U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

70–667PDF 2011

IRAN AND SYRIA: NEXT STEPS, PART II

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 14, 2011

Serial No. 112–76

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Wendy R. Sherman, Under Secretary for Political Affairs, 

U.S. Department of State .................................................................................... 9

The Honorable David S. Cohen, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial 

Intelligence, U.S. Department of the Treasury ................................................. 31

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Wendy R. Sherman: Prepared statement .................................... 11

The Honorable David S. Cohen: Prepared statement ........................................... 33

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 70

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 71

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 73

Written responses from the Honorable Wendy R. Sherman to questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of California ........................................................... 75

Written responses from the Honorable Wendy R. Sherman to questions submitted for the record by the Honorable David Rivera, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Florida ................................................................ 79

(1)

IRAN AND SYRIA: NEXT STEPS, PART II 

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:31 a.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The committee will come to order. 

Before we proceed with this hearing, I would like to say a few 

words and invite my friend, Mr. Berman, to do so as well, in noting 

the passage of Deputy Assistant Secretary Dibble, who was responsible for Iran within the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. 

Mr. Dibble was a long-serving member of the Foreign Service, 

having arrived in Beirut the day after the 1983 bombing. He subsequently served in Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Pakistan, and as the deputy chief of missions in Damascus and was previously principal 

deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of International Organizations. His service to his country over many decades was exemplary and serves as a model for successive generations of Foreign 

Service and civil officers to follow. 

I know I speak on behalf of all members of the Foreign Affairs 

Committee when I express our deepest condolences and sympathies 

to Mr. Dibble’s wife, Liz, and their children. They are in our 

thoughts and in our prayers. 

And I would like to turn to the ranking member, Mr. Berman for 

his statement on this. 

Mr. BERMAN. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

The fact is Philo Dibble was one of the Department’s true experts 

on the Middle East. In fact, the Department lured him out of retirement to take on the highly sensitive post of deputy assistant 

secretary with responsibility for Iran. One of his final achievements 

was the successful coordination of the diplomatic effort that led to 

the release from Iranian captivity of American hikers Shane Bauer 

and Josh Fattal just last month. 

He was an exemplary officer, intelligent, honest, direct, and decent in every way, his passing all too untimely. The turnout at his 

memorial service from the secretary on down shows he was both 

respected and beloved. He will be missed by those on the Hill who 

knew him and worked with him. 

His wife, Liz, is principal deputy assistant Secretary of State for 

Near Eastern Affairs, a position Philo himself held some years ago. 

Together, they have been a remarkable Foreign Service couple, talented, successful, and fully committed to the service of this Nation. 

2

So I join you in extending condolences to Liz and the children 

and the State Department family. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. 

I will tell the members and the audience—and thank you to our 

friends for joining us this morning—that I will recognize myself 

and the ranking member for 7 minutes each for our opening statements on today’s hearing topic. I will then recognize the chairman 

and the ranking member of the Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee for 3 minutes each for their statements, and I regret 

that I don’t think that we will have time to recognize members for 

the 1-minute opening statements due to votes that will interrupt 

our hearing and we will come back. 

We will then hear from our witnesses, and I would ask that you 

summarize your prepared statements in 5 minutes each before we 

move to the questions and answers with members under the 5-

minute rule. 

So, without objection, the witnesses’ prepared statements will be 

made a part of the record, and members may have 5 days to insert 

questions and statements for the record subject to length limitation 

in the rules. 

The Chair now recognizes herself for 7 minutes for an opening 

statement. 

Today’s hearing is part of a broader oversight effort by the committee to examine U.S. policy options to address the twin threats 

presented by Iran and Syria. On October 11, 2011, the United 

States approach to the Iranian regime should have undergone a 

major change. On that day, it was revealed that the Iranian regime 

was actively planning an attack on a foreign diplomat in the 

United States and was willing and able to kill and maim innocent 

Americans in the process. 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton noted in an Associated Press interview that this plot ‘‘crossed the line that Iran needs 

to be held accountable for.’’ Yet it was revealed in yesterday’s New 

York Times and reinforced by the testimony of our witnesses before 

the Senate banking committee yesterday that the administration 

does not plan to alter its course of pressure and persuasive engagement with the Iranian regime. 

Via the failed plot, it became clear for any who still had their 

doubts that the Iranian regime would use all available options to 

threaten U.S. security, our interests, and our allies. They brought 

the battle to our homeland, but our policy response is to essentially 

remain the same? 

Let me be blunt. This planned murder for hire must serve as a 

wake-up call regarding the determination and capability of the Iranian regime. If the regime feels secure enough in planning a U.S.-

based attack now, imagine how much more blatant its aggression 

will be if it had nuclear weapons. 

This lesson is not lost on the Syrian regime, whose state-appointed mouthpiece has warned Western countries against intervention in Syria, including threats to retaliate with suicide bombings in their countries. These are not idle threats from Damascus. 

One needs only to recall that not too long ago Syria was caught 

red-handed pursuing nuclear weapons capabilities; and, most reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:36 Dec 13, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\101411\70667 HFA PsN: SHIRL
3

cently, a Syrian spy was arrested after targeting in the United 

States American citizens of Syrian-origin opposed to the regime. 

So I kindly and respectfully ask Under Secretary Sherman what 

action do you intend to take to hold Iran to account, and, in so 

doing, send a clear message to the Syrian regime that we will not 

tolerate actions that threaten our Nation? 

We also cannot rely on the United Nations to provide an adequate deterrent to Iran. If after a plot to kill Americans and foreign 

diplomats in Washington the administration’s response is to return 

to the United Nations Security Council and plead with Moscow and 

Beijing to permit a resolution slapping Iran’s wrist, then the message sent to the regime in Tehran will be that there will be no cost 

for any outrage that it may commit. 

Working with responsible nations, democratic allies to increase 

pressure on Iran is one thing. But waiting for the U.N. to do what 

is right as the threats from Iran and Syria grow is foolhardy and 

dangerous. 

Russia and China showed their true colors last week in the Security Council when they vetoed a resolution rebuking Syria’s Iranbacked dictatorship for its assaults on its unarmed population. 

They will still form an impassable obstacle to effective multilateral 

action on Iran. 

The draft Syria resolution was reportedly watered down multiple 

times and only hinted at the possibility of sanctions, all in an attempt to placate Moscow. But Russia vetoed it anyway. 

Instead of begging for help, we need a realistic policy that reflects the urgency and the multifaceted nature of the Iranian 

threat. We also need a policy that goes beyond merely sanctioning 

individuals in the Assad regime to one that provides a comprehensive strategy toward Syria. 

Last year, Congress took a major step forward in the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act of 

2010. We are again taking the lead with the Iran Threat Reduction 

Act, which I authored along with Ranking Member Berman and 

with significant input from Mr. Sherman, Mr. Deutch, and many 

other members of our committee. It now enjoys the support of more 

than 320 co-sponsors in the House. 

I have worked closely with Mr. Engel in authoring the Syria 

Freedom Support Act, with Mr. Sherman in authoring the Iran, 

North Korea, and Syria Non-Proliferation Reform and Modernization Act, which, combined, would require additional crippling sanctions on both the Iranian and Syrian regimes. 

For U.S. and global security, these regimes must be made to understand that the cost of their aggressive actions will be too great 

for them to bear and that they must immediately abandon their 

nuclear weapons program, their unconventional weapons and ballistic missile development, and support for violent extremists, and 

the repression of their own people. The time is now. 

I now turn to my good friend, Mr. Berman, for his opening statement. 

Mr. BERMAN. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you for holding this hearing. 

I want to go off script for just a moment. 

4

Nothing we do, nothing any administration has been doing, can 

truly be deemed effective with respect to Iran until Iran stops its 

nuclear weapons program, ends its support for terrorism, and in 

the real, longer-term sense, becomes a government that represents 

its people. 

But I simply have to say at the beginning, there is no administration that has spent more time, more focus, and been more effective in assembling the kind of international coalition to stop Iran 

from getting a nuclear weapon than this administration. The fact 

that on any given day they do not announce to the world the exact 

details of a response to a particularly heinous action is not evidence that it is business as usual, they don’t care, they are not—

they are not going to do anything. And I do think it is unfair to 

leave an impression that this administration is not deeply focused 

on the goal that we share. 

I mean, yesterday, we disagreed about nothing. The great thing 

about this subject matter in this committee is, on this issue, you 

and I and I think Democrats and Republicans are of common mind 

and deeply committed both to the importance of achieving that goal 

and achieving that goal before Iran crosses that very dangerous 

threshold. 

And I just wanted to make those comments initially and then try 

to shorten the rest of my remarks here. Because we are sickened 

by what Iran—their twisted and despicable plot to assassinate the 

Saudi Ambassador and possibly bomb the Israeli and Saudi Embassies. 

And you are right. The involvement of the Quds Force is telling. 

This scheme was not hatched by some rogue operator but by a very 

elite unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the very essence of the regime. 

Iran and Syria do form the heart of Middle Eastern anti-Americanism and Middle East terrorism. Syria is Iran’s forward operating base in the Arab world. Iran is Syria’s major external supporter, helping the Assad regime murder the Syrian people now 

fighting for their freedom. 

We share the concerns about both regimes. Broadly speaking, we 

have used the same tools to deal with threats coming from Iran 

and from Syria, namely sanctions; and those sanctions have been 

at least partially successful. They haven’t yet achieved the goal. Financial sanctions on Iran have complicated Iran’s ability to do business in the world, including selling its oil, the industry that produces 90 percent of Iran’s revenue. The legislation we authored last 

Congress, CISADA, has led to a significant decline in Iran’s ability 

to purchase refined petroleum and a near halt in the development 

of their oil and gas industries. 

Just this week, the International Air Transport Association announced that Iran’s national airline would no longer be included in 

worldwide ticketing networks because of sanctions-related complications. 

The message to Iranians is clear. Their government’s illegitimate 

nuclear policies are undermining their prosperity and isolating 

them from the international community. 

Syria’s situation is more desperate than Iran’s and likely to become even more so when the EU boycott of Syrian oil fully kicks 

5

in next month. The Syrians claim they have 2 years worth of foreign currency reserves. Most experts believe they will be out of 

cash well before that. 

Despite these successes, it is increasingly apparent that current 

levels of sanctions aren’t enough to get the job done quickly in 

Syria or to get it done at all in Iran. 

In Syria, more pressure is needed. Turkey, a major Syrian trading partner, has significantly modified its decade-old policy of intimacy with Assad, but it has not yet implemented the sanctions it 

has pledged. 

Syria’s other major trading partner, Iraq, unfortunately continues to support the Syrian regime. If Assad is to be removed 

soon, as we all desire, we need more pressure from Syria’s neighbors. 

As for Iran, although knocked off balance by sanctions, its economy is far from broken thanks to high global oil prices. The Iranian 

nuclear program continues to progress rapidly. The threat has 

grown more urgent than ever. The most recent inspection report by 

the IAEA shows that Iran’s stockpiles of low enriched uranium continue to grow. It has been concluded by one respected analysis that 

Iran now has almost enough low enriched uranium to produce four 

nuclear weapons. If it were to kick out international inspectors and 

further refine this material to weapons grade levels, Iran could 

then produce its first bomb within 6–12 months and several more 

in the year after that. They are installing centrifuges six times as 

efficient as the current model in a large enrichment facility in 

Natanz. This could reduce Iran’s breakout time to 2–3 months. 

There are additional steps that must be taken; and in particular, 

our bill, the Iran Threat Reduction Act, will tighten the screws further. I know we will be marking that bill up soon. 

