The Disturbing Agreement with Iran
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Thank you. It is an honor to be here with you to join you in this discussion. The world has watched anxiously as the P5+1 had a series of negotiations that culminated 2 weeks ago in an interim agreement.
As we join here tonight to talk about some of the issues in this agreement, what we will be looking for is to ensure that whatever happens, Iran is not allowed to achieve nuclear capability, and that our allies in the region, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and others, are protected from the prospect of a nuclear Iran.
I yield back.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Thank you. I want to again thank Representative Collins for holding this important conversation tonight to talk about the dangers and long-term implications of a nuclear deal with Iran.
I think it is both timely and necessary that Congress continue this conversation and push hard to convince the Senate that further action is required to help prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Personally, I remain most skeptical that the Iranian regime has the ability or willingness to live up to the tenets and the terms of the Geneva agreement reached with the P5+1.
We have worked diligently over the years, over a decade, to maintain a robust sanctions regime that brought Iran to the negotiating table, but it was not to come to the table that the sanctions were put in place. These sanctions were put in place to ensure or achieve the end of Iran's nuclear program; to ensure that Iran is not a nuclear-capable country.
In July, as was mentioned, this body passed, by a vote of 400-20, the most sweeping sanctions to date in order to address the ongoing threat of a nuclear Iran. That legislation must be taken up in the Senate to hold Iran accountable, to ensure that Iran fully understands the implications of not completing a deal in 6 months that will eliminate its nuclear threat.
However, there are several points about the deal reached with Iran that are particularly worrisome. First, this interim agreement cannot be allowed to become the permanent agreement. The so-called joint plan of action is fraught with dangers, including allowing Iran to continue enrichment at the 5 percent level; allowing Iran to continue construction at the Iraq plutonium reactor, which has no purpose other than for military uses; allowing the ongoing enhancement of Iran's technical capabilities.
This agreement does not address Iran's ongoing program, its long-term activities. It doesn't require Iran to fully disclose all of its activities. This agreement does not address any covert sites which are not yet discovered or disclosed by Iran.
This deal, as I said, is fraught with dangers, and our purpose in Congress and the United States and with our allies must be to try to navigate the joint plan of action to a permanent agreement that will ultimately freeze Iran's activities, roll them back, and require Iran to dismantle Natanz, Fordow, Arak and other facilities and, ultimately, and most importantly, permanently block and permanently close any path Iran has to a nuclear capability.
That includes no enrichment, no plutonium reactor, full transparency, full disclosure, unlimited and unfettered inspections.
With that, I will yield back to Mr. Collins.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Thank you. I think it is critical to emphasize the bipartisan aspect of the support in Congress for a strong sanctioned regime, and the security and protection of our allies, in particular, Israel.
As my colleague mentioned, in October, I, with Luke Messer, authored a letter to the President calling on him to push forward with sanctions. There were 78 members of the freshman class who signed on to that letter, Republican and Democrat, shoulder to shoulder, standing together, saying we must be strong.
Again, the interim agreement cannot move to anything near what is a permanent agreement. More importantly, it cannot lead to the collapse of the sanctions regime. We have worked too hard and come too far to let that happen.
In my opinion, I think we need to ensure that the architecture of the sanctions are reinforced, are broadened, are deepened and hardened, so that 6 months from now, if Iran fails to live to up to its commitment and the consequences are sufficiently severe, Iran understands that the likelihood of further action, all actions on the table, including a credible military threat, remain, so that ultimately Iran understands this is the moment, this is the time to abandon their nuclear aspirations.
This is why the sanctions are put in place. This is why it is critical for the Senate to pass the bill we passed in July and make sure Iran understands that not adhering to the agreement, not abandoning its nuclear program, will have dire consequences in 6 months. With that, I yield back.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Thank you again.
And you hit on a crucial point. For Israel, a nuclear Iran is an existential threat. It is life and death at the front lines. But also as you touched on, Israel has no greater a friend than the United States, and that relationship is a strategic relationship for both parties. We have no better ally. Israel is the only stable democratic country in the region. Israel is reliable. Israel is our friend, and we will always remember that.
