Cspan2. Former state department and National Security officials testified on the Trump Administrations iran policy before the House Foreign Affairs committee. Secretary of state mike pompeo declined an invitation to testify on the president s decision to kill iranian general Qassem Soleimani. Committee chair representative eliot engel threatened to subpoena secretary pompeo in order to obtain information on the u. S. Drone strike. Subject to limitation in the rules. Before i begin, i want to make the big announcement that todays mr. Mccalls birthday. So happy birthday. Im 35 years once again. Me, too. Pursuant to notice were here today to examine Trump Administration policy towards iran. I welcome our panel of distinguished witnesses. Welcome to members of the public and the press, as well. We had hoped to hear from secretary pompeo today, as well. After we invited him, he announced that he would instead be in california. Thats unfortunate whether you agree with this administrations approach to iran or not. I dont think there is a member of this committee who doesnt want to hear from mr. Pompeo and the American People certainly deserve to hear answers with our our troops and diplomats being asked to stand in harms way. But this committee will conduct oversight on this issue one way or another. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. Under the Trump Administration, weve seen tensions with iran ratchet up bit by bit to a point earlier this month when it seemed we were on the brink of war. Iran bears much of the blame for this escalation. The regime is the worlds most prolific state sponsor of terrorism and believes that provocative and destabilizing behavior strengthens its hand. Its what we expect from iran. Whats helped stave off calamity for decades is the United States doesnt behave that way. We dont play on irans turf. Being a world leader means you dont emulate your adversaries. You use your power judiciously by trying to change behavior while seeking to diffuse conflict and present bloodshed. Thats why the killing of Qassem Soleimani was such a shock. Not because soleimani was a good guy. Just the opposite. He had the blood of Many Americans on his hands. He was a hardened terrorist. Democrats and republicans alike know the world is better off without him. But killing him was a massive escalation. Those who view him as a martyr have already used his death as a pretext for violence and retribution. Americans have been warned to leave iraq and have been threatened with kidnapping. Iranian missiles have struck bases where americans are stationed. Thousands more men and women in uniform have been deployed to the region. The Iraqi Parliament has asked our troops to leave the country even though we rely on that partnership in the fight against isis. Fortunately, for the moment, both the administration and the iranians have taken a step back. But we have to ask why was it worth turning the simmer up to a boil . Thats where things start to get confusing. At first, the administration said there was an imminent threat. Why is that important . Because in the case of an imminent threat, the president has authority under article two of the constitution to protect americans. No one doubts that. But then we heard the strike went forward because soleimani did so many bad things in the past and was plotting for the future. Then when that didnt work, they went back to an imminent threat. But we didnt know where or when it would take place. In fact, we dont even know if it was imminent, which makes you wonder if the word imminent still has any meaning. Next, an embassy was going to be attacked. Then four embassies were going to be attacked. Then maybe it wasnt four embassies. Then its widely reported that there was another failed strike on a different Iranian Quds Force official in yemen. So what was the justification for the strike which killed general soleimani . Surely, neither of the existing war authorizations, the post 9 11 thaurgsz 9 9 11 authorization or the 2002 iraq war authorization could possibly be torted into explanation for attacking in yemen. Heavy reliance on the 2002 law, which authorized the war against saddam hussein, is especially dubious. Was there any legal basis whatsoever for this strike that took us to the brink of open hostilities with iran . Were not asking these questions because we mourn the death of soleimani or sympathize with terrorists. And let me say right now that i wont tolerate any member of this committee making that sort of accusation against other members of this body, even in a general sense. We are all patriotic americans, democrats, and republicans alike. Were asking these questions because the American People dont want to go to war with iran. Were asking these questions because congress has not authorized war with iran. As we reaffirmed on the house floor last week, were asking these questions because war powers are vested in the congress and if we allow any administration to carry out strikes like these, to risk plunging us into war without scrutiny, then we might as well cross out article 1, section 8. I wanted secretary pompeo here today because i think the administration is not being straight with the country or the congress. And whether you thought the soleimani strike was a good idea or not, if you believe that congress is a coequal branch of government and that we need to take back the constitutional powers weve given away to successive administrations, then i hope youll join me in saying we need answers, on the record, in an open setting so the American People can know the truth. We will not be deterred from our oversight