Another is stricter enforcement of current sanctions, and I look 

forward to a more vigorous enforcement from an administration 

which I know shares our goals. 

Two examples: The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps owns a 

company that controls virtually every port in Iran, yet I have not 

heard that we are sanctioning ships that use that company’s port 

services, as CISADA requires. President Ahmadinejad and many 

other senior officials who are guilty of the worst human rights 

abuses in Iran have not been sanctioned under CISADA. These are 

but two of many possible sanctions that could be imposed. 

Another important step would be a decision by the Gulf Arab 

states, perhaps the states most directly threatened by Iran, as the 

plot revealed this week should remind them, to ramp up their oil 

exports. That would result in ramping down oil prices and would 

significantly diminish Iran’s income. 

Can I have unanimous consent for an additional minute? 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Absolutely. Yes, the gentleman is 

given the time. 

Mr. BERMAN. Our best hope for slowing the Iranian nuclear train 

is to bring its financial machinery to a grinding halt, and sanctioning banks and companies in other countries that do business 

with Iran’s central bank would have a uniquely powerful impact on 

the Iranian economy. That is why I think the most dramatic measure we could take in terms of this legislation is designating Iran’s 

6

central bank as a facilitator of terrorism and the development of 

weapons of mass destruction. 

Until now, we have sanctioned only Iranian banks that were directly tied to terrorism or weapons of mass destruction proliferation. But having peeled away the skin of the onion, it is now clear 

that at the core of this banking network sits the central bank, the 

ultimate enabler for all Iranian terrorism and WMD proliferation. 

For years, there has been speculation about whether a nucleararmed Iran would actually use the bomb. As the revelation of the 

Washington bombing plot underscores, we know that nothing is beyond the realm of possibility regarding Iran’s willingness to employ 

violence in pursuit of its objectives and to do so in the most vicious 

and amoral fashion. I cannot conceive of a more irresponsible or 

frightening finger on the nuclear button than that of the Iranian 

regime. 

I appreciate the courtesies you have given me of that additional 

time, and I yield back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman. Perhaps if I 

didn’t agree with your policy suggestions, I wouldn’t have given you 

that extra time. The beginning was a little weak, but the end was 

great. 

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the subcommittee chair of the 

Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee, Mr. Chabot of Ohio. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Madam Chairman; and thank you for 

calling this timely and important hearing. 

Since taking office, the Obama administration’s policy toward 

Iran and Syria has been characterized chiefly by its engagement 

with the ruling regimes. Whether or not that was the right policy 

at the time, the situation we face today with respect to these two 

countries is vastly different than it was back in January 2009. 

Recent actions make this conclusion irrefutable. Damascus is not 

only continuing to arrest, beat, torture, and murder its way 

through the current protests, but it is now exporting its brutality 

to Lebanon in flagrant violation of international law. Over the past 

several weeks, the Syrian army has on numerous occasions violated 

Lebanese territorial sovereignty. One recent incursion culminated 

in the death of a Lebanese farmer after Syrian armored vehicles 

allegedly penetrated approximately 21⁄2 miles into Lebanese territory in clear violation of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1559 

and 1701. Meanwhile, Tehran, as we all know, plotted to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. on American soil. 

The actions by both regimes show a disdain for international law 

and norms that is incompatible with the values and interests of the 

United States. Plainly speaking, the blood on their hands and the 

impunity with which they continue to act shows that these regimes 

are beyond salvation. 

But anyone who is surprised that the thugs in Tehran and Damascus would take these actions has been living in a dangerous 

state of denial. Both regimes continue to respond to carrots and 

sticks alike with ridicule as they mock the legitimate concerns of 

the international community. 

From the outside, however, it appears that this administration’s 

policies have remained distressingly unresponsive. In the case of 

Iran, for example, I am concerned that there are still those in the 

7

administration who hold out hope of a grand bargain on the nuclear program. It is long past time to jettison this dangerous fantasy as it is presently warping our entire policy toward the region. 

There is no question that the illicit Iranian nuclear program 

must remain at the top of our priority list. The nuclear program 

is, however, a symptom of the disease, rather than the disease 

itself. I want to be clear: The Iranian nuclear program is a paramount challenge to U.S. core national security interests as well as 

those of our allies, and it must be addressed. But to speak of the 

nuclear program independently of the regime which pursues it is 

in effect putting the cart before the horse. A nuclear program is not 

in and of itself what makes the regime nefarious. It is the perverse 

nature of the regime that makes the nuclear program so dangerous. 

It is for this reason that it is time to close the door on engagement with the regime in Tehran and call for its departure. Not only 

has the regime shown itself unwilling to budge, but continued engagement only risks abandoning and alienating the Iranian people 

who I hope—sooner rather than later—will be in the driver’s seat. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much to the gentleman from Ohio. 

The ranking member on that subcommittee, Mr. Ackerman, of 

New York is recognized for 3 minutes. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. The single question I have for the witnesses regarding Iran today is, what is left? 

Because unless you have means to apply more pressure to Iran 

diplomatically, politically, and economically, we are near the point 

where other options will have to be considered. For a variety of reasons, I think we would all like to avoid those options if we can. 

Thanks to the good work done by the previous Congress and with 

the support of the Obama administration, we have massively increased the pressure applied by American economic and particularly financial sanctions. Picking up where the Bush administration left off, President Obama and Secretary Clinton did tremendous work to build a new consensus now enshrined in a U.N. Security Council Resolution to isolate Iran diplomatically and to restrict 

many of its avenues of trade. But those efforts are, frankly, not 

enough. The pressure on Iran has gone up, but this new heightened 

pressure is nowhere near the point of forcing the ayatollahs to deal 

away their nuclear capabilities. 

What kind of pressure would suffice? It is hard to predict, but 

here is what I would like to see. 

The Iranian central bank and the entire Iranian banking sector 

need to lose whatever capacity they retain to facilitate Iran’s international commerce and trade. These institutions sustain Iran’s 

criminal regime, underwrite terror, and facilitate Iran’s illicit WMD 

programs. 

Let us be clear. Sanctions have to hurt. If they don’t hurt, they 

are not effective. The goal is not for us to pat ourselves on the back 

and issue press releases here. It is to inflict crippling economic 

pain over there. Iran’s banking sector needs to become the financial 

equivalent of Chernobyl—radioactive, dangerous, and, most of all, 

empty. 

8

Other countries may object to this approach. Our response to 

them should be simple and frank. Either assist us in cranking up 

the pressure on Iran by economic and financial means, or accept 

that the United States and other like-minded states will be compelled to deal with Iran’s unresolved nuclear issues by other 

means. 

It has been 10 years since the Bush administration revealed 

Iran’s secret enrichment capabilities, and the threat has only 

grown since then. Iran’s efforts to acquire the means to produce nuclear arms must be stopped. President Obama told the nation that 

he would use all possible means at his disposable to prevent Iran 

from crossing the nuclear arms threshold. I would say there are 

still means that are yet unused, and we need to use them now. 

Finally, I would like to express my deep dismay about the administration’s truly pathetic and inadequate execution of the Iran 

human rights protections provisions passed into law last year. I 

refuse to believe that the State Department, after exhaustively examining Iran’s massive machinery of repression, torture, rape, and 

murder can only identify 14 Iranian officials to be targeted by 

human rights sanctions. Here is a bunch more. Iranian officials 

could do a lot better and, frankly, a group of Iranian boy scouts 

could even do better. 

This abject failure to execute the law is totally unacceptable; and 

I would like to ask you, Secretary Sherman, if you would carry this 

letter, which, unlike the State Department, actually names of a 

bunch of Iranian officials. And if you would please deliver this to 

Secretary Clinton. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. If someone could grab that 

from Mr. Ackerman. 

I didn’t mean you, Mr. Mack. 

Does the gentleman yield back? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes, thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

The Chair is pleased to welcome our witnesses. 

Ambassador Wendy Sherman is a good friend of our committee. 

Welcome back. 

She was sworn in as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs in September of this year. Prior to this position, Under Secretary Sherman served as vice chair of the Albright Stonebridge 

Group, a global strategy firm and a member of the investment committee of Albright Capital Management, an affiliated investment 

advisory firm focused on emerging markets. 

Ambassador Sherman served as Counselor for the State Department from 1997 to 2001, as well as Special Advisor to President 

Clinton and Policy Coordinator on North Korea. From 1993 to 

1996, under Secretary of State Warren Christopher, she was Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs. 

Our next witness is the Honorable David Cohen, who was confirmed by the United States Senate to serve as Treasury’s Under 

Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence in June of this 

year. Prior to his current position, Under Secretary Cohen served 

as the Department of Treasury’s Assistant Secretary for Terrorist 

Financing. 

9

We welcome you both, and your written statements will be made 

a part of the record. 

We will begin with you, Ambassador Sherman. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WENDY R. SHERMAN, 

UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ms. SHERMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. It is always a pleasure to be here. So thank you. 

Ranking Member Berman, distinguished members of the committee, I appreciate the invitation to appear before you today to 

discuss our goals, our whole-of-government approach with regard to 

Iran and Syria, and the strategy we are implementing to achieve 

them. 

Before I start, I would like to add my own dedication of this testimony to Philo Dibble, who, as the chairwoman and Mr. Berman 

said, passed away unexpectedly 2 weeks ago. He was a dedicated 

Foreign Service Officer and was the heart of our Iran team, and 

he is sorely missed. 

Let me comment first, and briefly, on the conspiracy to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in Washington that was directed by 

elements of the Iranian Government. As the Secretary and the 

President have said, this plot was a flagrant violation of international law and a dangerous escalation by Iran. I am deeply 

grateful to our law enforcement and intelligence professionals who 

probably saved the lives of scores of bystanders, along with the life 

of an ambassador. The regime must be held accountable for its actions. 

Just this week, as Under Secretary Cohen will explain, the administration quickly designated five individuals, adding to a growing list of sanctioned individuals and entities. We are hard at work, 

meticulously and rationally laying out the facts of this plot. All 

countries should deny Quds Force officers any platform to operate 

within their territory and work with us even harder to enforce all 

sanctions already on the books. 

This administration is committed to addressing the continued 

threat posed by the Iranian regime’s nuclear ambitions, its support 

for international terrorism, its destabilizing activities in the region, 

and its human rights abuses at home. 

American policy regarding Iran remains unambiguous. First and 

foremost, we must prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. 

Its illicit nuclear activity is one of the greatest global concerns our 

country faces, and we will continue to increase the pressure, as the 

President said yesterday, as long as the Iranian regime refuses to 

engage the international community with seriousness or sincerity. 

We now have the toughest sanctions package in three decades. 

Since the passage of CISADA, we have imposed additional sanctions on a growing list of individuals and entities responsible for 

Iran’s expanding scope of unauthorized activities. These sanctions 

have raised the cost, time, and energy required for Iran to pursue 

its current course and provided a platform upon which the European Union, Norway, Australia, Canada, South Korea, Switzerland, 

and Japan implemented strict measures of their own. 

10

In the aftermath of our calls on the conspiracy, as Secretary 

Cohen will elaborate, the EU just today sanctioned Iran’s commercial bank. 

Using CISADA, we have designated eleven individuals and three 

entities for human rights violations, and we continue to compile 

more information. I appreciate, Congressman Ackerman, your list 

and evidence that will allow us to identify more murderers, torturers, and religious persecutors. 

The second topic of this hearing is Syria, which depends more 

and more on Iran for support as it becomes further isolated from 

the international community. The Syrian regime has responded to 

the calls for Assad to step aside with hollow promises of reform, 

conspiracy theories, and escalating violence. 

