans invasion of syria putting our kurdish allies at risk and driving President Trump<\/a> out of syria and military president s, does that over time aid iran . I believe that the strategy that we have put in place will accomplish the objectives to deny iran does your strategy include allowing erdogan to slaughter the kurds . That is not part of our strategy. Is your strategy include leaving the oil fields in syria for the taking by iran . I have not heard any proposal to enable iran to take oil fields in syria. Senator menendez. I just dissociate myself with senator grahams line of questioning, and it is a legitimate line of questioning, and serious one. Mr. Hook, you referenced eu actions, but the eu actions some of which you read are nowhere in line with the sanctions that we have levied against the iran, and that is a fair statement, right . No, it is not true. Because the eu of the okay. And the eu sanctions against iran . The eu and unfortunately, this is one of the weaknesses of the deal is that the european uni union, i think ksh. Mr. Hook, you are an excellent lawyer and you have developed the expertise of the state Department Going<\/a> on and on without being specific for an answer to a question. I have a simple question, do the eu sanctions line up with our sanctions against iran, yes or no . Yes. They have all of the sanctions that we have no, you had asked me they are not as strong as the United States<\/a> sanctions and you had heralded that our sanctions were more powerful and consequential than when we had the eu sanctions, and so the eu sanctions are not the same as ours . They are i believe complimentary. I did not ask you complimentary, but the same as ours. What is so difficult about that . I never said they were the same. I am happy to review the transcript, but i never said that. There were a series of eu sanctions and actions, and that have i said european. European. Let me finish. I get to ask the questions and you can answer them. Happy to. The eu actions do not equate to the sanctions that the United States<\/a> has levied against iran, and that is a fair statement, it is not . Can you repeat it so i understand it precisely. The eu actions do not equate to the sanctions that the United States<\/a> has levied against iran, is that fair . They do not equate and i never said they equate. Okay. Fine. Now, you also said that iran has a history of coming to the table because of sanctions. I was the author of most of the sanctions. The reality is that however, that those sanctions were multilateralized by europe and the others and the magnitude of the consequence was greater and that brought them to the table. But your sanctions unilaterally have not brought them to the table. You talked about having diplomatic leverage in syria to deal and thwart iran from where we want them, and well, the president just made a statement that russias expansion after the u. S. Departs is fine and all of their fighting over there is a lot of sand. Well, when you have 14,000 to 18,000 isis fighters and when you have another 10,000 that were imprisoned by the kurds that may be released and several hundred released and regrouped with them, that is about more than a lot of sand. When you are creating a land bridge for iran to come into syria and attack our allies, the state of israel, that is about a lot more than sand. So i dont know what leverage you are referring to that we have in syria, because we have outsourced syria to russia, and talking about reconstruction funds as our leverage, that is not only years away, but i am sure that others will fill the void with syria if and when that time comes, because they have a big stake in it, and ie, russia, just to name a few, so we dont really have any leverage in syria, and that which we have, we just expended, and my question is at what point if iran continues to enrich and do all of the things that you had admitted they were doing as rhea sult , as a result of them walking away and we have no obligation anymore and at what point will the size and the sophistication of the Irans Nuclear<\/a> Program Force<\/a> the administration to decide whether military action is necessary to restrain Irans Nuclear<\/a> program . I think that question is probably best left to a classified briefing. Without the specifics, have you come to a determination . A determination of what . As to what is the size and the sophistication of Irans Nuclear<\/a> program that would force the administration to consider military action . Without getting into what it is, have you come to a conclusion of this is a nonsetting classification and i cannot have that discussion. It is a simple answer that has nothing to do with classification. Oh, it does, because you have asked how close iran is to a Nuclear Weapon<\/a> and you have asked that is all a matter of Public Information<\/a> and i dont need you to testify to that or to speak to that and that is not what i am asking you the speak to. I have asked you if you have come to a clungs thonclusion th our military is always prepared for any contingency. That is not an answer. And you agree that the full enforcement of the sanctions on iran is important, right . Yes. And in the sanctions regime, it is weaker when people figure out how the evade them to the benefit of iran is a fair statement . Yes. And nose who seek to evade the sanctions with iran should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law . That is our policy, yes. We will sanction any sanctionable behavior. So in the case of the reza zarrab who is a turkish gold trader helped to facilitate the transaction. Erdogan who was the Prime Minister<\/a> at the time reportedly knew about the scheme. And zarrab was arrested in 2016 and then hired Rudy Giuliani<\/a> and former general mukasey to represent him. And so you testified that he came to see you, and when he said that, did you know that Rudy Giuliani<\/a> was going to accompany him . I dont recall if that was mentioned, but i know that he was there. He was there, and he just showed up. And so for the