efforts. Since secretary pompeo isnt here, im sending him a letter today, as well as to secretary esper, demanding that they produce information on the legal basis for the strike that took out soleimani and on a range of other topics. I will make those letters part of the record of this hearing. I hope our witnesses can shed some light on these topics, as well. I will recognize each of you to make an opening statement. And let me just say that if secretary pompeo is not going to cooperate with the committee, then we will consider, very strongly, taking other actions in the future, including subpoenas. So i will recognize each of you to make an opening statement. Pending which i yield to my friend, the Ranking Member, mr. Mccall of texas. Thank you, mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing. I will not repeat the arguments i made on the house floor last week during the war powers debate. Other than to say that the world is safer without Qassem Soleimani. Irans terror commander on the battlefield. And i think that is something, mr. Chairman, i think you and i both agree on on this. Former obama dh secretary, friend of mine and dod general counsel jay johnson said that soleimani was a, quote, lawful military objective and that no further congressional authorization was necessary. I agree with the former Obama Administration cabinet member. I talked to him extensively about this strike. He used to authorize these strikes under the Obama Administration. They conducted thousands of them. I wish democrats would join in praising the president , as republicans did, when Osama Bin Laden was killed. In many ways, soleimani was was just as important, if not more important of a target. I know that my colleagues on the other side are also relieved that this threat has been eliminated. But they may not be able to say so as much publicly. I wish they were more willing to recognize that the Administration Made the right decision in taking out soleimani. Debating issues of war and peace is perhaps our most important responsibility on this committee and as members of congress. And im glad that we are finally exerting our jurisdiction under article one, as i am sure we are not done dealing with this issue. Soleimani, make no mistake, was a mastermind of terror in the middle east for over two decades. He was designated as a terrorist by president obama. He was responsible for the deaths of over 600 americans and wounded thousands of more. Last year, iran attacked six commercial ships and downed a u. S. Drone. Beginning in october, soleimani orchestrated 11 attacks on u. S. Forces in iraq, killing an american and wounding four u. S. Service members. Soleimani ordered an attack on our embassy in baghdad. Members. Soleimani ordered an attack on our embassy in baghdad, and the damage was extensive as shown in these pictures. We are lucky that no Embassy Personnel were hurt or taken hostage. Two days after the attack on our embassy, the administration struck soleimani because, to quote secretary pompeo, he was actively plotting to take big action that would put dozens if not hundreds of u. S. Lives at risk. This was an imminent threat. Chairman of joint chiefs said the administration would have been culpably negligent if they had not acted. What if the president had not acted and more americans were killed in an attack directed by soleimani. What would the president s critics have said then . I believe having been in the white house the president has shown great restraint regarding iran. Many other president s may have struck after the drone was downed. Many other president s may have struck after the american was killed. Many other president s would strike after the embassy was attacked. How Many Americans and how many embassies need to be attacked before we respond . Hes been clear and has told me personally just last week that he does not want war with iran. He wants to deescalate, not escalate. And hes been very clear with the strategy on iran as he told the nation on wednesday, he wants a deal that allows iran to thrive and prosper, provided that iran finally ends its destabilizing activities in the middle east. Iran needs to stop its Nuclear Program, stop developing Ballistic Missiles, stop supporting terrorists and proxies, stop taking hostages, stop oppressing its own people and act as a responsible, normal nation as a normal nation would on the world stage. For the second time in recent months, the iranian people were bravely protesting the conduct of this thee cattic, dispottic regime. Protesters are furious because the regime shot down a commercial airliner just last week killing 176 innocent people, many of whom were iranian. And even worse, the regime did not even admit to having done it for three days. They intentionally lied to their own people and to the world. We are already seeing aggregations, including video footage, depicting the regimes violence against its protesters. These are human rights violations. An iranian olympic medallist announced shes deflected iran because of lies and hypocrisy. Yesterday a state tv actor resigned saying it was hard for me to believe the killing of my countrymen. I apologize for lying to you on tv for 13 years. In november, the Iranian Regime brutally suppressed popular protests sparked by an increasing gasoline prices, shutting down the internet, and then killing 1,500 of their own citizens. Let me be clear, we stand with the people of iran, demanding accountability from their leaders. And i want to thank the president for loudly and clearly defending the rights of the iranian people and urging the regime not to use violence against them. I