In its effort to cling to power, the regime is executing a deliberate and bloody strategy of channeling peaceful protest into armed 

insurrection. Its brutal actions have resulted in over 3,000 deaths 

and many more thousands of cases of assault, arbitrary detention, 

and torture since the unrest began in March. 

The regime is also stroking the fears of Syria’s minority communities with blatant propaganda. 

Make no mistake, the regime is responsible for the cycle of violence and sectarianism. 

We have pursued targeted financial measures to increase pressure on the Syrian regime and its corrupt business cronies. On August 18th, President Obama signed a new executive order that 

blocks the property of the Syrian Government, bans U.S. persons 

from new investments in or exporting services to Syria, and bans 

U.S. imports of and other transactions or dealings in Syrian origin, 

petroleum, or petroleum products. These are some of the strongest 

sanctions the U.S. Government has imposed against any country in 

the world. 

Europe’s actions to ban the purchase of Syrian petroleum products, the regime’s most important source of foreign exchange, will 

have a significant impact. 

Actions by the United States and the world community to 

counter Iran and Syria’s domestic, regional, and international belligerency are unmistakably escalating the cost of doing business as 

usual for both countries. Their leaders must stop attacking their 

populations, undermining regional security, and threatening international security. Their actions run counter to the aspirations and 

hopes of their people and their neighbors. 

In my new role as Under Secretary for Political Affairs, I look 

forward to continuing to work closely and transparently with members of this committee and with the entire Congress. Thank you 

very much. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Madam Ambassador. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sherman follows:]

11


70667a-1.eps
12


70667a-2.eps
13


70667a-3.eps
14


70667a-4.eps
15


70667a-5.eps
16


70667a-6.eps
17


70667a-7.eps
18


70667a-8.eps
19


70667a-9.eps
20


70667a-10.eps
21


70667a-11.eps
22


70667a-12.eps
23


70667a-13.eps
24


70667a-14.eps
25


70667a-15.eps
26


70667a-16.eps
27


70667a-17.eps
28


70667a-18.eps
29


70667a-19.eps
30


70667a-20.eps
31

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Secretary. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID S. COHEN, UNDER 

SECRETARY FOR TERRORISM AND FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman Ros-Lehtinen and Ranking Member Berman and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Treasury Department’s efforts to implement and enforce sanctions on Iran and 

Syria. 

The focus of my testimony today will be the progress we are 

making in our financial strategy to increase pressure other than 

the Iranian and Syrian regimes. But, first, I, too, would like to say 

a few words about this week’s revelation that we disrupted an Iran 

Quds Force plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador here in 

Washington. 

This is a dramatic reminder that the urgent and serious threat 

we face from Iran is not limited to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. We 

have been working for several years to address the full spectrum 

of Iranian illicit conduct, including nuclear and missile proliferation, human rights abuses, misuse of the international financial 

system, and support for terrorist groups worldwide. This week is 

no different. 

On Tuesday, Treasury imposed financial sanctions against five 

individuals, including the commander of the Quds Force and three 

other senior Quds Force officers connected to the assassination 

plot. In taking this action, Treasury exposed the Iranian Government’s involvement in the plot through the Quds Force, Iran’s primary arm for exporting terror. 

And Wednesday we took another action targeting Quds Force involvement in terrorist activities, this time by imposing sanctions on 

Mahan Air, Iran’s second-largest airline, which was secretly 

ferrying operatives, weapons, and funds on its flights for the Quds 

Force. 

Actions like these, along with a raft of additional sanctions we 

have imposed on Iran over the past several months and years, have 

put increasing financial pressure on Iran. 

CISADA has markedly amplified this pressure and deepened 

Iran’s isolation. As we have explained to banks and governments 

in nearly 50 countries all around the world, CISADA offers a clear 

choice. A foreign bank can have access to the largest and most important financial sector in the world, the United States, or it can 

do business with sanctioned Iranian banks. But it cannot do both. 

For the overwhelming majority of foreign banks, the choice has 

been a simple one. Those with potentially sanctionable relationships quickly elected to stop that business. And where we learned 

of potentially sanctionable activity under CISADA, we have actively investigated. 

Our efforts are paying off. Iran is now facing unprecedented levels of financial and commercial isolation. The number and quality 

of foreign banks willing to transact with designated Iranian financial institutions has dropped precipitously over the last year. Iran’s 

shrinking access to financial services and trade finance has made 

32

it extremely difficult for Iran to pay for imports and receive payment for exports. Iran’s central bank has been unable to halt this 

steady erosion in the value of its currency, and Iran has been increasingly unable to attract foreign investment, especially in its oil 

fields, leading to a projected loss of $14 billion a year in oil revenues through 2016. 

Our efforts in Syria are also yielding results. Since the uprising 

in Syria began in March, President Obama has issued three new 

executive orders to establish sanction programs that have systematically escalated the financial pressure on the Assad regime. 

These U.S. sanctions, which targets human abusers, block the assets of the Government of Syria, impose an import ban on Syrian 

petroleum products, and prohibit new investment in Syria, are intended to pressure Assad to relinquish power. 

Our efforts have been echoed by our European partners, who 

have established an embargo on Syrian oil and imposed financial 

sanctions targeting officials responsible for Syrian repression. 

And echoing an action that we have taken, just this morning the 

EU announced sanctions on the Commercial Bank of Syria, by far 

the largest bank in Syria and its key remaining link to the international financial system. 

As a result of these sanctions, the Assad regime is struggling to 

find buyers for its oil, to access foreign currency, and to maintain 

economic stability. 

The IMF has revised its projections downward for the Syrian 

economy this year, from 3 percent growth to a 2 percent contraction, and predicts increasing pressure on Syria’s foreign currency 

reserves and ability to finance imports. 

We are making progress in both Iran and Syria, but there is still 

much to be done to prevent both Iran and Syria from evading sanctions already in place and to take new steps to increase the pressure on these regimes. 

In the case of Iran, we continue to focus on the Central Bank of 

Iran, the CBI. Although U.S. financial institutions are already generally prohibited from doing business with any bank in Iran, including the CBI, further U.S. action against the CBI, if it attained 

multilateral support, could further isolate the CBI with a potentially powerful impact on Iran. 

I can assure the committee, as Secretary Geithner said in his letter to Congress of August 29th, all options to increase the financial 

pressure on Iran are on the table, including the possibility of imposing additional sanctions against the CBI. 

We will also continue to work with governments in Europe, the 

Gulf, and elsewhere to impose financial measures that will ratchet 

up the pressure on Assad to step down. If the Iranian and Syrian 

regimes continue to choose the path of defiance, we will continue 

to develop new and innovative ways to impose additional costs on 

them. 

I look forward to working with the Congress and this committee 

to advance our national security interests. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cohen follows:]

33


70667b-1.eps
34


70667b-2.eps
35


70667b-3.eps
36


70667b-4.eps
37


70667b-5.eps
38


70667b-6.eps
39


70667b-7.eps
40


70667b-8.eps
41


70667b-9.eps
42


70667b-10.eps
43


70667b-11.eps
44

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank our witnesses for your statements. 

I will recognize myself for a question. 

Ambassador Sherman, when asked by the informant if the assassination of the Saudi Ambassador needed to go forward even if 

doing so could cause mass American casualties, the accused perpetrator responded, ‘‘If hundreds go with them, expletive them.’’

Is engagement with the Iranian regime, bilaterally or through 

the P5+1, still a part of the administration’s policy? And does the 

administration still adhere to this package of incentives for Iran 

based on that regime’s suspension of uranium enrichment? And, if 

so, will the administration seek waivers on legislative restrictions 

that have been proposed and will be proposed in order for the U.S. 

to continue to participate in this incentive package? Is the U.S. position merely to ask Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program or to verifiably dismantle its nuclear program and stop other 

aggressive actions? 

And tied to this assassination plot—and I know we won’t have 

time to answer them all—the administration sanctioned four individuals, one who has for years had American blood on his hands. 

This Quds Force officer reportedly planned the January, 2007, attack on U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq. That attack left five U.S. 

soldiers dead and wounded three others. And this same Quds Force 

officer coordinated the murder-for-hire plot recently in the U.S. 

that was just foiled this week. And this Karbala raid was daring. 

It was sophisticated. Iranian-trained terrorists posed as American 

soldiers. 

Two years later, however, the Obama administration approved 

the release of two brothers who were members of the Karbala hit 

team and leaders of one of the infamous Iranian-directed special 

groups; and the public rationale offered for their release was that 

it was part of an Iraqi reconciliation effort. 

So why did the administration not designate Shalai—the gentleman who is no gentleman—the one that was complicit in this 

murder-for-hire plot at that time, given that he was the key enabler of this deadly attack on Americans, and was not designating 

Shalai at that time part of the administration’s engagement with 

the Iranian regime? 

Ms. SHERMAN. Thank you very much for your questions, Madam 

Chair. 

The administration is very clear. Our policy toward Iran is to get 

them to verifiably end their nuclear weapons program and their 

nuclear weapons ambition. There is no question about that, and we 

are quite unambiguous about that objective. 

There has been a two-pronged approach to that objective and 

they interact with each other. We want to create the maximum 

pressure on Iran. To do so, we not only need to impose, which we 

have, the strongest sanctions regime in three decades bilaterally 

against Iran, but we need to mobilize the international community. 

Because sanctions are most effective when they are severe, when 

they are enforced, and when they are taken forward by multiple 

countries. 

We are very powerful, and we are very strong, and we are very 

consequential to Iran, but when we have a United Nations Security 

45

Council resolution signed on to by the entire Security Council and 

they bilaterally move forward in enforcing those sanctions, we increase the severity and the impact of sanctions. It is always good 

for us to do it. It is even better when we have others do it with 

us. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. And if I could interrupt, it is always 

good when we do it when we have all of these options on the table, 

but we don’t do even our own. 

Ms. SHERMAN. We are absolutely committed to following through 

on the enforcement of all of our sanctions, and I will get to that 

in a moment. 

So we have one track which is sanctions and increasing the pressure on Iran and doing that in every single possible way that we 

can, and we are greatly appreciative of CISADA as an incredibly 

useful tool in doing that. 

The second prong is, rather than engagement, I would say seeing 

in fact whether there is an on ramp to having a discussion with 

Iran to actually end their nuclear weapons program. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. So you believe—if I could interrupt, 

you believe that engagement with a country whose leaders have reportedly sanctioned this assassination plot, because money transfers would have been very difficult in a country like that were it 

not approved by higher-ups, that engagement with this country is 

possible? 

Ms. SHERMAN. So far, the answer has been no. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. But you will continue? 

Ms. SHERMAN. Iran has not been serious. Iran has not been sincere. And, in fact, right after I was confirmed, I went up to the 

United Nations General Assembly, had a meeting with the P5+1, 

and I want to read to you and this was——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. And I am sorry. My time 

is up. But we will go to Mr. Berman’s time. 

I apologize. I asked a lot of questions. But I just don’t know what 

it would take for us to wise up and realize that they are not willing 

to negotiate, and they don’t wish to negotiate. 

Ms. SHERMAN. May I add one sentence, Madam Chair? 

The one sentence I would add is, out of that P5+1 meeting, all 

of us agreed that there should be no conversation with Iran unless 

there is any seriousness and there is a way to verify that seriousness. So we agree with you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. We just had a conversation yesterday 

at the U.N.—anyway, thank you so much. 

Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. I will ask my own question. 

Yesterday, we—and I have three questions, so I would appreciate 

short answers. I will try to make the question short. 