I think it is also important to understand the breadth and scope of the Iranian program. You touched on that Iran is seeking to control the nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to yellowcake to enrichment to, ultimately, weapons grade. And that is a program that has spread throughout the country, from Isfahan to Natanz and Fordow and, ultimately, in the weaponization area at Parchin.
The second piece is weaponization. It is one thing to control the fuel cycle; it is another thing to turn that into a nuclear weapon. Iran is working aggressively to do that, and this deal does not address their weaponization programs.
And finally, once you control the fuel cycle, once you are able to have a weapon, it is delivery. And Iran, with their intercontinental ballistic missiles, ICBMs, is working to develop a capability to deliver such a weapon of mass destruction not just in this region but throughout the world.
Iran, for Israel, is an existential threat. But Iran, for the region, and Iran, for the world, is as extreme a threat as it is for Israel. We must prevent a nuclear Iran not just because Israel is our ally, but because a nuclear Iran is a threat to the whole region--a threat to nuclear destabilization, a nuclear arms race among other countries in the region--and that is what we are focused on. That is why it is so critical at this moment, as Iran is months away from the capability of having a nuclear weapon, we focus aggressively on closing the pathways--freezing, reversing, dismantling, and, ultimately, permanently blocking any pathway Iran has for a nuclear weapon.
With that, I yield back to my friend from Georgia.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Thank you.
As you said, the question, why do we care about Iran? It is actually a question I don't hear that often in my district because I think a lot of the people in my community understand that, when someone makes a threat to annihilate another country, you listen to the threat.
When we were in Israel--37 Democratic Members traveled to Israel in August, followed by a comparable sized group of Republican Members. On our trip, we had a chance to hear from a former chief of intelligence, Amos Yadlin. And he made the statement that the only existential threat to Israel is the marriage of ideology of destruction with nuclear capability. We face that threat now. That is why we are here having this conversation. That is why, over the last decade, we have worked diligently to create the architecture of the sanctions regime that did, indeed, bring Iran to the negotiating table.
This joint interim agreement keeps the sanctions regime in place. But over the next 6 months, it is our responsibility--the United States, the United States Congress, our allies--to make sure that that sanctions regime not only stays in place, but stays robust and becomes stronger so that, again, Iran understands the challenges.
I have said many times that history is going to judge us with one question on Iran: Did we prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon? This moment in history faces us at this moment in time. This agreement must not be allowed to be permanent. The United States and our allies must ensure that Iran does not further move down the path to nuclear capability.
Iran is estimated to be months--at most, a year--away from a nuclear weapon. The next 6 months, if we are going to enforce this agreement, must make sure that Iran doesn't get any closer--not one moment, not 1 month, not 1 inch. This agreement has to be put in place in
such a way that we can guarantee Iran is not moving forward.
What do some of those actions require from us? What I hope to do in the Foreign Affairs Committee and together with my Republican colleagues is to try to create a specific understanding of the timetables for implementation. The joint agreement doesn't lay that out. I want to know: What are the milestones? What are the expectations and deliverables that Iran must arrive at at each milestone? What is the proof we are going to require of Iran to demonstrate that they have achieved the specifications of the agreement at the specified time? And most importantly, what are the consequences if Iran doesn't achieve its milestones, if Iran uses its agreement to even start or try to delay?
We need to make sure we stay vigilant and we stay diligent to ensure that Iran can't move forward on its aspirations for a nuclear weapon.
With that, I yield back to my colleague.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
You talk about the relationship. As you noted, Harry S. Truman was the first to recognize the new state of Israel in 1948, after the British left the mandate. Immediately upon its declaration of independence, Israel was attacked by five nations. Throughout its history, Israel has faced hostility from its neighbors throughout the region.
Since 1973, the Yom Kippur War, as a 12-year-old boy I remember vividly coming out of synagogue that day, sitting in the back seat of my parents' car, listening to the radio, and not knowing if Israel was going to survive. It was an existential threat.