would like to close by focusing on iraq. The United States supports a strong, sovereign, and prosperous iraq. Those responsible for violence against protesters and journalists must be held accountable including for the killing of two journalists this weekend. We stand with iraqi people and support their right to freely assemble. We will always support freedom wherever it is. We will always support human rights wherever it is a struggle. And with that, mr. Chairman, i want to thank the witnesses. I look forward to their testimony, and i yield back. I thank the gentleman. Ill now introduce our witnesses. Dr. Richard haas is the president of the counsel on foreign relations. He previously served as the middle east adviser to george h. W. Bush as the state director policy of planning under secretary of state colin powell and in various positions during the state departments during the carter and reagan administrations. He was also u. S. Coordinator for policy toward the future of afghanistan and the u. S. Envoy to both the cypress and Northern Island peace talks. Avril haynes is a senior fellow at Johns Hopkins university and nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and principle at west exec advisers. During the the last administration, mrs. Haines served as assistant to the president and National Security adviser. She also served as the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence agency and Legal Adviser to the National Security council in addition to others. Stephen hadley is a principle of Rice Hadley Gates llc, an International Strategic consulting firm. Hes the board chair of the United States institute of peace and executive vice chair of the board of directors of the atlantic council. He served four years as the assistant to the president for National Security affairs from 2005 to 2009. From 2001 to 2005, mr. Hadley was the assistant to the president and deputy National Security adviser served under condoleezza rice. Mr. Hadley had previously served on the National SecurityCouncil Staff and in the Defense Department including assistant secretary of defense, printed National Security policy from 1989 to 1993. So, i thank our witnesses for joining us. Without objection, your complete prepared testimony will be made part of the record. Ill now recognize you each for five minutes to summarize your opening statement, and well begin with dr. Haas. Thank you and good morning. Let me say that recent events that were discussing here today did not take place in a vacuum. They can only be understood against the backdrop of nearly 3 quarters of a century of history, in particular recent history. Here i would highlight the american decision in 2018 to exit the 2015 Nuclear Agreement, the jcpoa, and the decision to introduce significant sanctions against iran. These sanctions constituted a form of economic warfare. Iran was not in a position to respond in kind and instead instituted a series of military actions meant to make the United States and others pay a price for these sanctions. And therefore, to conclude, they needed to be removed. It is also important, i believe, to point out here that the United States did not provide a diplomatic alternative to iran when it imposed these sanctions. This was the context in which the targeted killing of Qassem Soleimani took place. This event needs to be assessed from two vantage points. One is legality. It would have been justified to attack soleimani if he was involved in mounting a military action that was imminent. If there is evidence that can responsibly made public supporting that these criteria were met of imminence, it should be. If, however, it turns out the criteria were not met, that what took place was an action of choice rather than necessity, i fear it will lead to an openended conflict between the United States and iran fought in many places with many tools and few red lines that will be observed. The president tweeted yesterday that the question of imminence doesnt really matter. I would respectfully disagree. It is treated in International Law as a legitimate form of selfdefense. Preventive attacks, though, are something very different. They are mounted against a gathering threat rather than an imminent and a world of regular preventive actions would be one in which conflict was prevalent. Its even more important to assess wisdom of the targeted killing. Theres no doubt as the chairman said that mr. Soleimani had blood on his hands and was a force for instability in the region. And i dont know of any critic of the strike who mourns his loss. But just because soleimani was evil and just because killing him may have been legally justifiable does not make it wise. And here i have several doubts. First, there are other, and i believe, better ways to reestablish deterrence with iran. Secondly, the killing interrupted what i believe were useful political dynamics in both iran and iraq. Thirdly, u. S. Iraqi ties were deep deeply strained. Fourthly, weve been forced to send more forces to the region rather than make them available elsewhere. Fifthly, given our worldwide challenges i do not believe it is in our strategic interest to have a new war in the middle east. And six, iran has announced plans to take odds with the jcpao which will shrink the window it needs to build a Nuclear Weapon if it decides to. If it does so, it will provide the United States and israel with difficult and costly choices. Im fully confident that many of you will disagree with part or all of my assessment. But however we got here, we are where we are. So, let me just say a few things about where we are, what we can expect, and let me m