Yesterday, we passed a bill that would result in the United 

States cutting most of its contributions to the U.N. Since nothing 

works in the context of getting Iran to change its behavior unless—

we have already sanctioned Iran for decades, totally, in terms of 

our embargo. Unless we get others, other companies and other governments to do it, how would the passage of that kind of law and 

a massive cut in our assessments affect your international strategy? And I ask you, Secretary Sherman. 

46

Ms. SHERMAN. Thank you, Congressman. 

As you know, we have articulated very strong opposition to this 

legislation and our deep concerns about the impact. As Secretary 

Clinton pointed out, restricting U.S. participation and withholding 

50 percent of U.S.-assessed contributions absent a shift of voluntary funding would have severely undercut our ability to stop 

nuclear nonproliferation, combat terrorism, and fully implement 

the U.N. sanctions on Iran. 

As you know, it would mean that we would have to curtail our 

work with the Sanctions Committee, with the Panel of Experts, 

that the IAEA would be unfunded to an extent that they would not 

be able to carry out what we are all trying to achieve, that, in fact, 

all of the critical tools that we use to monitor, to verify, to in fact 

do exactly as the chairwoman suggested, make sure that Iran does 

not have a nuclear weapons program, would be severely hampered. 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you. 

Under Secretary Cohen, the two of you—by the way, welcome. 

You have replaced Bill Burns and Stuart Levy, big shoes to fill, but 

you are the two that can do it. So glad to have you here. 

There is growing support I think for the notion of sanctioning the 

Central Bank of Iran. Nothing will have the impact on Iran’s economy and Iran’s revenue than those sanctions. Secretary Cohen, you 

testified that they are an option if there is multilateral support. Is 

the U.S. engaging in trying to develop the support for those kinds 

of sanctions as you did in the prelude to CISADA? 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Congressman, for the kind words, first 

of all. 

And in response to your question, yes, we are engaged in an effort to develop the multilateral support that would be I think critically important in having an action against the CBI really be effective. And I think the important point to recognize here is that, as 

you noted, we have comprehensive sanctions on Iran and have so 

for almost two decades and that includes the CBI. So there is no 

U.S. financial institution that has any dealings with the CBI, including the Federal Reserve. So the CBI is essentially completely 

cut off from the United States. 

So the real question is, can we, by taking another action against 

the CBI, by designating the CBI, as you suggested, either under 

our nonproliferation authority or under our counterterrorism authority, can we elicit multilateral respect for that action? And that 

work is under way. 

Mr. BERMAN. And that is where, by the way, if you dismiss the 

option of ever dealing with the Iranians should they decide to 

change their process, you weaken your ability to get the international support to impose the sanctions that could be effective. 

Since we have already imposed all the sanctions we can impose, we 

have to have other companies and countries changing their behavior. 

But I do have to say, unless we deal with the central bank, it 

seems to me we have a huge gap in our effectiveness of the financial sanctions. 

And finally in my last few seconds, is there an opportunity to get 

the Saudis and others to increase their oil production to help. In 

addition to the central bank, the other compelling thing would be 

47

if we could bring down the price of oil $10 or $20 a barrel. Increased production by the Saudis, who have much motivation to do 

so, would bring that about faster than anything. That would really 

put the pressure on Iran. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, And the gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Royce, the chairman on the Subcommittee on Terrorism, 

Nonproliferation, and Trade. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of questions. 

First, Secretary Sherman, let me ask you this question; and it 

has to do with whether or not people in Iran have access to Google 

Plus and Flash and other Web sites. Because we want to have 

brave activists have the ability to obtain information, to get ahold 

of the tools that they need. But are there impediments to them accessing these sites and are there any impediments on our end? 

Ms. SHERMAN. Thank you very much for that very important 

question. 

We do in fact have programs in place that do training and offer 

technologies that might help the people of Iran escape the repression and the lack of access to exactly the Internet and the programs that you suggest. 

I, unfortunately, need to say, Congressman, that I would be glad 

to discuss this further in another setting. Because, given the repressive nature of the Iranian regime, further discussion in this 

setting would put people at risk. 

Mr. ROYCE. I would be happy to do that. 

The other question I have has to do with Iran’s central bank, 

which is an arm of the regime. Reportedly, it has assisted the regime in sidestepping U.S. financial pressure. Reportedly, it has also 

assisted in the nuclear weapons program in terms of financing. 

And, in addition, there are reports that it has helped fund 

Hezbollah. Secretary Geithner has said all options are on the table 

when it comes to sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran, and I was 

going to ask you about that. Are you currently looking at that? 

Ms. SHERMAN. As Secretary Cohen articulated, we are indeed 

looking at that. And, as he pointed out, we already have cut off all 

U.S. connections and relationships with the central bank; and the 

question is whether we can do so in a way internationally that we 

can sustain. 

Mr. ROYCE. But we know we have a way. Because when we 

wrote section 104 or 104(e) of the law, it gave the Treasury Department the responsibility to pursue relentlessly, as we said, foreign 

banks engaged in business with blacklisted Iranian entities. So I 

suspect at this point in time we must have a laundry list that we 

have put together of foreign banks that have done that, and I 

wanted to talk to you a little bit about that enforcement action. Because I have a concern about how long we drew out the process on 

the rule itself. It looked as though we were trying to avoid moving 

forward on this front. And, as you can tell, there is a consensus, 

at least in this institution, of opinion that this should have already 

been done. 

Mr. COHEN. Congressman, let me first address the issue of the 

104(e) rule, and then I will return to the central bank question. 

48

We issued that rule earlier this week. It has gone into effect, and 

we have already sent out to U.S. financial institutions a request for 

information with respect to a number of foreign banks where we 

have reason to believe that they may be involved in potentially 

sanctionable activity under CISADA. 

That being said, we have, as I noted in my testimony, been very 

aggressively implementing CISADA really since the day it was enacted; and what we have done, frankly, using other sources of information is understood where there may be banks that are continuing to do business with designated Iranian banks, and we have 

gone out as part of our, you know, worldwide effort—we have gone 

out specifically to those jurisdictions and those institutions where 

we thought there might be sanctionable activity. And, as I noted, 

we have had an extraordinarily positive response. And the result 

of this—and I think this also may be something that would be better discussed in a different setting—but the result has been a tremendous reduction in the number of banks doing business with 

designated——

Mr. ROYCE. Now would be the time to lean in. We have already 

got North Korea using a Jordanian-based bank as a conduit to receive funds from Syria and Iran. And, of course, North Korea was 

the entity providing Syria with a nuclear reactor right in the middle of the Six-Party Talks, by the way, and has provided Iran with 

missile technology. And Kim Jong Il doesn’t do that for free. 

So, clearly, these financial institutions that serve as conduits in 

this capacity making an example of those institutions and leaning 

in to do that sends a message to the next institution that might 

be engaged with the other rogue regimes, and that is why we——

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Royce. 

And the committee will recess. We have two quick votes. And 

when we come back, we will turn to Mr. Ackerman for his questions. 

The committee stands in recess. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. The committee is once again in order, 

and Mr. Ackerman is recognized for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank the chairman. Thank you especially for 

this second of a series of two very important hearings. 

I want to thank both of our expert witnesses for their very important testimony and thank them and the administration for the 

great work you have continued to do on pressing this. But my question really remains: What is left to do? If we had our wish list of 

all of the sanctions and actions that we could do, short of the ones 

that we don’t want to necessarily contemplate or do, what would 

that list be? 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Congressman. 

There are things that we are working on in addition to the CBI 

which we talked about. One area where we have been very active 

and I think where we will continue to focus is on the IRGC, which 

Iran has used increasingly to take over parts of the economy to the 

detriment of——

Mr. ACKERMAN. They are already on the list. 

Mr. COHEN. They are, but there are—but what we can do and 

what we have done in the last several months is to add IRGC-affiliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:36 Dec 13, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\101411\70667 HFA PsN: SHIRL
49

ated entities for sanctions. So the sanction that we imposed on 

Tidewater, which Ranking Member Berman mentioned, was done 

because the IRGC in the last 2 years or so took over Tidewater 

from a private owner. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. So you are saying we should list all of the affiliates, agencies, subsidiaries of the IRGC? 

Mr. COHEN. And we are working to do that. And——

Mr. ACKERMAN. Can we expect to see that soon? 

Mr. COHEN. Well, we have done the ones that we are aware of. 

The Iranians continue to offer up to us new targets as they turn 

over more and more of their economy to the IRGC. As they do that, 

that provides targets for us to go after. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. And assuming we had the entire list and we did 

the entire list, what then? You know, we have kind of had sanctions on Cuba for 40-some odd years. Are we prepared to wait 40-

some odd years? Cuba doesn’t seem to be presently developing a 

nuclear weapons program. 

Mr. COHEN. I think the IRGC——

Mr. ACKERMAN. The point being we don’t have 40 years in Iran. 

And the longer we wait, the time benefit is exclusively theirs, not 

anybody else’s. 

Mr. COHEN. I think we all share the sense of urgency. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. And the underlying point is, if we pounced on 

every sanction on every organization and every individual—and I 

have given you a list of some additional targets—what then? I 

mean, with the events that occurred over the last several days, this 

egregious act to commit an immense crime, an international crime, 

in addition to being a crime to our country, to blow up a large number of people, including an ambassador that we are duty bound to 

protect, what is left to do? And, also, if they were—heaven forbid—

would have been successful in that attack, what would have been 

our response? 

Mr. COHEN. Well, I can’t speculate on what our response would 

have been had this plot not been disrupted. And I am thankful that 

it was, as Under Secretary Sherman——

Mr. ACKERMAN. But our response to the potential of the plot 

being effective is more of the same? 

Mr. COHEN. I don’t know that it is more of the same. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Well, it is additional sanctions. Are we considering something other than additional sanctions? 

Mr. COHEN. From the Treasury Department’s perspective, that is 

what we have in our quiver. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes, that is your quiver. Let’s say you blew the 

whole load. All sanctions. Everything we know of and conceivably 

could know of. 

Ms. SHERMAN. If I may, Congressman, I think a couple of points. 

One, as the Under Secretary said, we absolutely share your sense 

of urgency and that time is not on our side. We get that. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Not on my side, because I am not going to get 

an answer because we don’t have one. Are we doing anything to 

dissuade the Saudis from responding? 

Ms. SHERMAN. We have talked with the Saudis. They have put 

out a rather robust statement of holding the Iranian Government 

50

accountable for these actions. We have from the President, the Secretary——

Mr. ACKERMAN. I don’t know what any of this means. It is like 

in the previous administration and the administration before that, 

the only thing that we would do when bad things happen is say 

this is not acceptable. 

Ms. SHERMAN. Well, no, because what we are trying to do is—

as you said, we have undertaken a number of sanctions. And I 

looked briefly at your suggestions, which I think are excellent and 

also gives us a whole sector to pay attention to, which I think we 

probably need to pay more attention to than we have, so we thank 

you very much for that suggestion. 

But I think what we need to do is to get every single country we 

can to imagine exactly what you said, Congressman, what would 

have happened if this had been successful? And once you think 

about that, you, Country X, ought to enforce all of the sanctions 

that we have put on the table. You ought to make sure the Qods 

force cannot operate in your country. You ought to make sure that 

high-level visits don’t occur. There has to be international pressure. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. I am sorry——

Mr. ACKERMAN. I thank the chair. I yield back my time. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Ackerman; 

and Mr. Chabot is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

As I noted in my opening statement, I am deeply concerned that 

we are pursuing essentially the same Iran policy as we had on January 20th back in 2009, namely engagement and pressure. And 

that, after 3 years, it is safe to say that this policy has failed, as 

far as I am concerned, to cause Iran to fundamentally alter its commitment to achieving a nuclear weapons capability. 