The United States and Israel have had an unbreakable relationship that continues to be to this very day an unbreakable, critically important relationship. Right now, the relationship between the United States and Israel has never been better across a whole variety of aspects: sharing of intelligence and sharing of military expertise. The United States has helped and jointly developed with Israel David's Sling, the Arrow system, and most recently helped fund the Iron Dome, which proved to be a game-changer in Israel's war in Gaza exactly a year ago this month. In that war, you will recall, rockets rained down on southern Israel from Gaza. Yet the Iron Dome system was able to intercept virtually all of those rockets, allowing Israel to avoid having to invade Gaza by land, achieving its goals and saving countless lives on both sides of the border. It is the U.S.-Israel relationship that allows the development of such systems as Iron Dome and others.
I am also proud that we were able to work together--and I thank you for your support--for the Israel Qualitative Military Edge Enhancement Act. What used to take 4 years of review, at a time when changes in military capabilities are accelerating at an unprecedented pace, this act reduces to 2 years.
As you said, what used to be focused on strictly conventional weaponry, we understand that the current conflicts are taking place as much in cyberspace as airspace and ground. It is critical that Israel maintain its critical advantage, its qualitative military edge, in all aspects of that.
I was particularly proud that the Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously voted that bill to come to the floor, and I hope we will take it up here shortly as well.
The relationship between the United States and Israel is far more than military and security. We share values. We share understanding in science, developments of new medical technologies, medicines, and developments in agriculture.
The relationship between the United States and Israel is so strong because we share so much, and we understand that even on the security level, as much as Israel relies on the United States, the United States has benefited from Israel's security measures as well.
One must think no further than the Iraq war and go back to 1981, when Israel, against world condemnation, attacked the nuclear reactor at Osirak. One can only think what would have happened when the United States had its own conflict with Iraq in 1991, or 2003, if Iraq had had nuclear weapons.
The U.S.-Israel relationship is critical. It has been that way for the 65 years of Israel's existence. It has been incredibly important since 1973. We wouldn't have the Camp David Accords of 1979 and the peace between Israel and Egypt if not for the U.S. engagement. We wouldn't have the peace between Israel and Jordan if not for the work of the U.S. administrations.
It is critical that as we stand here fighting so hard for America's security, fighting so hard to prevent
a nuclear Iran, that we understand that the mutual relationship between United States and Israel is a critical component of all of that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
As we wrap up, let me just again express my sincerest gratitude for allowing me to participate this evening with you to talk about really two critically important issues: our unbreakable, special relationship with the free, independent Jewish state of Israel, and our necessary commitment to ensure that Iran never, ever is allowed to get a nuclear weapon capability. These two things come together at this moment in a crucial way.
I am reminded, as we close, of a famous saying by a rabbi and ancient scholar. Because, as you touched on, the United States and Israel share more than just a security arrangement. They share more than technology, even though a lot of the companies you mentioned--Apple, Intel, and Google--have more research dollars invested in Israel than any other country outside the United States.
Both countries, I am proud to say--the United States and Israel--have a sense of an obligation to give back to the rest of the world, to lean in to make a difference in peoples' lives.
You have talked about Haiti. One of the stories I have always loved is that one of the first relief ships to make it to Haiti was an Israel field hospital. There is a story about a woman who was giving birth shortly after the earthquake. She named her child Israel in honor of the doctors who flew in from Tel Aviv immediately after the earthquake--because they understand the need for emergency care and emergency times.
But they were joined there by efforts of our own soldiers, United States soldiers, who understood in our own hemisphere and also around the world the need to give help, to lend a hand, when people are in need. We saw the same thing in the Philippines after the tragic typhoon. We saw American ships coming from nearby, and we saw Israelis and Americans coming from far away. Those are the types of things that unite us.
As Rabbi Hillel said:
If I am not for myself, who will be? But if I am only for myself, what am I?
The third line of his saying, I think, is crucial at this moment as we look to Iran:
If not now, when?
We need to make sure that the United States, that the P5+1 and that our regional allies can come together and guarantee that Iran does not become a nuclear-capable country. We need to make sure that the regional security is maintained and that the nuclear weapon is prevented. That is our role, and that is how history will judge us. That is why we are here talking tonight.
So, again, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I thank you for the work we have done together. It is a privilege to work with you, and I look forward to working together on other issues, including this.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source