second time, did you know that he was going to accompany mr. Mukasey . I may or may not have, and i am not sure how it is material, but i honored the request of general mukasey to do the meeting and i did the meeting and no action was taken. Well, the price must be right, because both of them were willing to put the reputation on the line to represent somebody who work sed so hard to undermi the american interests. Are you familiar with the Washington Post<\/a> article that both mr. Giuliani and mr. Mukasey worked to free an imprisoned mr. Zarrab and a meeting with mr. Tillson . No, i am not aware of the meeting. He never spoke to you about an effort . No. And the october 10th report says that as you have stated before that mr. Giuliani in addition to mr. Mukasey met with you the discuss the case at the state department. Is that true . There were two meetings early in the administration. And it was about mr. Zarrab. I have not said that. I said consular. And consular issues are about visas and whether or not a visa has been given, a visitor visa for work permit,kou consular issue, and so you are trying to hide behind a consular issue when somebody is seeking to evade sanctions on iran through a consular issue, and that is not a consular issue, was it . It was presented as a consular issue. But it is not. But it is presented as a consular issue. Well, i could call a dog a cat and that is not going to mean it is a dog, and that is just avoiding it. The meeting did concern a consular proposal and it was not acted upon, and i think that anybody who knows me knows that i vigorously enforce all sanctions against iran. When we have the highest office in the land empowering people seeking to make a deal when you have the biggest violator of u. S. Sanctions on iran, it is hard to believe that we have a universal message on iran that our sanctions will be vigorously enforced and preserved. And so it breaks credibility at the end of the day. I dont see how it does. We have had in place, and there is no administration in history who has imposed more sanctions on iran than this administration, and there is no historic precedent for greater enforcement of the sanctions, and there is nothing that impacted our sanctions at all as a consequence of the two meetings. Mr. Zarrab was the biggest violator of u. S. iran sanctions of any single individual. Is that not true . In the Prior Administration<\/a>, yes, and he is in jail. The bottom line is i dont know what else but the bottom line is and it was not it was not the Prior Administration<\/a> who is letting the free agents go to make a deal to let him loose. I did not come on, come on. Stop with the Prior Administration<\/a> stuff. And no, you had asked a question for this is a question that you met with them not the Prior Administration<\/a>, but you met with them. I met with them and took no action. So we are in full agreement on this that we need to vigorously enforce the sanction, and we have. Thank you very much, gentlemen, and that is going to conclude the hearing, and a sincere thank you to mr. Hook. I said it at the beginning of the hearing that you were the right man for the job, and certainly, you have proven that to be the case. I thank you for your service to the country. I think that you have been an excellent witness as far as describing how we are attempting to handle a very difficult situation. I want you to know that the appreciation of the American People<\/a> is there for you. So thank you so much for the information of the members, and the record is going to remain open, and we will close the record friday at the close of business, and so we would ask you if you have questions to respond to, we ask you the respond as promptly as possible, and the answers will be included in the record. The committee is hereby adjourned. Here is a look at what is ahead at cspan3, the house foreign aftfairs subcommittee i going to get an update on the withdrawal of troops from syria. Live coverage at 2 00 p. M. Here on cspan3. Later, democratic president ial candidate joe biden is going to hold a Campaign Event<\/a> in davenport, iowa live at 5 00 p. M. Eastern. You can follow all of the coverage online at cspan. Org and listen with the free cspan radio app. Cspan and the polling firm recently conducted a survey on american voting and attitudes, and we asked how committed the Political Parties<\/a> are to making sure that the voting is fair and accurate, and the attitudes of the republicans and democrats are split right down the middle with 49 believing that the gop is committed and 50 believing they are not. And meanwhile, 51 believe that the democrats are committed and 38 disagree. Whydiscrepancy . It is largely due to those who identify as independents. 48 believe that there is a commitment to free and accurate elections, and only 60 believe the same of the democratic party. We asked how much trust and confidence the public has in making choices, and only 46 had a great deal or fair amount, and looking at the partisan breakdown among the answers only republicans showing a majority on the question. You can find all of the results including whether americans think that states and localities with the history of voter discrimination should decide their own election processes at cspan. O cspan. Org. The National Party<\/a> leader nicolas sturgeon called for a new Scottish Referendum<\/a> at 2020 at the Party Annual Conference<\/a> this week, and earlier, a referendum vote failed to get enough votes. In the remarks in scotland, the leader was also critical of british Prime Minister<\/a> Boris Johnson<\/a> and president trum. President trump","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia801004.us.archive.org\/9\/items\/CSPAN3_20191016_163600_U.S._Special_Rep._for_Iran_at_Senate_Foreign_Relations_Committee\/CSPAN3_20191016_163600_U.S._Special_Rep._for_Iran_at_Senate_Foreign_Relations_Committee.thumbs\/CSPAN3_20191016_163600_U.S._Special_Rep._for_Iran_at_Senate_Foreign_Relations_Committee_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}