I would like to take this opportunity to read a few quotes from 

the administration that I believe illustrate this concern. 

On May 18th, 2009, at a press conference with Israeli Prime 

Minister Netanyahu, President Obama outlined the contours of the 

administration’s policy when he said, and I quote:

‘‘We are engaged in a process to reach out to Iran and persuade them that it is not in their interest to pursue a nuclear 

weapon and that they should change course. But I assured the 

Prime Minister that we are not foreclosing a range of steps, including much stronger international sanctions and ensuring 

that Iran understands that we are serious.’’

I will read another quote. On July 12th, 2009, just over 1 month 

after the regime in Tehran perpetrated one of the most flagrant instances in election fraud history, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 

stated,

‘‘Neither the President nor I have any illusions that dialogue 

with this Islamic republic will guarantee success of any kind, 

and the prospects have certainly shifted in the weeks following 

the election. But we also understand the importance of offering 

to engage Iran and giving its leaders a clear choice whether to 

join the international community as a responsible member or 

rather to continue down a path to further isolation. We remain 

51

ready to engage with Iran, but the time for action is now. The 

opportunity will not remain open indefinitely.’’

And then nearly 2 years later, on July 3rd of this year, National 

Security Advisor Tom Donilon outlined the exact same policy, and 

I quote again:

‘‘We offered the Iranian Government quite directly a bona fide 

offer of engagement. The Iranian Government, the leaders of 

Iran, have chosen not to take that up. So the pressure tack, 

unfortunately, I think is where we are today, again, with the 

opportunity for the Iranians, if they are willing to take it, to 

have a conversation with us and the world community about 

their nuclear program.’’

And yet again this morning, Madam Secretary, in your written 

statement just a little while ago, in the statement you have, and 

I quote: ‘‘We will continue to increase the pressure until the Iranian regime engages the international community with seriousness 

and sincerity.’’ And then it goes on: ‘‘We have offered to meet with 

Iran and have proposed confidence-building and transparency arrangements that offered practical incentives.’’

You know, it sounds like more and more carrots to Iran to me. 

As we approach year three of this policy, it seems to be painfully 

obvious that our policy not only remains unchanged but that it has 

failed to achieve our core objective, and that is persuading the regime in Tehran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons capability. 

I am sure that our witnesses can outline numerous measures 

that the administration has taken in support of these policies, but 

these measures are merely means of trying to coax or pressure the 

regime to change its calculus, not policies in and of themselves. 

So my question is, first, how has the administration’s overall policy actually altered—not just what we have done but how have we 

actually altered Iranian actions or its strategic calculation regarding its nuclear program? And, conversely, why has 3 years of Iranian rejection and escalation not altered our policy? 

And I will yield. 

Ms. SHERMAN. If I may, let me speak very briefly and turn it to 

Under Secretary Cohen. 

I understand and we share your frustration that more progress 

has not been achieved. But, in fact, the incredibly robust sanctions 

have only been in place for a very short period of time in the history of sanctions imposition. And indeed it was not until this administration that we had the most extensive, deepest, most multilateral sanctions ever imposed on Iran ever; and indeed it has 

begun to have some bite. It has hurt their economy. Stopping 

transshipment has meant they cannot procure some of the elements they need for their nuclear weapons program——

Mr. CHABOT. And I am almost out of time. I don’t want to interrupt you, but I will, just to say this. And, again, my question, how 

has it altered their policy? You are saying we have done different 

things. 

Ms. SHERMAN. It has—a number of things we have done have 

slowed—although they have moved forward, they have not moved 

forward at the pace at which they had hoped to. 

52

I don’t disagree with you, Congressman, that we would like to 

have made more progress. We don’t disagree with you that time is 

not on our side. As the President said yesterday, we are looking to 

increase even further the efforts that we are taking for Iran to be 

held accountable for what it has done here, particularly in the 

wake of this conspiracy to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador. But 

this is a very difficult problem; and the options on the table, all of 

which are on the table, are difficult. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Mack is recognized. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to kind of follow up on this. So I hear that you are frustrated, and you can imagine that we are frustrated. And the American people are frustrated, and the world I think community is 

frustrated. 

So let me ask you this. Because a lot of times what happens is 

we are told that we are using the best of the ability under law to 

do what we can do and we are kind of hamstrung and those types 

of things. But when people like me ask—and I am going to ask you 

again—what do you need from the Congress to be successful so you 

are not frustrated with yourself and everything else that is happening in the State Department, then we hear that, well, we don’t 

hear any concrete steps that you are asking the Congress to do. 

So, you know, what tools do you need to really have an impact 

with Iran? 

Ms. SHERMAN. Thank you, Congressman. Again, I will turn to 

Secretary Cohen in a moment. 

One thing I would say, besides some of the legislation that you 

have put on the table like CISADA, which was incredibly useful, 

and I think Congressman Ackerman may have come up with a sector we should take a look at in a way, quite frankly, we should not 

unfund the U.N., because we need the oversight bodies to be able 

to know where facilities are, to monitor what is going on, to be able 

to act when we need to act. 

Secondly, I would say——

Mr. MACK. So you would rather us be part of an organization 

that works against our own interests at times? 

Ms. SHERMAN. I understand that it doesn’t do everything we 

want them to do, but the IAEA has been a valuable tool in our ability to stop nuclear proliferation. 

Similarly, I would say we need a budget that allows us to do the 

kind of programming that Congressman Royce raised around how 

we, in fact, help get Internet tools to people in repressive societies. 

Mr. MACK. So that is our answer? More Internet tools? 

Ms. SHERMAN. No, I am saying that——

Mr. MACK. With all due respect, with all due respect—excuse me, 

please. With all due respect, I am not sure with those comments 

that I have got a lot of confidence that the threat is being taken 

seriously enough. 

You know, we now have recently seen Iran coming through Mexico and a plot here in the United States. And when I start talking 

about whether or not the cartels in Mexico are an insurgency, 

using terrorist activities, typically from government witnesses we 

hear, oh, I wouldn’t really say that, or—although to Brownfield’s 

53

credit, he would agree, and he has agreed. But most just kind of, 

oh, I wouldn’t go that far. 

So it almost appears that we are afraid to really go after in what 

is in our interest. So turning everything over to the U.N. and then 

sitting here and saying we need more social networking as the answer leads me to believe that—I don’t know—either you don’t understand the seriousness of what is happening or you are so—you 

are unable to articulate to this committee what it is that you really 

need because it may not fit in what the administration has decided 

it wants to do. That is the frustration. 

Ms. SHERMAN. I understand that frustration, Congressman. I 

was suggesting—we did that yesterday—I was suggesting some 

tools that would be useful to us. 

I quite agree with you that what the fundamental policy must be 

is to increase the pressure on Iran and to get them to eliminate 

their nuclear weapons program. And, as I said earlier and Secretary Cohen has said, we have the most extensive, the most robust set of sanctions, and we welcome the ongoing discussion with 

Congress around CBI and about other sectors that we can attack 

to solve this problem. 

Mr. MACK. Again, with all due respect, this is double-talk. You 

have done great. We have eaten up 5 minutes. But I have heard 

nothing about what it is that you are suggesting that we need 

other than more social networking. And that is frightening. It is 

frightening to think that your position is—and the position of our 

Government is—it appears so inadequate and not really understanding what the threat is. 

Anyway, my time has expired. And, Madam Chair, I appreciate 

the time. Thank you. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Mack. 

Mr. Deutch, my other Florida colleague, is recognized. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Secretary Sherman, let me just start with a local issue for me, 

which is also part of the subject of this hearing. 

Robert Levinson is a constituent of mine missing since 2007. His 

wife lives in Coral Springs, Florida. In conversations that I had 

with Assistant Secretary Feltman during the summer, there was 

some belief that suggested that he was being held in Asia, that the 

Iranians may be involved, may know. In light of the recent release 

of the hikers, we have to continue to press the Iranians on this 

issue. Is there anything, any additional information you can provide for me or for Mr. Levinson’s family? 

Ms. SHERMAN. Congressman Deutch, as you know, this administration shares your deep concern, and we will leave no stone 

unturned. Shortly after I became Under Secretary, I called Mrs. 

Levinson to talk to her personally to let her know that I would persevere as much as my predecessor did. 

And I know this morning there is an AP report about a recent 

meeting between U.S. officials and the Cubans. And we have always said we would use all diplomatic channels to try to get Alan 

Gross home. We continue to call on the Cuban Government to release Mr. Gross on humanitarian grounds and to allow him to return to his family and bring to an end the long ordeal that began 

54

well over 11⁄2 years ago. And I can confirm that such a meeting 

took place. 

Mr. DEUTCH. The Department is working hard to locate and 

bring Mr. Levinson home and Mr. Gross as well. 

Ms. SHERMAN. Absolutely. I am sorry. I was talking about Mr. 

Gross and conflated the two. My apologies. Let me be clear. On 

both cases, Mr. Gross in Cuba, Mr. Levinson in Iran, we are doing 

everything we can with every channel we have. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I appreciate your answering my second question. 

Thank you. 

I also wanted to talk about these reports about China scaling 

back their activities. There was a recent story, a Reuters report, 

where Foreign Minister Salahi said that the Chinese are very active in Iran. There may be one or two projects that may have been 

reported in the media. One or two projects may be slow, but that 

is no problem. 

I guess the question I have, under the existing sanctions law—

and this gets to the broader question of are we doing everything 

we can right now—under the existing sanctions law, there are, if 

I understand the law correctly, three options. 

We can—if we know that company is violating the law, we can 

impose sanctions, we can with waive sanctions for national security 

purposes, or we can designate that that company is subject to the 

special rule. 

The news that some Chinese companies may have scaled back 

tells us that those Chinese companies are operating there. And, if 

that is the case, then those companies have to be treated in one 

of those three ways if these sanctions are going to have any import 

at all. So are we—is that where we are going, and why haven’t we 

done that yet? 

Ms. SHERMAN. We share the concern, particularly about what 

China is doing in the energy sector. The President, the Vice President, and the Secretary have all raised this directly with the Chinese. We have, in fact, designated one Chinese company under 

INKSNA for its activities regarding foreign persons that are helping on WMD. 

But, as you said, it appears that the interventions at the highest 

levels to get them to slow down existing activities, not conclude 

new deals and not to backfill is producing some progress. The Secretary is continuing to look at this. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I am sorry. We all have limited time. 

But the question is not just about whether these companies have 

slowed down and whether that is having an effect. The question is, 

is the sanction law doing what it should? And for it to be effective 

not just with respect to those Chinese companies but with respect 

to companies all around the world they have to know that we enforce the sanctions or we will at least identify the companies and 

then waive the sanctions. 

Ms. SHERMAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I would suggest that those companies that we are 

gratified are slowing down should be identified; and if they are 

slowing down and have committed to leave, they should be subject 

to the special rule. If we are gratified they are slowing down and 

for national security purposes that is sufficient, then let’s say that. 

55

But let’s identify those companies so that every other company 

around the world who does business in violation of our sanctions 

law understands what the ramifications would be. 

And, unfortunately, my time is up. Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Deutch, another Florida colleague, will be recognized later, 

and we also have Mr. Rohrabacher, but now we go to Mr. Turner 

of New York. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I have no doubt about the efficacy of the sanctions in slowing this 

matter down, but how much weight is given to the world view, the 

mind-set of the Iranian regime? We listen to the rhetoric coming 

out of there from both a theological, their eschatology, it is far 

more frightening. How is this weighed in? Is it given a weight? A 

consideration? Are they believed? 

Ms. SHERMAN. Well, Congressman, I think that everything that 

Iran has said to date has not been particularly useful, to say the 

least. 

Mr. TURNER. Indeed. 

Ms. SHERMAN. Indeed, Iran’s response to this plot that we recently uncovered and disrupted was to basically call it a fantasy. 

If wanting to bomb the Saudi Ambassador on U.S. soil and also kill 

a group of innocent bystanders is fantasy, then obviously Iran in 

a different world. And I think that everyone on this committee 

would agree that they do, and it is why the chair and the ranking 

called this hearing today. Because, indeed, I would quite agree with 

you. What they say has no weight to it so far as we proceed forward. 

Mr. TURNER. If you believe what their speeches are, you would 

think the sanctions—we are throwing spitballs at a tank. 

Ms. SHERMAN. We know, Congressman, through a variety of 

means that in fact what we are doing has had an impact, that, in 

fact, it has created problems in their economy. It has created some 

dissension within their government. It has put the screws to what 

they are trying to do. But there is no doubt there is a considerable 

path to go yet to get them to eliminate their nuclear weapons ambitions. 

Mr. COHEN. If I could—I completely agree with everything that 

Secretary Sherman said, but if I could just add a couple of points 

on that. 

I think it is important to separate Iranian rhetoric from the reality, and we are able to measure reality in two important respects. 

One is—and I detailed this somewhat in my testimony—we can see 

the economic impact of the sanctions that we have been applying. 

We can see it in their oil field developments. We can see it in their 

much, much more constricted and isolated financial networks that 

have made it increasingly difficult for Iran to engage with the outside world. 

Mr. TURNER. If I may, the sanctions are designed to change their 

behavior. I think we are dealing with North Korea. They are materialistic, they understand what they want, and it has some effect. 

We are dealing with a different animal here, are we not? 

Mr. COHEN. This is a country I think actually, unlike North 

Korea, that cares very much about its ability to integrate into the 

56

broader world. Iranians I think feel even more intensely the isolation that the sanctions have brought to bear than the North Koreans. So I do think that the sanctions in fact are having an effect, 

notwithstanding the rhetoric. 

The other point that I would make is we hear often from the Iranians about projects or new banks that they have established and 

new relationships that they have concluded; and, quite frequently, 

it is just bluster. There is no reality to it. Which is not to say that 

we should ignore the egregious and vile rhetoric that often comes 

from the Iranian leadership. But I do think it is important to separate it out from——

Mr. TURNER. Is it then your opinion that that is not to be believed? 

Mr. COHEN. I am sorry? 

Mr. TURNER. Their rhetoric. At its core is nothing more than——

Mr. COHEN. No—well, I want to be very clear. I think the basic 

direction of the Iranian regime is something that we have to take 

at face value and take very seriously. I am talking about more specific claims and assertions of sanctions not having an effect and 

that sort of thing. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Turner. 

Mr. Engel is recognized. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to both of 

you. You both do great work. 

As you know, with the good help of our chair, I was the author 

of—sponsor of the Syrian Accountability Act. Chairman RosLehtinen and I went around for a number of years trying to get 

support in Congress. We did. The President signed it. And now, 

from what I understand, the President is placing a robust series of 

sanctions and penalties on the Syrian regime as a direct result of 

our Syria Accountability Act. 

Does the administration require any additional tools from Congress to place additional sanctions on Syria’s assets? And if so, 

what? And what can we do? What are the regime’s remaining pressure points? 

Ms. SHERMAN. Congressman, thank you very much, and thank 

you for your leadership along with the chair and the other members of this committee on bringing forth the Syria Accountability 

Act. 

The administration has implemented almost all of the sanctions 

listed in that Act. I can walk through all of the things that have 

occurred. 

Most recently, as you know, on August 18th, the President 

signed an executive order, 13582, blocking the property of the Syrian Government, banning U.S. persons from new investments in or 

exporting services to Syria, banning U.S. imports of and other 

transactions or dealings in Syrian-origin petroleum and petroleum 

products, therefore fulfilling all of the rest of the sanctions. 

We have also imposed travel restrictions on the Syrian Embassy 

and followed through on the other elements of the Syrian Accountability Act. So we think you have given us a tool that is allowing 

us to impose really extraordinary sanctions on Syria, and we are 

grateful. 

57

At the moment, we are busy, since this is a relatively new instrument, fulfilling all of these, executing on all the sanctions that are 

possible under it. So, right now, I think we have the tools that we 

need. I would let David add anything he would like to add. 

Mr. COHEN. I quite agree. With the executive order that was 

issued in the middle of the August we now have comprehensive 

sanctions on Syria. It is entirely cut off from the United States. 

The difficulty, as I am sure you know, Congressman, is that 

there was not much interaction between the United States and 

Syria to begin with, and so the effect of the sanctions that we 

apply, you know, there is a limit to that. But what we have been 

doing, working with our colleagues at State in particular, is working with the EU to ensure that the EU applies very powerful sanctions that complement what we have done. And we have had very 

good success on that. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, thank you. 

Let me ask you this. Initially, it seemed like we and the rest of 

the world were reluctant to do anything to undermine the Assad 

regime, which I thought was a mistake. But even the Israelis were 

reluctant because it was sort of like better the devil you know than 

the devil you do not know. I think that reluctance is gone because 

I think we see Assad murdering his own people. 

So I just want to ask you about the newly formed national council, the Syrian opposition governing body. Are they the legitimate 

representatives of the entire opposition and what do we know 

about them? 

Let me ask you this. If the Syrian regime, the Assad regime is 

toppled—I realize it is a bit of a crapshoot, because we really don’t 

know what is going to come, but does it not potentially have positive ramifications for the area? In other words, Syria right now is 

right back in the middle of Lebanon. We thought we had them out. 

They are right back in the middle of it. Would it not be a blow to 

Hezbollah and to the Iran regime if Syria were to go? Wouldn’t it 

show the Iranians who are oppressed, the average person, that 

there is some hope and maybe cause an undermining of the Iran 

regime? 

Ms. SHERMAN. Congressman, I think, going to the end of your 

comment, we would agree. In fact, one of the premises of this hearing is the tremendous interaction between what is happening in 

Iran and what is happening in Syria, and that Syria has really 

turned to Iran more and more as the only support it has as it has 

gotten further isolated from the international community, just as 

you have described. 

And so, a change in leadership and an opening to all of the people of Syria who want change would in fact have an impact on Iran 

to further isolate it as standing by itself and no longer having it 

as easily to, as you say, interject itself not only into Lebanon but 

to be a destabilizing factor throughout the region. So we quite 

agree with you. 

As for the opposition, we are and I think Ambassador Ford has 

done a superb job trying to meet with everyone and to understand 

who all the characters are. And I don’t think we know yet how all 

of this will form. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

58

Mr. Poe is recognized. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

In 1979, 444 Americans were held hostage—rather, 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days by the Iranian tyrants. The 

United States, in my opinion, has held the MEK political hostage 

for 450 days for its failure to abide by a court order and the court 

saying 15 months ago that the MEK was denied due process by our 

State Department, and our State Department has failed to make 

up its mind one way or other whether the MEK should be delisted 

or stay on the list. I think that is not a good situation for the 

United States State Department to be in, that it should make a decision. 

And sanctions historically have never worked. It just prolongs 

the inevitable, whatever that may be. 

My question, Secretary Sherman, is does the United States have 

a policy that supports a regime change in Iran through the people 

of Iran? 

Ms. SHERMAN. The administration has a policy to eliminate 

Iran’s nuclear weapons program and ambitions, to stop its international terrorism, to stop its destabilization——

Mr. POE. Excuse me, Secretary Sherman. I only have 5 minutes, 

and I don’t want you to talk so much that I don’t get an answer. 

Does the United States Government have a policy that we support 

the regime change by the people of Iran in their country? 

Ms. SHERMAN. I think what we have seen throughout the Arab 

spring is that, and in the situation in Syria, is when people themselves make choices about what they want for their future the 

international community should support people in that effort. But 

it is up to the people of Iran. 

Mr. POE. But do we support the regime change? If the people of 

Iran want a regime change, do we support it? Would we support 

it? 

Ms. SHERMAN. I think we would support the people of Iran having the same freedoms all the rest of us have. 

Mr. POE. I am sorry. Is that a yes or a no or you don’t know? 

Ms. SHERMAN. It is exactly what I said, Congressman, which is 

we support the aspirations of the Iranian people. 

Mr. POE. I think one way that we could help a regime change—

and I do believe that is the greatest hope for peace, is that there 

is a regime change and that the little fellow from the desert, 

Ahmadinejad, be replaced by his own people. That is the most secure and best way for world peace, is to replace him through the 

people. 

But one way we can do that is show support by making up our 

mind on whether the MEK should stay on the foreign terrorist organization list or not. We just need to fish or cut bait on that issue. 

And I think that, of course, that we should make the decision that 

they should be delisted and let the people of Iran in their own way 

change the regime, as has occurred in the Arab spring in some 

other countries. 

When is Iran going to have nuclear weapons, Secretary Sherman? When do you believe they will have them? 

Ms. SHERMAN. There is a lot of discussion about what that timing might be, and it is certainly not a good sign that they have deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:36 Dec 13, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\101411\70667 HFA PsN: SHIRL
59

clared that they have moved to 20 percent enrichment, and they 

have moved some of their centrifuge capabilities to what was a previously covert center at Qom. But I couldn’t give you today in this 

setting an assessment but would be glad to have a separate briefing to get the Intelligence Community’s best estimate of that. 

Mr. POE. It appears to me that, no matter what we done and 

what the international community has done, Iran is still determined to have nuclear weapons, another example that sanctions 

have not been successful. 

The latest situation with the Iran Government in my opinion 

working with who they thought were al-Qaeda—excuse me, Zeta 

operatives in Mexico to commit crimes in the United States, is 

there any further policy of the United States other than to isolate 

Iran, whatever that means? Are there further plans with the 

United States as far as the policy goes? 

Ms. SHERMAN. The President said yesterday, Congressman, that 

he wants to ensure that we have the strongest response toward 

this latest horrific act by Iran. We are working assiduously to make 

real that commitment that he stated yesterday. And we will be 

doing everything we can, and have been from the President on 

down, to try to move in that direction some of those things have 

been discussed here today, but there are others in consideration. 

And, as the President has also said, every option in circumstances 

like this always remain under consideration. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Judge Poe. 

Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Welcome to you both. Thank you for being here today. And congratulations, Under Secretary Sherman, for your new role. We look 

forward to working with you. 

I wanted to start really talking about Iran. We hear reports 

about increasing divisions. We see in the region the movements of 

the Arab spring in different stages in different countries. The regime has certainly repressed talk of any reforms there very well in 

recent years. But what do you think is the viability for renewed democracy movements in Iran, given movements elsewhere in the region? And I want to start with Under Secretary Sherman. 

Ms. SHERMAN. Thank you, Congressman, and thank you for your 

good wishes. I appreciate it. 

I think we were all heartened when we saw the Green movement 

emerge in Iran some time ago and deeply saddened when we have 

seen the tremendous repression to try to squash any ability of an 

opposition to form. At the same time, I think we all believe that 

the aspirations of the Iranian people are to have the same freedoms that the rest of us do. 

And in response to Congressman Royce’s question earlier today, 

the government—we have quite an extensive program to try to ensure that information can reach the Iranian people, that they have 

the technology to have access to that information. There are other 

things that we can do to be helpful in supporting the aspirations 

of the Iranian people, and we would be glad to give you a more detailed understanding of that in a different setting. Given the repressive nature of the government, we are limited in what we can 

say here. 

60

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

And Under Secretary Cohen? 

Mr. COHEN. I think I have nothing to add to Secretary Sherman’s 

I think very apt comments. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Then I will move on. Thank you. 

Next, I want to turn to Syria, the U.S.-backed resolution calling 

for an end to ongoing violence vetoed by China and Russia. Secretary Rice, you know, led that effort vigorously. But I guess my 

question is, what is our strategy moving forward? There has certainly been progress made in building international consensus. And 

I guess the question is, what are our next steps and what specifically do we need to do to work with China and Russia to address 

their concerns? 

Ms. SHERMAN. We have not stopped that effort, as you indicate, 

Congressman. And indeed, as Secretary Cohen said earlier today, 

today the European Union—and I had misspoke, I said the Commercial Bank of Iran, and I meant to say the Commercial Bank of 

Syria—they designated the Commercial Bank. And, obviously, the 

EU’s earlier sanction of stopping petroleum—oil and gas between 

Europe and Syria was quite crucial because it is an important market. 

So the European Union, which has much greater ties to Syria 

than the United States has had for some time, probably can be 

more effective on the sanctions front than even we can be, though 

we continue to use the Syria Accountability Act to fulfill all of the 

tools that you all have provided to us. 

I think today also the head of the Human Rights Commission 

has indicated that there really is a tremendous effort under way 

by the Syrian Government to repress and kill and persecute all of 

its citizens and really calls on the international community to take 

urgent action to stop such things. So we will see what the response 

is to that as well. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. And specifically I wanted to ask about our strategy dealing with Russia and China, addressing their concerns. 

Ms. SHERMAN. We have continued conversations with them to try 

to address their concerns. But my sense, Congressman, is we need 

to proceed to mobilize those who are ready to act while we try to 

bring Russia and China around. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. And Under Secretary Cohen? 

Mr. COHEN. I would add only this. That as we continue to work 

with Russia and China I think we also need to work with other 

countries that may look at this as an opportunity to get into the 

Syrian market. I think India, for instance, is another country we 

need to pay attention to. 

For our part, although we have comprehensive sanctions on the 

Government of Syria now, we still also have the opportunity 

through the pre-existing executive orders, the one in particular 

that addresses human rights violations, to identify individuals and 

entities in Syria or outside of Syria, including in Iran, that are involved in these human rights abuses. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

61

First of all, for the record, I am appalled that it takes the attempted murder of a Saudi Ambassador for the U.S. to do something serious—serious soul searching what further actions we can 

take to try to rein in the Mullah regime’s dictatorship and repression and threat to other people and other regimes and other governments in that region. 

Iran has murdered hundreds of our own military personnel by 

providing Shiite militias in Iraq with high-powered IEDs over the 

years. This has been going on for years. And I don’t mean to downplay this assassination attempt and how important it is, but we 

should have responded with a very tough reaction the minute we 

found out that Iran was providing these weapons to people who 

were killing American soldiers. But we just sort of let it off, 

shrugged it off. We have a certain level of sanctions that obviously 

they can live with, because they have been living with it. 

Then we have, you know, like these folks here with the MEK. I 

mean, clearly, the MEK has been labeled a terrorist organization 

because they opposed the Mullah regime. And we are doing that 

and trying to curry favor with the Mullah regime. And how much 

does it take before we quit trying to curry favor with them by treating people who oppose them as if they are criminals? It is the 

Mullah regime who are terrorists, not the MEK. The MEK wants 

to establish a democracy there. 

I am not saying I agree with everything they stand for. But by 

designating them terrorists we are giving the Mullahs the idea that 

we are weak. How do we expect to get anywhere in this world 

when we treat our friends who believe in democracy as if they are 

enemies and our enemies if they are our friends? Seems to me that 

is what is going on here. 

And I agree with Mr. Mack’s frustration. Look, we are at a point 

where we have a representative of our Government who can’t even 

say we believe in regime change with a Mullah dictatorship that 

is building nuclear weapons and undermining governments 

throughout that region and now is engaged in hiring an assassin 

to commit an act of assassination and a bomb explosion here in our 

Nation’s capital. And we don’t even have a government—our Government suggesting that we—that government—there should be a 

new regime there. 

Of course, that is seen as weakness. We are seen as weaklings. 

Not as—so what if we side emotionally with the people of Syria? 

We couldn’t even—we had a tepid—this administration has a tepid 

response to the brutal and murderous repression of the Iranian 

people when they went into the streets to protest the stolen election. A stolen election means you have a group of people who are 

superimposing power over others illegitimately. This is not a legitimate government, and we can’t even say we believe in regime 

change? I can see why the Mullahs now think we are so weak that 

they can go into conspiracies to set off bombs in our Nation’s capital. 

Look, all of these years we have known what the Mullahs are all 

about. They have expressed their hatred toward the West and toward the United States, their commitment toward and utilizing 

brutality and murder to achieve their ends. And yet we can’t take 

them off the terrorist list for just their opposition, and much less 

62

can we support all of the ethnic groups and the young Persians in 

Iran who are struggling and risking their lives against the 

Mullahs. We haven’t provided any material support. We haven’t 

provided any weapons. We haven’t provided any way that they can 

actually impact the Mullah’s dictatorship and control in Iran. 

Shame on us. Our Founding Fathers and generation after generation of Americans have fought for freedom. We are not even 

willing to take the risk of saying there should be a regime change 

in Iran. Shame on us. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. Connolly is recognized. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Let me say at the outset, I have been impressed, 

and I know others have been as well, with the fact that we now 

finally have an ambassador in Damascus in Ambassador Ford, on 

behalf of this administration, I would say to my friend from California, who has put his life on the line to associate with the forces 

arguing for opening up Syria to a democratic form of government. 

And that is pretty bottom line basic. 

So there are many ways for a great country and a great power 

to express its views. Not all of them are pounding the dais here in 

Congress. And there are diplomatic ways and there are nondiplomatic ways. And I think the witness given by our Ambassador in 

Damascus is very profound and to be commended and I think 

speaks volumes, and I would regret any imputation of the administration with respect to its communications in Syria. 

Sometimes there are ways of trying to avoid strengthening those 

forces we don’t want to strengthen. It would be easy, clearly, for 

the United States at this time, for example, to outright call for regime change in Iran. My guess is that strengthens the hands of the 

Mullahs at precisely the time their hand may be weakening because they can use it to great effect pounding about outside interference in domestic politics in Iran. 

It is a sensitive matter not easily traversed, and I think, as the 

ranking member said in his opening statement, no administration 

has been as forthright and as forceful in taking on Iran at every 

level and using every lever at its disposal to do so. And, again, I 

would regret any imputation to the contrary. It is not true. It is 

not true. 

We can be impatient about progress and results. I am sure that 

is shared by our two witnesses today and by the Secretary of State 

and by the President. But it is not because for want of trying at 

many, many different levels, not all of which are public. 

So speaking at least for this member, I take exception to the critique we just heard. It is easy to do, but it in fact doesn’t reflect 

the reality on the ground or the reality of American diplomacy. 

Welcome both of our witnesses. Madam Under Secretary, let me 

start with you, if I may. 

The Qods force, what is our understanding of its relationship to 

the Government of Iran? And I pray for concise answers, because 

I have a couple more that I want to get to. 

Ms. SHERMAN. Okay. I will be concise, and if I may defer to my 

colleague. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Of course. 

63

Ms. SHERMAN. We see the Qods force as a very serious part and 

becoming probably a stronger and stronger part of the Iranian Government and taking over a lot of the economic sector of the Iranian 

Government and also really directing all of its international terrorism. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And I assume you concur, Mr. Secretary? 

Mr. COHEN. I do. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So in light of that answer, we can’t treat this as 

some rogue element that probably is separated from the 

Ahmadinejad government and the clerical ruling elite. 

Ms. SHERMAN. We agree. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. What representation have we made through 

third parties or directly to the Iranian Government, given that answer, with respect to this incident which the administration believe 

it has convincing evidence for? 

Ms. SHERMAN. We have—in fact, as Secretary Cohen outlined, we 

have sanctioned the IRGC in a number of instances. And I would 

remind all of us that Iran is already designated as a state sponsor 

of terrorism, and the sanctions that are imposed as a result of that 

are more profound than any other individual set of sanctions that 

we have. So we have made a very clear declaration to the Iranian 

Government that the IRGC and the Qods force, which is a part of 

it, are in fact very tangible directors of all that is wrong with Iran. 

We have also, as I said in my opening statement, as part of the 

follow on and to intensify that activity have been asking governments in reaction to this assassination attempt as well as to previous behavior, to not allow the Qods force to operate in their country. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. My time is up. But, Madam Chairman, I point 

out for the record since we are having this series of hearings we 

had a witness the other day from Brookings who said it was premature and inappropriate to assign responsibility and blame to the 

Iranian Government at this time; and we have just heard official 

United States Government testimony saying, actually, no, it isn’t. 

It is perfectly appropriate, and it is time to assign blame, given the 

relationship of the Qods force to this government. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. No doubt. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Rivera is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RIVERA. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

My questions are for Secretary Sherman. 

My understanding has always been that it is the policy of this 

Nation not to negotiate with terrorists. I don’t know if you saw the 

AP story today: U.S. offered Cuba swap for American. And I will 

read briefly. It says the United States offered to let a convicted 

Cuban spy return home in exchange for the release of an imprisoned American, but Cuba rebuffed the offer, U.S. officials who 

spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the 

issue said. Says the Gross-Gonzalez swap—you mentioned Alan 

Gross earlier—was raised by former New Mexico Governor Bill 

Richardson as well as by senior U.S. officials in a series of meetings with Cuban officials. 

Richardson traveled to Cuba last month seeking Gross’ release. 

He also told Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez that the 

64

U.S. would be willing to consider other areas of interest to Cuba. 

Among them was removing Cuba from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, reducing spending on Cuban democracy promotion programs, authorizing U.S. companies to help clean up oil 

spills from planned offshore drilling, improving postal exchanges, 

and ending a program that make it easier for Cuban medical personnel to defect to the United States. 

So my question is a yes-or-no question. Has anyone in the 

Obama administration discussed the possibility of making any concession or accommodation whatsoever to the terrorist Castro dictatorship in exchange for the release of American hostage Alan 

Gross? Yes or no. 

Ms. SHERMAN. What I can say, Congressman, is that, as I did 

earlier, even though I conflated two things, I can confirm that a 

meeting between U.S. officials and the Cubans did take place as 

part of our efforts to get Alan Gross home. I cannot comment on 

what was said in that meeting. But I can say to you, Congressman, 

that we have laws and restrictions, and we will obey and follow 

those laws and restrictions. 

Mr. RIVERA. Has anyone talked about making an accommodation 

to the Castro regime for the release of Alan Gross, any accommodation whatsoever or concession? Are you telling me yes. 

Ms. SHERMAN. All I am saying, Congressman, is I can confirm 

that a meeting did take place recently between U.S. officials and 

the Cubans. I cannot comment——

Mr. RIVERA. How recently? 

Ms. SHERMAN [continuing]. On the content of that, but I would 

be glad to get back to you with any further information. 

Mr. RIVERA. How recently? I want it on the record in public here. 

How recently? 

Ms. SHERMAN. I don’t know the exact date, but it was quite recent. 

Mr. RIVERA. Weeks, days, hours, months? 

Ms. SHERMAN. I don’t know. 

Mr. RIVERA. You are the Under Secretary for political affairs; is 

that correct? 

Ms. SHERMAN. That is correct. 

Mr. RIVERA. Days, weeks, months? When was this meeting? 

Ms. SHERMAN. Quite recent. 

Mr. RIVERA. Quite recently. Who authorized Bill Richardson to 

make these offers to the Castro dictatorship? 

Ms. SHERMAN. I don’t know that anyone authorized Governor 

Richardson to make such a trip or to make such concessions.

Mr. RIVERA. Who interfaced with Bill Richardson before he went 

to Cuba in your administration? 

Ms. SHERMAN. I don’t know that anybody did. It was before I became Under Secretary, but I would be glad to check with——

Mr. RIVERA. No, no. The administration confirmed on the record 

that they knew Richardson was going, he was going as a private 

citizen, but that he had had conversations with the administration 

about his visit. Who did he interface with in the administration regarding his visit to Cuba? 

Ms. SHERMAN. I don’t know that answer, but I will be glad to get 

it for you, Congressman, very specifically. 

65

Mr. RIVERA. I need that answer. Who would have been responsible for these discussions, recent discussions with the Castro dictatorship? 

Ms. SHERMAN. I don’t know that answer either, but I will get it 

for you, Congressman. 

Mr. RIVERA. You don’t know who speaks to the Cuban Government on behalf of our—on the Obama administration? 

Ms. SHERMAN. Congressman, you know, I don’t usually use as an 

excuse that I am brand new and recent to this job, but in this case 

unfortunately I have to. I have only been in the job less than 3 

weeks. So I will get that answer for you and I will get it to you 

promptly. 

Mr. RIVERA. It is the policy of this administration not to negotiate with terrorists? 

Ms. SHERMAN. Of course. 

Mr. RIVERA. And you recognize that Cuba has been designated 

as a terrorist nation by our Government? 

Ms. SHERMAN. Yes. 

Mr. RIVERA. Well, in the last seconds that I have, I would just 

tell you that this report is outrageous, that we would be negotiating with a terrorist regime to release an American hostage, negotiating with the same hostage takers that we have designated as 

terrorists. I will yield back. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Mr. Sherman 

is recognized. 

Mr. SHERMAN OF CALIFORNIA. A couple of opening comments. I 

agree with Mr. Rohrabacher that this attack demonstrates that 

Iran perceives us as weak and not without good reason. I will point 

out that we have got a number of people in the audience with yellow T-shirts that remind us that 450 days ago, a court declared 

that the State Department should carry out the law, since they 

don’t carry out the other laws we pass given about Iran, it is about 

time that the judicial branch as well as the legislative branch can 

be frustrated. But in this case, I would say that the only time that 

the administration wants to—seems to really want to enforce our 

terrorist laws with regard to Iran or the only time that they can 

be accused of going overboard is with an entity that is an anathema to the government that is trying to kill people on American 

soil. 

I want to focus on the airplanes that Iran Air and Mahan Air acquired in the 1970s. These have General Electric engines. The engines need repair and are unsafe. A number of our colleagues 

joined with me in a letter saying that the planes should be grounded until Iran changes its policy and that we should not repair 

them. Under Secretary Sherman, is it still the position of the State 

Department that we should grant a license to repair these planes? 

Ms. SHERMAN. Congressman, I am going to defer in a moment to 

Under Secretary Cohen, since we have just designated Mahan Air 

in the last day. But indeed, previously we did feel it was a responsibility and we may continue to for civilian air safety, that we not 

allow planes to fly where people might die. 

Mr. SHERMAN OF CALIFORNIA. Well, obviously there are a lot of 

unsafe planes in the air. It is our responsibility to bring those to 

the attention of world aviation authorities. But it is interesting 

66

that other unsafe planes aren’t being fixed because nobody will pay 

to fix them. We are not going to fix planes in Africa, but—or any 

other poor part of the world. So we don’t mind there being unsafe 

planes, except where Iran is willing to pay to make them safe. You 

point out that these are ‘‘civilian planes.’’ These planes unify the 

purpose of today’s hearing. These supposedly civilian planes or at 

least other supposedly civilian planes owned by Mahan Air and 

owned by Air Iran are used to take weapons and thugs from Iran 

to Syria to kill the Syrian people. Now, I would say that is contributing to the unsafety of civilians and yet the State Department in 

a desire to once again, I don’t know, eviscerate our sanctions is 

supportive of this license. The idea that it is fine for thousands of 

Syrians to die at the hands of Iranian weapons and Iranian thugs, 

that is okay, but we have got to make sure that the planes that 

the thugs use are safe. 

Now, let me turn to another issue. Under CISADA, we directed 

the State Department to prevent—to sanction those firms that give 

Iran the technology to suppress the Internet, and there is a Chinese company that is—that we have great concerns is just about 

to do that, recently having sold Iran Internet monitoring equipment. 

The State Department, consistent with its policy under the Iran 

Sanctions Act, has a policy of just ignoring the law and has refused 

to identify any item of equipment that would trigger this provision 

of CISADA. I know it has taking you 450 days to deal with the 

court decision and this is less time than that. Any chance that the 

State Department will, since this committee passed at least at the 

committee level, a provision directing you to do so, identify those 

items of equipment that are sanctionable under CISADA dealing 

with Internet suppression? 

Ms. SHERMAN. Congressman, we certainly want to follow through 

on the law as it has been executed by you all and signed by the 

President, and I will come back to you with further information on 

that. 

Mr. SHERMAN OF CALIFORNIA. Any chance you will get it done 

within 450 days? 

Ms. SHERMAN. I understand your concern. 

Mr. SHERMAN OF CALIFORNIA. Any chance you will get it done 

under the current administration? 

Ms. SHERMAN. I understand, sir. 

Mr. SHERMAN OF CALIFORNIA. Given the fact that Iran is engaged in an act of war against the United States, you would think 

that the State Department could act a little more quickly. Finally, 

is there any chance that you are going to sanction any multinational corporation under the Iran Sanctions Act for Investment 

in the Iranian oil sector except for those companies owned by Iran 

themselves? 

Ms. SHERMAN. There have been, in fact, a number of sanctions, 

if I may, let Under Secretary Cohen speak to this issue. 

Mr. SHERMAN OF CALIFORNIA. Sanctions under the Iran Sanctions Act, can you identify one company not owned by Iran that 

was subject to sanctions for investment in the Iranian oil sector? 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. And maybe we will leave that for discussion after the hearing is over. Mr. Manzullo is recognized. 

67

Ms. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you. Welcome, Ambassador. I would like 

you to walk me through this very troubling relationship we are 

having with Iran. Please provide a list of options, starting with the 

most extreme that the United States could take with Iran and then 

moving down the list. Obviously, we are not talking about an act 

of war which would be the most extreme, but enlighten me and the 

American public as to what options are out there. 

Ms. SHERMAN. As you point out, Congressman, the most extreme 

is one that I think none of us want to see, though the President 

has said in instances like this, we always leave all options on the 

table and that is true here. None of us want and hope to go there. 

Short of that, international isolation of the most extreme variety is 

probably what has the most impact on any country and that means 

their inability to have economic means, their ability to operate in 

the world, their ability to move in the world, their ability to be recognized in the world, their ability to function in the world. And 

with the help of CISADA and other Acts that Congress has passed 

and executive orders that the President has put in place, we now 

have the most robust set of sanctions on Iran in the last three decades. That does not mean we have designated everybody who can 

be designated, nor sanctioned everyone who can be sanctioned, nor 

gotten all of the world to do likewise, but that is what we are attempting to do. And if I may defer to my colleague to add to that. 

Mr. COHEN. I, again, completely agree with Secretary Sherman 

that what remains to be done is to increase Iran’s economic, commercial and human, as it were, interaction with the outside world. 

Mr. MANZULLO. If I could stop you right there. What more would 

you want to see done that has not occurred? Because obviously, it 

is not working to everybody’s understanding. What more needs to 

be done at this point? 

Mr. COHEN. It is very much the policy of this administration to 

continue to increase, and to ratchet up the pressure on Iran in an 

effort to try and achieve the objective that Secretary Sherman laid 

out. So we are going to, and we have been, and we will continue 

to apply additional pressure on Iran, both unilaterally and——

Mr. MANZULLO. Is that sufficient? Is it actually working according to what you envision? What more can be done or what more 

can other countries do, what more can the United States do to encourage other countries to ratchet it up? 

Mr. COHEN. We are working, and have been working very hard 

to internationalize to the greatest extent possible the sanctions on 

Iran. The United States, as you know, Congressman, has had for 

many years, a complete embargo on Iran. The rest of the world is 

not there yet. We are working with our colleagues, whether it is 

in Europe or in Asia, around the world to try and internationalize 

and extend the isolation of Iran and the pressure on Iran. And 

frankly in response to the most recent episode that was revealed 

this week, using that to illustrate to our partners around the world 

why it is that they should take complementary action, to isolate 

Iran to a great extent. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Ambassador Sherman, you had a very specific 

list of accomplishments that occurred in the economic boycott of 

68

Iran. What do you want to see added to what your testimony already has pointed out? 

Ms. SHERMAN. I am sorry. I didn’t hear you, sir. What do I want 

to see? 

Mr. MANZULLO. What additional results would you want to be 

able to put into your testimony regarding things that you are working on but you have not achieved the desired result yet? 

Ms. SHERMAN. What we would like to see as Under Secretary 

Cohen said is we would like to see every other country in the world 

take the kinds of actions that we have to isolate Iran. We have 

begun to see that happening. We think an enormous amount more 

can be done. And over weeks and months before I got this job, and 

even in a more accelerated pace since this latest horrific plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador, we have spoken from the President on down to every single capital in the world in the last 48 

hours, every single capital in the world has been touched to, in 

fact, say this is, as the Under Secretary said, this is one more proof 

point in why you should take immediate action to not only condemn this act, but to, in fact, keep any Quds Force from operating 

in your country, look at enforcing all sanctions. 

Chairman ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Thank you so much. 

Thank you, Mr. Manzullo. Before we adjourn, I neglected to point 

out the pictures that we have on the side of the committee room. 

And I think that they summarize the clear threat that the Syrian 

and the Iranian regimes opposed to U.S. national security, to our 

interests, to our allies as well as the threat they pose to their own 

people as we can see there. They should serve as a call to action 

to compel those regimes now, to end their pursuit of nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons, their advance missile programs, their state sponsorship of global terrorism and their gross 

violations of the basic human rights of its citizens. This means we 

need a single focused U.S. approach that identifies these regimes 

for what they are and stops legitimizing Iran by holding onto the 

hope that its leaders will be seduced into doing the right thing 

through engagement or by offering them concessions or incentives. 

And the time is now, we all agree, if we are to shut down these 

regimes, the time is now. 

I thank Ambassador and Mr. Secretary for being here. We look 

forward to further discussions on legislation and crippling sanctions. The meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(69)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

70

f


70667n.eps
71


70667m-1.eps
72

f


70667m-2.eps
73


70667c-1.eps
74

f


70667c-2.eps
75

WRITTEN RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE WENDY R. SHERMAN, UNDER SECRETARY

FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE BRAD SHERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


70667d-1.eps
76


70667d-2.eps
77


70667e-1.eps
78

f


70667e-1.eps
79

WRITTEN RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE WENDY R. SHERMAN, UNDER SECRETARY

FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DAVID RIVERA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA


70667f-1.eps
80


70667f-2.eps
81


70667f-3.eps
82

Æ


70667f-4.eps